Hugo Chávez and conventional wisdom
I think it’s fair to say that current conventional wisdom says Hugo Chávez’s loss stemmed in part from focusing too much on international affairs (including a lot of traveling) and not enough on
Chávez, though, just signed agreements with
I have to figure this is not the best immediate post-referendum move, but as I noted, in
21 comments:
Yes and let me tell you, no toilet paper available yet.
...Maybe Chavez made a deal to bring in Belarussian tp in exchange for the oil...
Chávez, though, just signed agreements with Belarus, saying Venezuela would provide all the oil it needs for 100 or 200 years, and that Alexander Lukashenko gets a bum rap.
And our Administration tells us that Musharraf and the Saudi Royal Family get a bum rap. Do we then conclude that the United States itself is moving in the direction of monarchy or military dictatorship on account of its cozy relationship with these two? No, we don't.
But, of course, the insinuation of your post is that Venezuela's relationship with Belarus somehow calls into question Chavez's democratic credentials. Notice the selective standard being applied here.
Venezuela's relationships with Iran and Belarus constitute no more than classic counter-balancing, rooted in the three countries' shared opposition to U.S. political, economic and military interventionism.
In the world of power politics, one doesn't necessarily have the luxury of picking and choosing friends. From Chavez's perspective, unchecked Western interventionism --be it military, economic or political-- is a much greater threat to the democratic aspirations of developing countries than Iran or Belarus' political leadership. (I tend to share this perspective).
Chavez's democratic credentials have nothing to do with the post at all.
To Justin, the perennial Chavez apologist:
"The history of Germany is a copy of the history of Belarus. Germany was raised from ruins thanks to firm authority and not everything connected with that well-known figure Hitler was bad. German order evolved over the centuries and attained its peak under Hitler."
Lukashenko
Justin has a point Greg. Mr. Chavez does need to spend more time on the internal problems in Venezuela, but he also has to fend off the interference of the USA Government. Your letting your political science show.
Whether or not this is counterbalancing is related to my post only insofar as doing so distances Chavez (or not) from his domestic audience.
Chavez's democratic credentials have nothing to do with the post at all.
Then you should have clarified that to begin with because you know darn well what all the selective focus on Chavez's dealings with Iran or Belarus is meant to convey to the American public.
What is it with these stupid comparisons of Hitler to Chavez?
First off, Hitler was a European, like all the others ... Spaniards, Portuguese, etc hell bent on world domination. This only comes from Euros and their direct descendants.
Second, Hitler's entire platform was based on a racist and expansionist conception. Just ask the Polish, Jews, and the Russians.
Chavez isn't into world domination and killing people considered "subhuman". He isn't into more space for Venezuelans at the expense of Colombians. Chavez hasn't started any phoney ass wars or put people in gas chambers as a part of his masterplan of eradicating "imperialists". Chavez doesn't want to go around the world and suck up all the resources, fuck up the environment, and pollute all the air and water. Chavez isn't European.
So, stop with the BS.
Oh, and one other thing, Greg.
I have to figure this is not the best immediate post-referendum move
Don't you figure the "move" was made long before the referendum? I doubt very seriously that Lukashenko planned a trip to Caracas and negotiated a long-term economic agreement with Venezuela on one week's notice.
Food for thought.
btw,
No one in the US was upset by what Hitler was doing until Japan attacked PH and subsequently Germany declared war on the US (being an ally of Japan).
Why do you think the US made such an endeavor to rebuild Germany and Japan? Then we (the US govt) had the nerve to be friendly toward Franco after he killed millions of Spaniards.
So let's not be pots calling the kettle black.
No one compared Chavez to Hitler.
Justin, fair enough point, but in keeping with the question of conventional wisdom: if I were a Venezuelan wishing Chavez would focus more on domestic issues, then promising a large amount of oil to a very distant country in return in large part for weapons may not make me very happy.
Greg's last point got my attention. Just what are the terms of the agreement between Belarus and Venezuela?
Justin, fair enough point, but in keeping with the question of conventional wisdom: if I were a Venezuelan wishing Chavez would focus more on domestic issues, then promising a large amount of oil to a very distant country in return in large part for weapons may not make me very happy.
I don't disagree with that, but I would caution against the notion that attention to domestic and international questions is a zero-sum game. The shortages of some basic staples in Venezuela have nothing to do with the government's foreign dealings (but I agree that the public won't necessarily see it that way). I think that, for the most part, what the government needs to do is to lower the profile of its international dealings and to raise the profile of its attention to domestic problems. And it needs to do a much better job of combatting crime and corruption.
I am a Venezuelan and I would hope Chavez would focus on Venezuela. I also agree with Greg, he is not showing conventional wisdom lately. Examples are so obvious is just silly to deny this.
I also agree with Greg, he is not showing conventional wisdom lately. Examples are so obvious is just silly to deny this.
Well, of course he's not showing "conventional wisdom." If he were really to show "conventional wisdom," he'd abandon even the pretense of a revolutionary project. The real "conventional wisdom" is far to Chavez's right.
From my perspective, the mistakes aren't that he's not following the "conventional wisdom" (which, in the current intellectual climate of persistent neoliberal dogma, is definitely not worth following). I think the latest political setback is mostly rooted in material rather than ideological factors; the setback lies primarily in the failure to resolve some very basic problems, like corruption, crime, some shortages of basic staples, etc.
which is exactly what Greg says:
"Hugo Chávez’s loss stemmed in part from focusing too much on international affairs (including a lot of traveling) AND NOT ENOUGH ON VENEZUELA."
You are right Greg and Delacour agrees. A lot of talk to get to this point.
I do like your blog. Balanced for a change.
To repeat my question: Does anyone know the terms of the agreement between Venezuela and Belarus, at least in general? Is Greg's reference to an oil-for-guns agreement accurate?
I am going by press accounts about missiles and missile defense. Given Venezuela's past deals with Belarus, this seems reasonable, but details are lacking.
I do like your blog. Balanced for a change.
It is more balanced than most, I will have to admit.
Post a Comment