Gaddafi and Chávez
Twitter has been loaded with rumors the past two days about Libya, and there was no juicier rumor than Moammar Gaddafi flying to Venezuela. It also turned out to be completely false, but it underlined the very public and strong bond between him and Hugo Chávez. Meanwhile, Chávez has been totally silent about events in Libya. Along these lines, I recommend Nikolas Kozloff's article in the Huffington Post. He's written fairly favorably of Chávez in the past, but pretty much nails the embarrassment of embracing people like Gadafi:
With revolution now sweeping away the most autocratic rulers across the African continent, Chávez now has a unique opportunity to redraw his political priorities. Will the Venezuelan leader see the error of his ways or continue to embrace phony Third World liberation in the guise of autocratic despotism? Señor Presidente: the silence has become truly deafening.
6 comments:
yes, because I'm sure he's formed close and public friendships with Gadafi, Lukashenko, Castro, and Ahmadinijad out of a sincere belief in their goodness as leaders and respect for human rights.
his road-to-damascas moment is coming any day now...
I love Kozloff's take on the Chavez-Gaddafi lovefest!
Maybe "Slave Revolt" can help us understand how events in Libya are really the fault of the US and Gadaffi is a great champion of workers rights.
Perhaps Chavez is keeping his mouth shut because it is nearly impossible to know what is really going on in Libya.
For instance, it seems perfectly clear, to me at least, that the violence was started by the "protesters." They had 2 days of small, non-violent, uneventful protests that did not get any attention. So they decided to ratchet it up and provoke a reaction by throwing petrol bombs at police stations and government buildings in Benghazi. That certainly got the regime's attention, who was ordered to defend these buildings (as any security force in the world would be tasked to do). The next day, the "protesters" decided to attack a military barracks that was the area's main arms depot on the outskirts of town. This was reported as a "protest" in much of the West, although footage of that day makes clear this was an attempted seige. Again, what would we expect any government to do in the face of an attempted take-over of a huge arms cahce?
This is an insurrection in Libya - nothing like the non-violent protesters in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. This was a planned armed uprising. Since when did the US press corps and Washington go out of their way to praise such insurrectionary actions? The normal warnings to protesters to remain non-violent was notably absent in this case. Why?
Could it be because Gadaffi truly is a pain the side of US Imperialism? No - it is all phony says Mr. Kozloff. Well try telling that to the spooks in the CIA or State Dept.
The lack of information can certainly be blamed primarily on Libya, but why have our journalists gone out of their way to hide the real nature of this rebellion, while printing any rumor started by someone calling CNN claiming to be in Libya.
Leftside, that is a really pathetic attempt to justify the government's repression in Libya. Do you really think a leader should order planes to bomb his own citizens.
but why have our journalists gone out of their way to hide the real nature of this rebellion
Our journalists? I get my information from Al Jazeera, last time I checked, it wasn't a particularly pro-US network and it has certainly described what might be described as an insurrection, but it is the government and its mercenaries that have the fancy weaponry.
Perhaps Chavez is keeping his mouth shut because it is nearly impossible to know what is really going on in Libya.
Good grief, another lame comment. Chavez has kept silent to avoid being further tainted by his past association with Gaddafi but the Chavez media outlets seem to be putting out quite a bit of information and have emphasized the following:
1) Supposed foreign intervention (absent any evidence).
2) Implied that Gaddafi's support among the population is equal to that of his opponents.
and my favorite notice from the chavista press was to equate what is going on in Libya with events in Wisconsin
I eagerly await news that cities in Wisconsin have fallen to armed insurrectionaries!
Leftside, so do you approve of Libyan warplanes bombing people in Libya?
The lack of information can certainly be blamed primarily on Libya, but why have our journalists gone out of their way to hide the real nature of this rebellion...
Does this "cover up" include Al Jazeera?
Perhaps Chavez is keeping his mouth shut because it is nearly impossible to know what is really going on in Libya.
The chavista media is pretending to be in "the know." It implies Qaddafi's support is widespread and the capital is quiet, which may be true but it omits what is happening elsewhere. It also re-iterates the "foreign intervention claim by Gaddafi, absent any evidence. It's even trying to compare the public workers strike in Wisconsin with events in Libya. So Chavez's views are made quite clear by his propoganda outlets.
.Yes, this is an insurrection. Gadafi has been the dwelling of US imperialism because he gives it's capitalists a share of the loot. Quite unlike Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador.
Of course any revolutionary and nationalist samll nations find common unity against imperial where possible.
But the fact remains, the US and it's allies are the major purveyors of terror in the region. Fact.
As Libya is an oil exporter, it seems likely that the insurrection is being supported by imperialism.
Gaddafi is toast, he's finished.
This is being colored by the Libyan comprador class and the petit owners and mafias.
If the new government develops to a somewhat representative democracy seems the likely scenario--but the empire definitely doesn't want an independent social democracy with better terms toward a more egalitarian distribution of the wealth in industries or with regard to resources.
Post a Comment