I think I'm starting to "get" Kerry's stance on Chavez and Venezuela

[LittleClarkie]

From during the campaign:

Kerry Statement on Venezuela

March 19, 2004

With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed. The Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a peaceful resolution can still be achieved.

Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power. In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government.

Moreover, President Chavez’s policies have been detrimental to our interests and those of his neighbors. He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia.

The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate means. The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this process, as he has attempted to do thus far. He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners.

Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez. Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela.

He was widely denounced by sites like Venezuela Analysis and Common Dreams, who said he must retract his position. They likened his position to Bush's, and said he'd bought the right wing propaganda.

I didn't think Human Rights Watch was into "right wing propaganda" personally.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

Why would we tolerate the same behaviors from Chavez that we abhor from Bush? Why would Chavez get the benefit of the doubt if Bush doesn't?

http://littleclarkie.blogspot.com/ (yeah, this has motivated me to finally update the blog)

[ProSense]

1. Seems to me

that Kerry is extremely committed to these kinds of efforts and they are crucial in stopping the spread and threat of terrorism. People act like it's impossible to recognize a goverment, even acknowledge what it does righr, and at the same hold it accountable for if failures.

And with all the criticism of where American politicians stand on Chavez, how many of these people actually think Chavez fits into the model of American Democracy as envisioned and enjoyed by most Americans? I certainly don't. If I did, I'd go live in Venuzuela.

Bush's doublespeak isn't helping. In fact, Bush is making the world a lot more dangerous, aggression is now the norm, and America is being isolated as the target of hate. Here is Kerry on Saudi Arabia:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN KERRY

Regarding: Administration officials stopping efforts to freeze assets of Saudi Arabian charities alleged to support terrorism

Friday, August 1, 2003

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator John Kerry today issued the following statement regarding reports of Bush Administration officials stopping efforts to freeze the assets of some Saudi Arabian charities alleged to support terrorism:

“In May of this year, I called on President Bush to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabian charities for money laundering. Recent press reports have stated that individuals linked to the Saudi Arabian government provided funding for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. Now it is being reported that Bush Administration officials have stopped efforts to freeze the assets of some Saudi Arabian charities which likely support terrorism. As long as al-Qaida retains access to a viable financial network, it remains a lethal threat to the United States and our interests around the world.

“Continued inaction by the Bush Administration to stop the flow of money from Saudi Arabia to al-Qaida and other international terrorist organizations threatens the security of the United States and may put American lives at risk.”

Background Yesterday, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on terrorist financing which focused primarily on Saudi Arabia. In the hearing, Richard Newcomb, Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control within the Department of Treasury said that some Bush Administration officials (in the State Department and to a lesser extent the FBI and CIA) have opposed Treasury Department attempts to freeze assets of some Saudi Arabian charities which have supported terrorism. In response to Mr. Newcomb’s refusal during the hearing to state to which organizations he was referring, Senator Carl Levin demanded that Mr. Newcomb provide a list of Saudi Arabian organizations the Office of Foreign Assets Control has recommended for sanctions to the Committee within 24 hours.

Last week, the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 released a final report which classified 28 pages in the report detailing specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. It has been reported in the press that Saudi Arabia is the country referred to in the classified pages of the report. Senator Kerry has publicly called upon the Bush Administration to declassify this section of the report.

In response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Senator Kerry worked with Senate Banking Chairman Sarbanes and Senator Levin to develop a package of anti-money laundering provisions which included his bill the International Counter-Money Laundering and Foreign Anticorruption Act. These anti-money laundering provisions were included in the USA PATRIOT Act, which was signed into law by President Bush in October 2001.

In May 2003, Senator Kerry asked President Bush to name Saudi Arabia as a primary money laundering concern (using the authority provided by his bill) and to impose enhanced due diligence on financial transactions involving Saudi Arabian financial institutions, charities and high net-worth individuals to determine whether any transactions pose an unacceptable risk of being related to the finance of terrorism.


http://kerry.senate.gov/text/cfm/record.cfm?id=207095

This is how I see it.

[karynnj]

2. Thank you for posting this

It is a very interesting statement. I had remembered reading that some of Kerry's anti-money laundering stuff (which he pushed for years) was included in the Patriot Act, but had been unable to find a source that said it. This is the type od stuff in the Patriot Act that needed to be there - and accounts for why Kerry didn't astand with Feingold.

I assume the reason Kerry spoke so little about this was the unpopularity of the Patriot act.

[ProSense]

7. Speaking of the

Patriot Act, defying logic is standard:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=312792&mesg_id=312792

[paulk]

3. thanks for posting this

I'm not sure what to make of Chavez, myself.

I do know that it's impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion about him at DU without being
shouted down.

Kerry enumerates my concerns about Chavez quite well in this statement.

[beachmom]

4. Chavez: why I stopped watching Democracy Now!

Now there's reason enough not to watch Amy Goodman (a la her Skull and Bones hit piece on Kerry in January '04), but she had a TWO DAY interview with Chavez, without any opposition viewpoint, which struck me as propaganda. I just don't like extremism: right OR left. We'll see if Chavez will allow free and fair presidential elections. The fact that his party won the parliamenatry elections recently because the opposition parties boycotted them (they said it was completely set up unfairly) is not a good sign. I'm not saying there aren't some good things that he has done. But absolute power is NEVER good. And, yeah, I think Belafonte made a complete fool of himself fawning all over Chavez recently.

Slings and arrows -- I can take 'em for those who disagree! ;)

[sandnsea]

5. On the one hand, and then on the other

That's the problem with world affairs. More to the point, those who only see one hand or the other.

I fully understand the US attempted a coup because Chavez isn't a corporatist, in a nutshell. I understand corporatism is hurting the poorest all over the globe, with varying degrees of poverty. I understand those who recognize the problem and reject this economic model.

At the same time, I understand the quest for power. I've watched too many "people's politicians" rise to power only to become the world's worst dictators. Chavez has made some of those moves, from major changes in the courts to abolishing parts of the government outright. Their justification is that he had to route out those who were trying to subvert him. Well gee, what if Bush did that to Kucinich, Sanders, Jeffords, or Ginsburg and Stevens. It's the same thing, stifling dissent, only he locks people up too.

So yes, the election was apparently fair and we need to respect that process and stop with the coups, which I think Kerry has said. But we also shouldn't blindly believe anything that anybody says, especially with the history of slaughter and it is usually associated to regimes who supposedly are going to do so much for the poor.

[beachmom]

6. Yikes -- just saw the greatest page about him

You know I'm not a flamer so I simply didn't post, but frankly, I think it's an embarrassment for it to be there on DU. Are we for democracy or not? If Kerry had been elected president, that would have been bad news for Chavez. The rhetoric would have gone down a notch but the two countries would STILL have a lot of problems. I wonder what Kerry thought of that Congressman in Mass. accepting cheap oil from Chavez. I actually didn't realize that Kerry was such a Chavez critic.

Anyway, I agree with what you said, Sandnsea, about corporatism. That is indeed an evil with the exploitation of the land and workers, and Chavez has fought that. But he's getting arrogant, and could become dangerous. We must proceed with caution.


Edited to say: I didn't realize that I was apparently a "right winger" here at DU, but seeing that I'm a "dupe for BushCo" on dKos, it seems fitting.

[LittleClarkie]

8. I do agree that singling them out above all others as the worst

is disingenous at best for the Bush Administration. We couldn't give a damn about them if they didn't have oil. Like the "war of liberation" in Iraq, if we were in the business of liberating people and taking out dictators, we sure did miss a few along the way. We generally don't care unless it has something to do with our own interests.

And I'd also agree that Chavez is probably not the worst person we could be pointing at as a leader.

That said, I think he would have been only one of several people Kerry would have been keeping his eye on. He wouldn't be the big focus he is for the Bush Admin. But then we all know why they're interested.

[MH1]

9. A couple thoughts.

1) The people who tried to overthrow Chavez in April 2002 (and subsequently) were arguably worse than Chavez (unless you own a lot of stock in Exxon-Mobil), and Bush practically leapt to praise the coup. Ummm....wait...aren't we supposed to support democratically elected governments? So...how does praising the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government fit into that picture?

BTW, can anyone direct me to where Kerry ever denounced Bush's support of the coup? I sure hope he did - and if so, you should pull that out to remind people whenever they bring up that campaign statement.

(For the record, and hopefully you all know, I generally fully support Kerry. He's the best there is, imo. But even the best are not perfect, and I've suspected for some time that we part ways on this one. I still know that he would approach the situation with rationality and diplomacy, which would be a huge improvement over the current situation - and if my sense of the Venezuelan situation is right, I am not worried that Kerry would make any horrible moves in dealing with them.)

2) Why we might "tolerate" it from Chavez more so than Bush. Easy. Bush is OUR government. We have a responsibility to the world to elect a government that behaves reasonably. We (the American people) have failed miserably, and rightly should be very concerned with the product of our failure. Also, the alternative to Bush was Kerry (or Gore before that). The alternative to Chavez, many of us argue, is worse. And, it is the Venezuelan people's responsibility to vote Chavez out if he is evil. When he fails to hold elections, that is when our government may have a right to be concerned. But, Venezuela would only be in line behind a hundred or so other governments that we should be concerned about for that reason, and anyway, maybe we should worry about democracy in America first.

3) How much of what is being reported out of Venezuela is true, and how much is b.s.?

4) Venezuela's friendliness with Cuba as a basis for US "concern" - the US policy wrt Cuba is insane and hugely unjust when compared with our policy wrt China. We should not be surprised that the countries our government has alienated within the same geographic region would ally themselves.

[karynnj]

10. Kerry objects to the praise of the coup in the statement of the OP

"Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez."

I am so glad this statement was posted because I had only heard allusions to it and to statements by Kerry staffers. It seems what happened was that the Bush people leapt on thease statements to start their mantra of Kerry having the same policy as they do. The left, useful idiots that they can be, immediately took that as truth and they jumped on Kerry (they were what I read - only logic kept me from not believing it).

I think the far left (Democracy Now and their DU adherents) share with Bush the inability to see anything in shades of gray. Kerry's statement is very sensible - he doesn't agree with Bush that Chavez is evil incarnate, but he would likely disagree just as firmly with those who deem him a hero for our time. (This is 100% consistent with where Kerry was in 1971 - he fought constantly with the anti-war people who felt that Mao was a hero, while he opposed Nixon.)

[sandnsea]

12. Captive to the extremists

That's how I feel. We've got the far left, Dem corporatists, fundies, and neocons. The sane people are completely drowned out of the picture.

[MH1]

13. Yes, but I was looking for a statement at the time - April 2002.

It is good that he mentions it in this 2004 statement (and we should always highlight that), but I was wondering what he said in April 2002.

I don't know enough to know whether Chavez is a "hero for our time" or what, but I think some of the hero-worship of him on the left is a backlash against the demonization of him by the Bush administration.

Also, Chavez was praised some time ago - well before 2002, I don't remember exactly when or where- for the work he was doing to help the poor in Venezuela, such as implementing a good, free mass transit system. Unfortunately our mainstream culture (not just right-wingers) calls anything like that "socialism" and then demonizes "socialism" as equivalent to communism - which it is not.

[sandnsea]

11. Yes he did

In one statement, he discussed both sides of the issue. His words are in this blog and it is what I remember, seems to be complete. He may have made some earlier than this, I don't know for sure.

Here's the Bush part:

"..Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against President Chavez.

Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela."


http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1136

[MH1]

14. Yes....looking for an April 2002 statement...but meanwhile

there is a good article here about what really happened in Haiti and where our tax dollars are going. I am sure this article is slanted but I believe it is essentially true. So, the statement "having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in Haiti" is a little weak, but understandable given that most Americans have no clue what really happened:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1218
(scroll down to "Haiti: Behind the Ouster of Aristide")

[LittleClarkie]

15. Well, let me put it this way

Is the alternative worse?

Probably.

Is it bogus that Bush is singling out Chavez when there are likely worse governments in the world?

Indeed. We all know that what Bush is REALLY interested in is the oil in Venezuela.

Does that mean that some of his more objectionable policies should be defended? I'm not so sure. I'm seeing people justify some actions that they would be condemning if Bush did the same. To say that freedom of the press should be stifled because of the coup and because the media is right wing and is spreading propaganda against Chavez would be like saying that Bush could do the same because of 9/11 and because certain left wing outlets are spreading "propaganda" against Bush.

I just see it as a slippery slope. And it confirms a feeling I have had for a while, which is that I would not want to see an administration as far to the left as Bush is to the right, as I fear we'd get the same behaviors with different justifications. One's politics shouldn't color one's view of justice, which is what I see from some of those who support Chavez.

Saying that Chavez is better than the alternative, and that he is being unfairly called on the carpet by Bush because of his oil reserves is entirely different from saying that he is a great man and you stand beside him 100%. I just think that's going over the top. To call the Human Rights Watch "right wing" because it dared to point out problems with human rights in Venezuela is just as over the top.

That's all I'm saying. I see the hypocracy of Bush re: Chavez. But I also see the hypocracy of being to enamoured with Chavez either, so much so as to defend some questionable policies.

Kind of see where I'm coming from?

[karynnj]

16. I definitely see where you're coming from

Chavez is a very flawed leader and should not be a herp here just because he taunts Bush. I do agree with you that Bush's animousity is likely based on several things - his association with Castro (I think the Republicans have pushed to keep sanctions since the 1960s to retain the Cuban vote and the Democrats have many who pandered too), the fact that Chavez taunts him, the idea that South America is our sphere of influence and the oil wealth.

I am so glad you posted this thread with Senator Kerry's statement. In addition to the many other losses, I think a President Kerry would have revolutionized our link with Latin America. His comments at the CAFTA hearings were so concerned with the welfare of the working people in Central America. He spoke of how the poor Mexicans were hurt by NAFTA.

Could you imagine a President Kerry meeting with Chavez bringing up the issues he states here but clearly disavowing any US led coup. (talking privately he could show mention his 1980s stance.) He would have a chance to push them to stop negative things.

Remembering how Bush was greeted everywhere, imagine a President Kerry, who goes to Brazil before the conference. He could very honestly say that Brazil is a special country for him. He could then say that the First Lady would give his message to the country. Something tells me they would be greeted better than Bush. Wasn't it the first President JFK who reached out to South America very successfully? (after VP Nixon was rudely greeted in Equador (?) only a few years before.) Kerry would have the advantage of being able to meet privately (with only Teresa) with every SA leader even if they didn't know English.

[Mass]

17. Great analysis MH1

And since when do we object to all govts that do not fit our standards. We would have a lot of countries to govts to.

The US reaction to Venezuela is the classic reaction he has had to countries whose domestic and foreign policies did not agree with the goals of occidental companies (see Chile in 1973 and Iran in the 1950s). Chavez would be a lot more acceptable to us if they were going along with our economical and political goals, whether they are democratic governements or not (see the Saudis).

The Democratic Party in general seems to have problems to talk in a very different way than the right. Many (including Cuba) continue to vote to spend money on purely symbolic and useless projects like TV Marty and to talk tough when it would be useful to discuss with these countries. This said, some Democrats (and this would include Kerry), while they talk tough, also express an understanding of the situation, which is a lot more than Bush would.

[ProSense]

18. Yes, they talk tough,

but it's the appropriate response to a government engaging in policies the U.S. government cannot/shouldn't support or condone.

American elected officials don't run these countries and have no say in who the citizens of these countries elect to lead them, but the talk is about how the American government should proceed in relations with these foreign governments. It's similar to the situation with Hamas, the people elected its memebers, but America doesn't have to condone Hamas' actions if the group continues along the path of violence. That doesn't mean America has the right to overthrow the Palestinian government. Another example: Americans love to hold up Castro, but there are a lot of Cuban dissidents who despise him and believe him to be a dictator. So who's right?

So I believe Kerry talks tough and understands the complexities of the situation. The problem is that everyone now equates tough talk with the lead up to war, which is a direct result of Bush's BS.


And the Cuban dissidents don't want Bush interfering either:

Cuban dissidents attack Bush plan

A group of Cuban dissidents has sharply criticised the US for measures aimed at speeding up the end of Fidel Castro's communist rule.

Leading dissident Oswaldo Paya said it was up to Cubans, not the US, to bring about change in the country.

US President George W Bush on Thursday endorsed new sanctions and a $36m plan to promote change in Cuba.

Two other Cuban dissidents handed in a protest letter at the US diplomatic mission in Havana.

One of the authors, Manuel Cuesta, said the US had "no right to set the pace of a transition in Cuba".

The other, fellow dissident Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo, said: "This is a total interference that does not benefit the building of democracy in Cuba."

He said his letter to US Secretary of State Colin Powell said the US plan was tantamount to incitement to armed conflict.

'Meddling'

"It is not appropriate or acceptable for any forces outside Cuba to try to design the Cuban transition process," said Mr Paya, winner of the European Parliament's Andrei Sakharov human rights prize, in a separate statement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3702431.stm

[Mass]

19. The problem is that it would be fine if they treated everybody the same

way.

The Saudi government is a lot worse than the Venezuelan government and you barely hear anybody say anything, except may be a little bit of lip service. The criticisms have a lot more to do with economic issues than with ethical issues.

We actually do not know really what Chavez is doing. The echos coming from other parts of the " Free World" are fairly different and it becomes difficult to know what is propaganda and what is true. In addition, if US politicians are allowed to speak this way concerning Chavez and other elected presidents, who are we to say that Chavez cannot say what he says about * and what is best for his country. It becomes a real shouting match which goes nowhere.

Some day, we have to learn (and the American politicians too) that the job of foreign leaders is not to serve the interests of the USA, but the interests of their country. An honest discussion and diplomacy help a lot solving these problems. Until now, Chavez seems to me to want to do just that. Discussing with him may do a lot more good than sending these types of message.

This said, Kerry is one of those who understand the best this issue. I think they believe they have to speak this way to be elected, that's all.

[ProSense]

20. This statement

Some day, we have to learn (and the American politicians too) that the job of foreign leaders is not to serve the interests of the USA, but the interests of their country.

And some people understand that, but it also goes to the point I made:

American elected officials don't run these countries and have no say in who the citizens of these countries elect to lead them, but the talk is about how the American government should proceed in relations with these foreign governments.

That's why it's important to understand the complexities. America cannot go around the world imposing, but it can in deliberations stand on principles. If a majority of the citizenry is okay with a government that is engaged in torturing a segment of its people, shouldn't the American government stand on principle? It's not about imposing, it's about not condoning, and there are diplomatic channels for that. This is why the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam points to hypocrisy.