VENEZUELA: Extract from 2/17 State Dept. Press Briefing

[magbana]

"we have always sought to have a positive relationship with." ha! But at least the State Dept. is being careful in its remarks.

magbana

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/02/117401.htm

U.S. Department of State
Gordon Duguid
Acting Deputy Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing
February 17, 2009

Yes, Sylvie.

QUESTION: In Venezuela --

MR. DUGUID: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have reaction to the result of the referendum, the fact that Chavez has won and now he can stay in power almost indefinitely?

MR. DUGUID: Well, it’s my understanding that the referendum took place in a fully democratic process, that there were – although there were some troubling reports of intimidation of opponents, for the most part, this was a process that was fully consistent with democratic practice. However, democratic practice also requires that the government govern well and govern in the interest of all of the people of the diverse interests that are present in Venezuela.

QUESTION: But what about the result of the --

MR. DUGUID: It was a matter for the Venezuelan people. And as I said, the process was held consistent with democratic principles. Therefore, we have always sought to have a positive relationship with Venezuela. We will continue to seek to maintain a positive relationship with Venezuela. But their democratic processes need to be taken into account on our part. But also on our part, we look for governments who have achieved a positive democratic result to use that in a positive manner.

QUESTION: Do you think it’s healthy to be able to be reelected indefinitely?

MR. DUGUID: I don’t have an opinion on the democratic practices of Venezuela. In the United States, we have term limits, but that’s our practice.

[Peace Patriot]

1. WOW! Somebody finally informed the U.S. government that Venezuela is DEMOCRATIC!

And the U.S. government LISTENED!

I'm just sitting here with my jaw on the floor, trying to get used to this.

:wow:

I know it's not wise to become so wildly happy at a bit of evidence of good government, good foreign policy and SANITY at the State Department. And it IS wise to be highly skeptical, and to worry about our secret government and what IT might be up to, in flat contradiction of our government's stated policy, or what the Bushwhacks might be up to with our stolen billions and private armies. We have good reason to be skeptical, vigilant, disbelieving, onery citizens and activists for social justice. But, heck, I'm still in a state of shock at the simple civility of this State Dept. Q&A. Somebody really gave this guy an earful, too. You can hear it in his repeated phrases--

--a fully democratic process
--fully consistent with democratic practice
--the process was held consistent with democratic principles
--their democratic processes need to be taken into account on our part
--a positive relationship with Venezuela
--to maintain a positive relationship with Venezuela
--a positive democratic result.

Duguid really, really, REALLY wants to get these points across in a POSITIVE manner. But some of the old bullshit is just beneath the surface, for instance, he is saying that Chavez needs to "govern in the interest of all of the people of the diverse interests that are present in Venezuela." I think he means the rich people--those are the only ones whose immediate, short-term, greed-oriented interests might not be served by the Chavez government--although the financial and political stability that the Chavez government has created is in their long term interest. All other "diverse" people--minorities, the indigenous, women, the poor, the middle class, workers, small business people, farmers, students--the interests of the vast majority--are obviously being served by the Chavez government. The State Dept.'s assumption is that Chavez might start becoming unfair to rich people. It has a slight ominous tone. Really, that's the only sense I can make of it. They've got a bunch of loudmouth, lying, rich Venezuelans in Miami, in cahoots with the anti-Castro mafia, yelling at them--using their USAID welfare to lobby for a hostile policy on Venezuela. So maybe Obama's people felt they had to throw them that bone.

And then he says: "...we look for governments who have achieved a positive democratic result to use that in a positive manner." I mean, you want to say: 'Duh, how can someone use "a positive democratic result" in any other way but "a positive manner"?' But you have to understand that this is an echo of the old Bushwhack meme that Chavez intends to become a "dictator"--no evidence for it so far but that's what they said--or he is "increasingly authoritarian" (a rightwing Catholic cardinal's phrase). Duguid is saying, 'okay, okay, Venezuela is democratic--now the test is governing democratically.' But the truth is that Chavez has governed democratically all along. He's been in office ten years--as the result of one honest and aboveboard election after another, and free and fair debate in between (and lots of it!). But this underlayer--or residue--of Bushwhackism is overwhelmed by this spokesman's desire to stress the words "democratic" and "positive" over and over again. It's as if he'd been strenuously rehearsed on these points.

And you gotta wonder what has gone down behind closed doors at the State Dept., after that weird thing Obama did two days before his inauguration--making anti-Chavez remarks on a Univision (rightwing, anti-Chavez) TV news broadcast. It feels to me like somebody mis-advised Obama--or maybe this was the last gasp effort to try to influence Venezuelan voters against the referendum. I don't know--it was just SO undiplomatic, so ill-timed, such a bad way to start things off. My own reaction was utter dismay. How could our new president be saying such stupid, uninformed things--repeating Bushwhack lies? How did that happen? Was it a mistake? He said, for instance, that Chavez was "exporting terrorism"--and I wondered, doesn't he KNOW that that Bushwhack lie is being laughed at all over South America? And this was Obama's inauguration week! Two wars and economic meltdown to deal with, and he's spending time throwing darts at Chavez?! Now this--an effort by the State Dept. to be civil, and to acknowledge the facts.

Whatever went wrong during Obama's inauguration week, it has been corrected--rather dramatically. My guess is that Lula da Silva talked to Obama, and clued him in. I have no idea where Hillary Clinton fits into this series of events. But I know that da Silva publicly stated that he wanted to talk to Obama specifically about Venezuela and Bolivia--whose leaders have been unfairly demonized by the Bushwhacks.

[Judi Lynn]

2. It IS an abrupt shift in tone, as you say. Hard to fathom. I'm sure I've read that Lula da Silva has

already spoken with him, but I can't remember the "particulars."

Will be looking for something on that.

This is tremendous news, bringing something to build on, for hope's sake. Hope they develope more insight, more determination to respect the TRUTH of the situation, rather than the political advantage in dancing to the S. Florida Venezuelan and Cuban expatratriots' tune.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Yes, I remember reading that Lulu talked to Obama on the phone, and they announced

that--if I remember this correctly--Lulu will visit Obama in March, and Obama would visit Brazil later in the year. Obama's Univision blooper must have caused cries of "stupido!" throughout the continent. I would guess that Lulu brought it up in the phone call. Hard to ignore the new U.S. president accusing the leader whom you meet with every month, whom you rely on for furthering bilateral and regional projects, and who is a friend with common political goals such as social justice, of "exporting terrorism" and being "bad for the progress of the region." Chavez has done more for the progress of the region than anybody. Lulu has often praised him. He's called him the best president of Venezuela in a hundred years. So, it would be surprising, actually, if the topic of U.S. bullshit about Chavez did not come up in that phone call.

There has never been a better moment in 50 years--not since JFK's administration--for a U.S. foreign policy in Latin America based on mutual respect and social justice. I hope and pray that Obama doesn't blow it--for his sake, for all our sakes, and for the people of Latin America, who have never wanted anything but peace, cooperation and decency from the U.S. And if Obama does blow it, clearly they now have the unity, the resources and the will to basically sever relations with the U.S. and proceed with their own 'common market'--including, as Brazil has proposed, their own common defense. Is this going to end up being another U.S. corporate resource war? There are plenty of "ducks" lined up by the Bushwhacks for a private and/or U.S./private war to destroy the peace of the hemisphere. Or are the northern and southern halves of this hemisphere going to proceed together for mutual benefit?

I think Obama is an enlightened man with good intentions, but I do think his hands are tied in several ways, because the U.S. is simply not a democracy any more. It is a Corporate Empire. They even own and control our voting machines, and they crown emperors and choose his counselors just like the Pope did in the Middle Ages. South America, on the other hand, has gone way democratic and is operating in a democratic way on a regional level as well--with a new sense of the value of cooperation and having each other's backs. Can this bleeding, looted and possibly dying giant of the north learn cooperation as to our neighbors in the hemisphere--and give up bullying and exploitation? Stay tuned.

[EFerrari]

4. It looks like the State Department got some feedback from allies in the region

when Obama made remarks about support for terrorism. I'm happy to see this and I hope whoever briefs Obama got spanked for serving the president so shoddily.