|
I do think that we need to make a distinction between "us"--"we the people" of the U.S.--and our true rulers, multinational corporations and war profiteers. So I defined "our" in quoting you.
I have experienced "the scales falling from eyes" on both WHO "the U.S." is, when U.S. financial, diplomatic and military decisions are made (and it ain't "we the people") and the COMPLETE LACK OF GOOD INTENTIONS by those entities who are calling the shots.
I think that this is what Chavez was trying to explain, and it is a very difficult thing to explain. It has clearly put him in a bind. But it is REAL. The U.S.--that is, its real rulers--have NO INTENTION of democracy or humanitarianism in Egypt, Libya or anywhere else, including here.
To use what is likely a genuine revolt against Gaddafi--but possibly having pushed it to erupt prematurely--for the purpose of PRIVATIZING Libya's oil, is the height of cold cynicism and ill intention.
In truth, Gaddafi hasn't been such a bad ruler. He is no "Saddam Hussein" (not that easy to demonize). I urge people to read his Wiki bio--a particularly well-written and objective view of his long tenure as a sort of king of Libya. I would say that his rule has been characterized most of all by a desire for independence from western corporate rule. That was the early part. But, after the Lockerbie bombing--which he apologized for and paid reparations for--England and other European countries allied with him, entirely overlooking the lack of democracy in Libya, in order to access Libya's oil. That alliance and support is directly responsible for this flame-out by Gaddafi (in addition to his personal responsibility for it, and the responsibility of those around him).
What Chavez, Lula da Silva and other leaders of the new South American left have been trying to do, on the world scene, by befriending leaders like Gaddafi and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, is to DE-FUSE situations where our corporate/war profiteer rulers have very bad intentions--as with Iraq, the intention to slaughter tens of the thousands of people, destroy their societies and place U.S.-friendly tyrants over them. This is why Lula da Silva went to Iran and Turkey, and invited Ahmadinejad to Brazil--and why Chavez invited Ahmadinejad to Venezuela. Lula, in concert with Chavez, was trying to broker to deal for the removal of Iran's fissionable material to a neutral location, to HEAD OFF U.S. Iraq-like sanctions that have only one purpose--they are prep for war.
Both Chavez and Lula are genuine democrats. Lula has said, of Chavez, that, "They can invent all sorts of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!" He has also called Chavez "the great peacemaker." And every objective evaluation of Chavez's policies and actions reinforce Lula's view.
And they have BOTH taken the risk of being condemned by the corporate/war profiteer press for their efforts at PEACE. One of the common bonds and policies of the left in Latin America is that, through cooperative economic/political action amongst Latin American countries, they can build a prosperous, socially just future for their region, but this future depends on PEACE--in their region and in the world. And these leaders have gone out of their way to achieve peace--for instance, with Colombia (a very militarized U.S. client state). When the Bush Junta was in power, Lula proposed that they create a "common defense," under the auspices of UNASUR, because the Bushwhacks had reconstituted the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean, which Lula said was "a threat to Brazil's oil." (They all understood the threat to Venezuela's.) But they would prefer NOT to pour resources into defense. They want and need a peaceful world.
The current circumstance, with Gaddafi freaking out and bombing his own people, obviously presents a dilemma for Chavez, who doesn't want to "pile on" --because, by "piling on" (condemning Gaddafi), he and Venezuela will find themselves on the wrong side of a U.S.-led NATO invasion of Libya, that will NOT result in Libyan democracy and independence, but rather in a western protectorate, like Iraq, or the military-run U.S. friendly government of Egypt (being set up, as we speak).
Frankly, I think that what happened in Libya is the premature triggering of a revolt, by the CIA, in order to invade Libya--and I think that that is what Chavez suspects as well. It's not that the revolt is not genuine. And it's not that Gaddafi shouldn't be removed. It's that the revolt is not entirely in the control of democratic forces. It is infiltrated by the western powers who have been in accord with Gaddafi until now. This was less true, or not true, in Egypt--but the problem in Egypt is that the U.S. military controls the Egyptian military, the only force in the country that ended up being capable of calming that revolution and serving U.S. interests.
Rightwing idiots--echoing the corporate press--try to portray Chavez as a "dictator" (completely untrue) in love with other authoritarian (Ahmadinejad) or dictatorial (Gaddafi) leaders. This feeds the "bogeyman Chavez" psyops campaign that has been going on for half a decade. But these idiots and propagandists CAN'T TAKE IN THE FACT that Lula da Silva ALSO invited Ahmadinejad to Brazil and went to Iran trying to head off a U.S. war. This is a CONCERTED policy of Latin American leaders, and it has nothing to do with their approval of oppression in other countries.
Evo Morales, a close Chavez ally, recently criticized Gaddafi for his violent repression. I don't know if these leaders disagree on how to handle this situation, or are basically in accord, but have chosen to handle it differently in public. It has the potential for being a powerful U.S. "divide and conquer" weapon. But these and other Latin America leftist leaders are well aware of U.S. efforts to divide them. So I suspect that back-channels are active, trying to prevent another U.S. conquest of a third world country.
If I am seeing Chavez's "bind" accurately, then I would not know what to advise him, if my advice were asked for. Should he join the utterly hypocritical and ill-intentioned U.S. corporate/war profiteer interests in condeming Gaddaffi? Should he make a tempered condemnation, or what? Should he remain largely silent? He is rather an extraordinary leader in revealing this dilemma openly and trying to explain it to Venezuelans. Would that our own leaders showed such candor, so that we at least know what's going on! But they never will, cuz they are NOT acting in our interest or anybody else's.
|