Thursday, June 15, 2006

Is it Hugo ChÃvez's interventions in his neighboring states that is leading Venezuela towards confrontation with the U.S.?

"Some sort of showdown seems ultimately inevitable."

So writes Phil Gunson in an essay for Open Democracy about Hugo Chavez and the current American administration.


"The reason is clear: the man the US press loves to call a leftist firebrand practices a uniquely bruising and unconventional style of diplomacy."

Chavez is said to have fired professional diplomats and replaced them with "revolutionary cadres" who have "a limited grasp of foreign affairs." Must I point out how similar Mr. Bush is with Chavez in this respect. Bush's appointment of Bolton to the U. N. and Paul Wolfowitz's selection as head of the World Bank seemed to have little to do with 'diplomatic relations' and everything to do with loyalty to the President.

Chavez has also doled out cheap oil and favors to the particulars that he favors throughout the Southern Hemisphere. It is Chavez's intention to reverse the Monroe Doctrine and replace America's influence with his own that infuuriates the current administration and is truly leading Venezuela towards confrontation with the USA.

When one considers the history of American interventionism in the southern half of the Americas "30 military interventions and 47 covert or indirect operations in Latin America since 1846" maybe limiting the U.S. is a good idea.

But what if Chavez's 'Socialism for the 21st Century' really is just a replacement of one Hegemony with another? For that we need a detailed look at the motivations and effects of Chavez in his own land. And that is a whole other post! Coming soon.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution shows how popular a government can be when it actually cares about its people. Unlike the terror regime in Washington (total surveillance of all Americans, torture, disappearances, illegal invasions of defenseless countries, and 'signing statements' exempting the White House from any and all law, utter loyalty to corporatism, i.e. fascism in the purest sense), when a government actually helps its people with TANGIBLE aid as opposed to empty rhetoric and propaganda the people respond. Chavez has, in fact, done more for AMERICA'S poor (see: than our oil profit-bloated regime has. When a foreign head of state cares more about the fate of America's poor than the American government, obviously it is time for a change. --- Americans for Chavez,