Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez
Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, which he later denied having done, which he then later admitted having done and apologized for it, is only the latest example of the anti-Chavez hysteria that has been coming out of Washington and elsewhere lately.
On July 20, Congressman Connie Mack of Florida sponsored an an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which called for the US to send anti-Chavez broadcasts into Venezuela. Tom Lantos, the leading Democrat in the House International Relations Committee, voiced his support for this bill by saying the following:
The fact is that Chavez is the democratically elected President of a nation with one of the most democratic constitutions in the world. He has been subjected with repeated attempts at overthrowing or overturning his government, including a coup attempt (that was supported by Bush) and a recall referendum, which the constitution allows for. He survived the recall referendum with overwhelming support, in an election that was verified as democratic and free by outside observers. The U.S. constitution, by contrast, provides no mechanism for any kind of recall election of a sitting president. In Bush's case, with his sinking popularity as he continues to sink in the Iraq quagmire, it is interesting to speculate whether he would win such an election or not.
Comparing the anti-Chavez hysteria with the utter silence of the Bush administration about the human rights abuses going on in Haiti is a rather instructive exercise. Bush supported (and may have even been behind) the ouster of Haiti's former president Aristide, and as a supporter of the current regime, he conveniently looks the other way at what is going on there. What justifies this vitriol against Chavez? It would seem all out of proportion, until one considers that he has committed the crime of speaking out as an opponent of the globalization juggernaut that has been propelled by US and multinational corporate interests. Worse still, his ideas are popular, and part of a wave of left-leaning movements that have taken hold in the region. Bush cares not a whit for democracy--what he cares about is supporting US corporate interests. Unfortunately, as in so many other cases, the Democrats (including Tom Lantos) have largely signed on to the same pro-corporate, pro-globalization agenda which is so threatened by Chavez's ideas. Thus both parties in Washington have been riding the wave of anti-Chavez hysteria.
One shouldn't be too surprised that Robertson made his ridiculous, over-the-top suggestion of assassinating Chavez. Robertson is notorious for making ridiculous statements. What is more significant is the atmosphere of hostility towards Chavez that would inspire Robertson to make a statement like that in the first place.
On July 20, Congressman Connie Mack of Florida sponsored an an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which called for the US to send anti-Chavez broadcasts into Venezuela. Tom Lantos, the leading Democrat in the House International Relations Committee, voiced his support for this bill by saying the following:
I commend my good friend from Florida [Republican Connie Mack] for offering this important amendment to increase the flow of objective information about the United States and world events into Venezuela. Recently, Reuters reported that Chavez had launched a new television station, Telesur, to counter what he considers to be pro-globalization bias in European and American news networks, like CNN. Chavez has also reportedly entered into a $200 million deal with China's National Space Administration to launch a satellite into orbit from which he could beam his anticipated hateful media content into homes across Latin America, the Caribbean and beyond.During John Kerry's run for the Presidency, he also criticized Chavez, and criticized Bush for not opposing Chavez strongly enough.
As Chavez ramps up his information campaign, we should be prepared to present balanced news to the people of Venezuela so that they can be better able to make informed decisions about the activities of their government. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the amendment of my friend from Florida.
The fact is that Chavez is the democratically elected President of a nation with one of the most democratic constitutions in the world. He has been subjected with repeated attempts at overthrowing or overturning his government, including a coup attempt (that was supported by Bush) and a recall referendum, which the constitution allows for. He survived the recall referendum with overwhelming support, in an election that was verified as democratic and free by outside observers. The U.S. constitution, by contrast, provides no mechanism for any kind of recall election of a sitting president. In Bush's case, with his sinking popularity as he continues to sink in the Iraq quagmire, it is interesting to speculate whether he would win such an election or not.
Comparing the anti-Chavez hysteria with the utter silence of the Bush administration about the human rights abuses going on in Haiti is a rather instructive exercise. Bush supported (and may have even been behind) the ouster of Haiti's former president Aristide, and as a supporter of the current regime, he conveniently looks the other way at what is going on there. What justifies this vitriol against Chavez? It would seem all out of proportion, until one considers that he has committed the crime of speaking out as an opponent of the globalization juggernaut that has been propelled by US and multinational corporate interests. Worse still, his ideas are popular, and part of a wave of left-leaning movements that have taken hold in the region. Bush cares not a whit for democracy--what he cares about is supporting US corporate interests. Unfortunately, as in so many other cases, the Democrats (including Tom Lantos) have largely signed on to the same pro-corporate, pro-globalization agenda which is so threatened by Chavez's ideas. Thus both parties in Washington have been riding the wave of anti-Chavez hysteria.
One shouldn't be too surprised that Robertson made his ridiculous, over-the-top suggestion of assassinating Chavez. Robertson is notorious for making ridiculous statements. What is more significant is the atmosphere of hostility towards Chavez that would inspire Robertson to make a statement like that in the first place.
Post a Comment