Greg Wilpert's Rebuttal to Senator Kerry’s Statement on Venezuela

Monday, Mar 22, 2004
By: Gregory Wilpert - Venezuelanalysis.com

Senator Kerry’s press statement was issued on March 19, 2004.

...
It is not up to President Chavez whether there is a referendum. Venezuela’s constitution clearly establishes rules that must be followed for a referendum to be called. The president has nothing to do with this procedure. If Kerry has any evidence that Chavez is preventing the referendum process from proceeding, then he should spell out what it is that he has done.
...
If relationships with undemocratic rulers are enough to question a leader’s commitment to democracy, then the commitment to democracy of just about every president in U.S. history must be questioned.
..
Exactly what “our interests” is is of course a much disputed issue. If it includes Venezuela’s opposition to the WTO and the FTAA, then, indeed, President Chavez’ interests have been detrimental to U.S. interests. However, many in the U.S. and in Latin America would argue that these institutions are not in the U.S. interest, but only in the interest of transnational corporations, such as the one that Senator Kerry’s wife is heiress to (Heinz Ketchup). Besides, governments are not there to pursue U.S. interests anyway, no matter where they are; only national and human interests.
...

Sen. Kerry stands in direct contradiction with U.S. government testimony that says that the Venezuelan government has been very cooperative with US drug enforcement agencies. More drugs have been intercepted by the Chavez government than any previous government. While this could reflect in increase in drug trafficking in Venezuela, it proves that Venezuela’s government has far from “compromised efforts.”<1>

Even the head of the U.S. Southern Command, Gen. James Hill, who is directly involved in plan Colombia and the U.S. anti-drug trafficking effort, has denied that there is any evidence of connections between the Venezuelan government and “anti-government insurgents” in Colombia.<2> If Senator Kerry has any evidence of such connections, he should provide them to the U.S. military so that they might be properly informed.
...

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

I gotta do more homework before I get really pissed off at Kerry about this.

I've just emailed this link to the Kerry campaign. ;-)

sw

I think that's the right thing to do. I was pissed about Kerry's stance on Chavez as outlined in his blog, but I'm pretty under-edumacated about Venezuela.

Oh, btw: kick.

n/t

I am very disappointed in Kerry's position on this. My nightmare is coming true...our best candidates have been lost. We are going to get Bush-lite!

There are not enough leftists in the US to elect him. Leftists take a back seat on the ABB train.

well, eh?

Gore got 500,000 more votes nationally than Bush, and when you add Nader's 2.7 percent to Gore's 49, well, that's a solid plurality of leftists in this country.

Adding machine, abacus, fingers. They all work.

more like a moderate. Of course, compared to the Christo-fascists running this country, he may seem left of center.

And thanks to tlcandie for providing the link to this story in another thread.

ABB doesn't mean that we have to be lobotomized!

Kerry: 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.

Wilpert: Actually, the Bush administration’s signals with respect to undemocratic processes has not been mixed at all: as long as the undemocratic processes favor the Bush administration’s policy interests, it will support them. It is Senator Kerry who is sending mixed signals by issuing a statement like this, one which does not give Venezuela’s referendum process a chance to play itself out, which makes unsubstantiated claims about the Chavez government, and which encourages a recall referendum even when it is not yet clearly established that the requisite number of Venezuelan citizens want one.

Kerry: 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.

Wilpert: Allowing a “democratically elected leader to be cast aside” in Venezuela via a possibly fraudulent recall referendum process would be little different from what happened in Haiti. It would destroy what has actually become a more vigorous democracy in Venezuela than ever. More people are involved in Venezuela’s political institutions now than before, from land reform committees, to local participatory planning councils, to public accountability efforts (“contraloria social”). This week thousands of candidates are being nominated for August regional elections of governors, mayors, state legislators, and city council persons. There have been absolutely no limitations on anyone’s ability to participate.



The only reason Venezuela’s democracy is in danger is because opposition forces have never accepted President Chavez as the legitimately elected president and have tried to undermine his presidency via a coup attempt and a politically motivated shut-down of the country’s all-important oil industry – an act that would have been considered completely illegal in any country in the world (and for which no one in Venezuela has been imprisoned). It is due to these acts of the opposition that President Chavez and his supporters are so suspicious of the signatures that were recently collected for the recall referendum. The best way to ensure that Venezuelan democracy remains strong is by making sure that all sides agree that the referendum is legitimate. This is the main reason why the process has been taking so long.



By issuing this statement, Senator Kerry is clearly taking sides in Venezuela’s conflict and is supporting the opposition. As such, he is placing himself to the right of President Bush, who has so far only supported Venezuela’s opposition more or less covertly.