The New Dark Age

11 August, 2009 — VHeadline

VHeadline editor & publisher Roy S. Carson writes: It was undoubtedly with a degree of trepidation that I read El Universal’s interview with former US ambassador to Venezuela, Jeffrey Davidow, puzzled as to how the cunning diplomat that he undoubtedly is could have allowed himself to be lured into such a situation in the sure and certain knowledge that he would have every syllable subjected to intense scrutiny and analysis for what it was worth to the anti-Chavez opposition in Venezuela.

Jeff has hitherto been loathe to get involved in Venezuelan politics other than as an extremely knowledgeable adviser to US President Barack Obama in the lead-up to and during the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad earlier this year where he had stage-managed Obama as the anti-thesis to the untold damage that had been done to United States foreign policy in Latin America throughout the George W. Bush fiasco presidency.

As president of the Institute of the Americas in La Jolla (California), Jeffrey Davidow has, nevertheless, kept closely in touch with what has been happening in Venezuela and, to his credit, has been consistent in his evaluations of the status quo without appearing simply to be echoes of HMV (His Master’s Voice) out of the hallowed hallways of the Pentagon and the US State Department.

Certainly he has not been as congenitally irascible as his ambassadorial stable-mate John Bolton or, worse, Otto Reich…

However, as the true professional he is, Jeff Davidow handled the El Universal interview like a trooper and, to give credit where credit is due, although the inevitable twists and manipulations into anti-Chavez citations from El Universal’s side were obvious, Jeff kept to the straight and narrow insisting from the outset that he would NOT talk about the situation in Venezuela … which of course the un-named El Universal interviewer ignored completely in his/her onward thrust and parry. He DID say (or was quoted as saying!) that “I could say, though, that we have noted that some Latin American countries are experiencing a situation where constitutional systems which ensure balance of power are suffering. This must be a matter of concern, because where there is concentration of power, there are many chances of mistakes and abuse of the people’s rights.”

“For instance, the whole hemisphere … even the United States … has taken a common stance with regard to Honduras. But, how to react to losing freedom when such loss is gradual? I deem it essential that countries and governments should always be in favor of freedom. It is difficult beyond that, because we do not want to see a country meddling in the internal affairs of another. But, at the same time, we must acknowledge that there are international rules, such as the Human Rights Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), and these principles should be defended, yet it is quite complicated. I think that the international community has not come to a point as to take steadfast action. There is no agreement as to how to act in the face of such a situation. Further, there is a new kind of meddling in Latin America: when a President of a neighboring country shows up before elections and tells citizens of that foreign country that so-and-so is the best President or the best candidate. Also, where a country sends money to support campaigns in foreign countries. I do not deem it democratic and some other problems emerge.”

• Woah Jeff! …like where a foreign (?) government denigrates an incumbent President (?) and aids subversion to remove (?) said President, funds campaigns (?) and logistics (?) to promote his violent overthrow and more…? Venezuela ? Honduras ? Nicaragua ? Chile?

Yes, as Jeff Davidow rightly points out (or is quoted as pointing out) in the El Universal interview: There are international rules; there are rules in the OAS … if a government is a member of the OAS, it should abide by the Human Rights Charter and other OAS instruments. That’s not meddling!”

Having state-managed Obama in Trinidad, Jeff Davidow naturally says that the United States “is seeking an alliance and is willing to work on the most important issues with any government. We should take a common stance with regard to violence, drug traffic, or energy issues. Possibly, not all the countries would like to do the same, but those willing to join efforts should do it, because many of the plights we suffer are not bounded.”

Asked if it is possible “to fabricate a foreign enemy to conceal failure and resort to nationalism,” El Universal seemed to seek to entrap Davidow into an anti-Chavez statement on either Venezuela or Honduras.  He responded: “It is an old trick, but I think it is less and less effective!”

Whether he was referring to El Universal’s (journalistic) “old trick” is open to interpretation.

But other than to state the simple truth, Davidow parried the thrust by saying that, generally, violent rhetoric against a foreign government expresses also a very violent wording inside a country where a president, who is everybody’s President, uses words, such as traitors, worms or worse.  “This means that he resolved rather than to be the leader of a whole country, to be the leader of a faction … and I am worried about it, because where the Head of State is the Head of Government he should act as the representative of all the people. He should not be a point of division, a provoker of hatred and resentment.”

Brave words, indeed, for a US diplomat in the heels of a two-term Bush administration that’s sown hatred and resentment across the world!

It must certainly be recognized that Chavez’ vocabulary is NOT the most dignified in the world and he’s certainly drawn a hail of criticism for it … it’s certainly ‘balurdo’ even by Venezuelan extremes but was Chavez ever really expected to play the role of a conventional (in US or European eyes) politician and, anyway, both the Old and New continents also have their fair share of politicos whose antics are equally or more than suspect.  Is Chavez any different from other Latin American leaders given half a chance?

Essentially, Davidow’s most valuable contribution in the El Universal interview is to express that “cooperation and talks are needed … there can be no dialogue as far as a government impeaches another with the worst adjectives!”

Good then that the US State Department has modified its anti-Venezuelan rhetoric to a degree that could, at least partially, encourage some degree of ‘friendly dialogue’ between Washington D.C. and Caracas … the next step would, naturally, be to reduce the economic and military threats…

Meanwhile, diehard anti-Chavez Venezuelan ‘gringo’ Michael Rowan writes in today’s El Universal that “Venezuelans have a big problem recognizing reality” … he claims that “they live in a perfect democracy in peaceful harmony … they are building the most advanced social revolution to eradicate servitude known to humanity. Equality is a dream elsewhere, but a reality in Venezuela. The fact that voices of disharmony are heard is proof positive that Venezuela’s democracy is vibrant and its revolution is historic.”

• The trust of what he says is that Venezuelans are being deluded by the Bolivarian Revolution and that they are “encouraged by a vast conspiracy against the peaceful revolution, a satanic conspiracy envious of the revolution’s success at home and abroad.”

After the usual rhetoric, Michael continues in a typically cynical claim that “everyone knows” that “the truth is that poverty, crime, homelessness, official killings, kidnapping, drug-dealing, slave trade, terrorism, theft, war, genocide, racism, duplicity, corruption, the rigging of elections and the suppression of free speech, assembly and religion are all horrors of the past and that the Revolution has virtually eradicated those horrors, which are the creatures of the oligarchy.”

YES! Poverty, crime, homelessness, official killings, kidnapping, drug-dealing, slave trade, terrorism, theft, war, genocide, racism, duplicity, corruption etc., are indeed a part of Venezuela’s reality and there are few Venezuelans, indeed, who do not recognize the fact.

YES! It requires bold leadership to eradicate all these ills in a nation that, for generations, has grown accustomed to poverty, crime, homelessness etc., etc.

Democratically (although some may still dispute the electoral fact), President Hugo Chavez Frias was chosen by a majority of the Venezuelan people to rule through 2012.  If, at that stage, some other possibility is put forward for Venezuela’s political salvation it is the right and duty of the Venezuelan people to elect him or her to office…  Isn’t that the way due democratic process is supposed to work?  Love him or hate him, Chavez is the President!

That is NOT to say that everyone is obligated to agree unconditionally with everything that Chavez or his minions says or does — and there are legions who disagree most vocally with much of it!  In (another) El Universal editorial recently, Alexander Cambero asked “What was the sin committed by us, Venezuelans, to deserve so much disgrace? A totally ineffective government fueled by the putrid nectar of communism.”

One may agree or disagree on the various interpretations of socialism from Christian ‘love thy neighbor as thy self’ through maligned communism to Stalinist pogroms.  Cambero, obviously, fears the worst claiming that “this government is sustained by oil income and blackmail … its leadership built upon a big farce, which buys consciences and grinds the dreams of million Venezuelans!” Strong words!

As Jeff Davidow so rightly says, people need to talk and cooperate one with another. The admonishment is not specifically directed at the opposition but indeed at the government side which, increasingly seems to go against every tenet of what they originally set out to revolutionize … they (originally) sought to include the excluded but have increasingly sought to exclude those who do not necessarily share their evangelization as born-again ‘Chavistas.’ Does it make sense either way?

Chavez often refers to the necessity for others to get down off their high horses and walk awhile in humility to achieve a better understanding and friendship the one with the other…

Forty years ago, today, August 11, 1969, the people of Northern Ireland (my homeland) began a conflagration that saw thousands killed, hundreds made homeless and many lives simply wrecked .. for what?

Will the Venezuelans be asking the same thing on August 11, 2049?  I trust not!

Roy S. Carson
editor@vheadline.com
http://www.vheadline.com/carson

http://www.vheadline.com/spanish
http://www.vheadline.com/español

Our editorial statement reads:
VHeadline.com Venezuela is a wholly independent e-publication promoting democracy in its fullest expression and the inalienable right of all Venezuelans to self-determination and the pursuit of sovereign independence without interference. We seek to shed light on nefarious practices and the corruption which for decades has strangled this South American nation’s development and progress. Our declared editorial bias is most definitely pro-Constitutional, pro-Democracy and pro-VENEZUELA.

— Roy S. Carson, Editor/Publisher Editor@VHeadline.com
telephone USA: Houston TX: 713-893-1433