----- Original Message ----- From: "J.D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:38 AM Subject: Venezuela
> Lately people have been making good sport of bashing > America's conduct during the recent Venezuelan coup - > including a recent message from Brett Coster. The > bashing centers around the following charge - that > America supported coup against a "democratically > elected" leader. I think this situation is more complicated than either you or Brett have indicated. As far as I can tell, while there are certainly indications that Chavez acted illegally in the week before the military arrested him, I don't think that you really have the right to put quotes around democratically elected. >From what I can gleam, he won a clear majority of the popular vote in the last election. His term has not yet expired. He had not dissolved the National Assembly or dismissed the Supreme Court as had Carmona in his few brief days of power after Chavez was arrested. He had not shut down opposing newspaper, although he bent the law allowing him to go on national television for state announcements all out of proportion. Now, having said that, its amazing that he is out of jail and able to stand for elections. He did attempt a coup himself back in 1990. His supporters do use strong arm tactics. But, a week before his arrest, there was no reason to not consider him totally legitimate. However, while legitimate, he was loosing popularity. He was totally unable to keep his campaign promises, and the country was faring poorly under his leadership. So, there was a general strike. Up to this point, that's normal democratic politics. Then, his response was out of line. He seized control of the media, and had his supporters attack a demonstration against his rule. The press was unable to report on the actions. At this point, after the military was ordered to file on a political demonstration, a number of officers revolted and arrested him. A week before his arrest, there was no reason to consider him anything but a democratically elected leader. Here things get very dicey and open to interpretation. It wasn't a classic coup, because the sequence of events was initiated by clearly illegal actions by Chavez. On the other hand, the military is probably not the constitutional body to counter illegal acts by the president. Still, on the other hand, Chavez utilized soldiers loyal to him personally to interfere with the constitutional process. > Unfortunately, it hardly appears that Chavez merits > the title of "democrat" - even if this former coup > leader *originally* secured power through the ballot > box. >After all, was not Adolf Hitler democratically elected? >And if the America-bashers wish to charge us > with supporting a regime change of *that* > democratically elected leader, I proudly plead > *guilty!* First of all, I think you need not follow the example of Jeroen of gratuitously bringing Nazis into discussions. But since you did, let me ask you a question. Do you think that the United States has a right/obligation to overrule the people of a country when we think/know they made a mistake? How important is the right of self determination? When should the United States support a coup to overturn a democratically elected government? It is clear that we have a right to oppose the actions of a democratically elected government when they invade another country. And, going back to the Nazi example, if they actually stood for election and won (remember Gautam's point that they would probably have won a free election until it was clear that Germany was losing WWII in '43 or so), we would be justified in interfering when they started to impose the final solution. However, I think supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected government should be reserved for those rare occurrences when a democracy is about to do something as horrid as a Final Solution. > > Personally, I find it funny that these people > criticized America for supporting despotic leaders > during the Cold War, but when we wink and nod at the > demise of a despot - well, we get bashed for that too. When a democratically elected leader is deposed through extra-constitutional means, then the United States needs to be sure its hands are extra clean. It needs to be very careful in its public statements that it is mainly interested in the forestalling of the turning of the democracy in Venezuela into an autocracy. It also needs to be sure that it has absolutely no connection to the actions of the military. Unfortunately, the Bush administration fell on its face. It looked extremely gleeful that the new government was changing policies to those more in line with the goals of the administration. This blew up in the face of the US when the interim leader decided to seize power for himself. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-000027733apr18.story?coll=l a%2Dheadlines%2Dworld It seems to me that the US hoped/expected that Chavez would be tried for the killings and violating the constitution, and that the actions of the military would be seen as justified. With the rest of the government continuing to function and a quick election of a new president, there would be a peaceful transition to a new elected president from Chavez, who appeared to be in the process of turning the government into an autocracy. Instead, the US found itself backing a regime that did far more to undo the democracy in Venezuela (which is one of the oldest in South America) than Chavez did. Before the US could clearly register its displeasure, Chavez was back. Now, let me go on to Brett directly: > John, what group was behind the coup? Democrats? First of all, let me ask you: Were the actions of Chavez in the week before the election the actions of someone who was ruling in line with the constitution? Every indication was that his government was in severe danger of falling, by normal constitutional methods. He seized control of the media and his supporters fired on demonstrations. >No, it was the generals and the ultra rich. Sound familiar? How in the world could the generals and ultra rich have a meaningful general strike all on their own? I mean, so what if they went on strike, who would notice? If it was a right wing elected government, say Marcos, that seized control of the media and shot at a political demonstration, what should the United States have done. I bring this up because the US also supported the military of the Philippians when they refused unlawful orders of Marcos...who was the elected president at the time. That action was hailed by the world as pro-democratic. > Let's see now, what was the first act of the plotters? Oh yes, suspend the > constitution and close the parliament. This was a coup for democracy? No. As the web site I quoted above indicates, the generals dropped their support of Carmona very quickly after he undertook these actions. Pro-Chavez demonstrations probably had something to do with it. But, it also was associated with Camona grabbing more power than intended. I would guess that the politics were very complicated. Let me give a parallel with the United States. Suppose, during Watergate, there were mass protests and military units with personal loyalty to Nixon fired on the crowd, and CBS, ABC, and NBC were seized by other units loyal to Nixon. Would the Joint Chief of Staffs be justified or unjustified in arresting Nixon? In short, I am a bit bothered with both John's and Brett's positions. John seems to indicate that the US can and should support the overthrow of bad democratic governments. Brett seems to paint the actions in Venezuela as a typical right wing coup against a democratically elected government. Neither seem accurate to me. Dan M.
