|
especially (and, I imagine, most tempting of all), the big oil reserves right on the Caribbean, adjacent to Colombia (Bush Cartel client state), in the oil-rich province of Zulia, Venezuela. South American leaders are concerned about the Bushwhacks' reconstitution of the U.S. 4th Fleet, now roaming off of that very coast. Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, says there is a three-country Bushite strategy--Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador--to foment fascist secessionist movements, and split off the oil-rich provinces into fascist mini-states that the multinationals can plunder. This strategy is active and on-going in Bolivia, which just threw the U.S. ambassador Philip Goldberg out of the country, for funding and supporting the white separatists who are (insanely) trying to rip the country to pieces, to split off the gas/oil rich eastern provinces into autonomous states. (--insane because Argentina and Brazil, their main gas customers, have said they will not trade with secessionist states, and also because there is plenty of gas riches for everyone, due to Evo Morales re-negotiation of the gas contracts, DOUBLING Bolivia's revenues from $1 billion/yr to $2 billion/yr.)
Brazil has proposed a South American common defense, in connection with the newly forming South American "Common Market" (neither thing--the common defense or the common market--to include the U.S.). They're all nervous about the intentions of the 4th Fleet, and livid about the interference in Bolivia. We must remember that the U.S./Colombia just this year violated Ecuador's territory, with a bombing/raid, nearly starting a war between Colombia and Ecuador--an incident that infuriated all Latin American leaders. And the U.S. has been doing illegal flyovers of Venezuelan territory near Zulia.
So-o-o-o, it doesn't surprise me that Chavez is looking for allies. He has many allies in South America, but none of them has much of a military. Nor does Venezuela. And a common defense is planned but not a reality yet. These maneuvers with Russia are more of a deterrent than they are a provocation. It says: "We are not defenseless."
Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, recently said, of Chavez: "You can criticize Chavez on a lot of things, but not on democracy." I wonder why the anti-Chavez posters never address things like this--strong evidence that Chavez is a democrat with a small d, and not the "tyrant" that the Bushwhacks and their lying Corpo media try to convince us that he is. It's puzzling. They go right along with the propaganda. But, anyway, it's possible that one of the things that Lulu would criticize Chavez for would be something like this--sticking it to "the Empire" so directly. On the other hand, Lulu called Chavez "the great peacemaker" for his efforts to de-fuse the war that the Bushwhacks were obviously trying to start with Ecuador (and Venezuela). So, again, I think Chavez is being defensive, not provocative. And I think he is a good gage of what the other leaders are thinking but not saying. Also, he is more active--he goes and does what they may be only in the talking stages of doing. They are thinking--and talking among themselves--about how to defend South America against U.S. belligerence, and he goes to Russia, buys fighter jets, and invites Russia to give a demonstration, here.
We should be wary of thinking of Chavez as "isolated." He is not. It is the Bushwhacks who are isolated, in South America. Chavez has support in Venezuela (his approval rating runs about 60%), was elected and re-elected in transparent, internationally monitored elections, and has widespread respect and influence throughout South America, including many warm friendships with other leaders. He even got Bush tool, Alvaro Uribe, in Colombia, to back off with the Bushite psyops/slander about Chavez supporting "terrorists." (They had a "bury the hatchet" meeting in Caracas, at which they announced joint projects including a new railroad.)
I noticed a remark, above, by an anti-Chavez poster, to the effect that Chavez is just an oil racketeer--and, if the oil market collapses, will get assassinated. This kind of thinking greatly underestimates what Chavez has done, which is, for the first time in Venezuela's and in South America's history, to use a natural resource to build democracy and promote social justice. The education of the poor--being paid for by the oil profits--and all the other forward-thinking benefits that those profits are being put to (medical care, fostering small business and manufacturing, land reform, regional infrastructure), will pay off in diversified prosperity in the future. The other alternative is for the oil profits to fatten the coffers of Exxon Mobil & brethren and South American fascists, who don't give a fuck for the future of Venezuela or any country. The local fascists have utterly neglected their own societes. The global fascists suck up resources and give nothing back.
So, you can call Chavez a mere oil racketeer--and there is some truth to the fact that his policies, and his popularity, are boosted by having money to do beneficial things. Or you can see the broader picture: What better use could oil profits be put to, than bootstrapping South American's vast poor population? If a prosperous and progressive South America is to occur, it has to be bootstrapped--because of decades of looting, exploitation and ruination by the likes of Exxon Mobil. The oil profits are a fortuitous circumstance for advancing a progressive agenda. And Chavez and his government have had the smarts (and the courage) to negotiate the oil resource in Venezuela's favor, and the Venezuelan voters clearly approve of that smart policy.
What else should he do? Give all the profits to Dick Cheney's pals?
This criticism is so narrow-viewed, and so stupid, actually, that it never entertains the other alternative. What should the oil profits be used for, other than benefiting the poor majority with services that improve their ability to work, to create businesses and co-ops, and to advance themselves, and developing all of the elements needed to diversify?
That is not really "oil racketeering." It is productive. And it shows in Venezuela's nearly 10% economic growth rate over the last five years, with the most growth in the private sector (not including oil). That's what windfall profits should be used for--to develop other productive capacities. I can see no fault in it, other than the environmental danger that oil use and development pose. And the Chavez government--and all the other many leftist governments in South America--are infinitely better on environmental issues than previous rightwing regimes.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
