Monday, August 16, 2004
(9:28 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Further Chávez Watch
Although I am incapable of understanding the political events taking place in Venezuela due to the unfortunate accident of my having been born in the United States, I have decided to take an unscientific sample of the new coverage of the recent events in that nation.The Guardian's story is called, "Venezuela votes for Chávez amid cries of foul play," but in my opinion, the story could be more accurately entitled, "Venezuela votes for Chávez and here's how it affects oil prices." Jimmy Carter himself has certified the results of the vote, so the "cries of foul play" would seem to be the "cries" of those who just don't like the election results. Most of the coverage of the "cries" comes at the bottom of the story; right below the results of the election are how it affects oil prices: "Venezuela is the world's fifth largest oil producer and there had been fears that if Mr Chávez had lost, oil workers could have gone on strike in protest and disrupted shipments to the US." I think it's interesting that, in perhaps just this one case, the electoral victory of a leftist/populist ruler could be good for the global economy as a whole.
This editorial from the Guardian is also interesting; here's a good line: "The suggestion that a ruling politician may seek to win votes by embarking on policies that benefit the majority of voters is hardly a sensation in most democratic societies, including our own." Thing is, it actually is a sensation -- a big part of the negative reaction to Chávez among elites may be his rejection of the current opinion that government should do what is good for "the economy," then let "the economy" take care of the needs of the people. Chávez short-circuits that, and apparently the people of Venezuela -- who, let's assume, are not stupid and who can tell whether his policies have actually helped them or not -- want that kind of thing to continue.
The New York Times story is simply entitled "Venezuela Votes by Large Margin to Retain Chávez." Again, the three aspects of the story are in play: large margin, some people think there's fraud, what about the oil. The first three paragraphs demonstrate some of what I like about the Times as a newspaper, so I'll quote them here:
Venezuelans voted overwhelmingly to keep President Hugo Chávez in power, electoral authorities and international monitors said Monday. But a strident opposition movement refused to accept the results of the recall referendum, raising prospects for more turmoil in Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter.I can't remember the last time I read the word "pugnacious." This paragraph is also noteworthy:
Mr. Chávez, a pugnacious leftist populist who has already survived four national strikes and a brief coup, won handily after 8.5 million of Venezuela's 14 million registered voters swarmed polling stations in voting that began at 6 a.m. Sunday and ended well past midnight.
"The Venezuelan people have spoken and the people's voice is the voice of God!" said Mr. Chávez, holding a microphone and standing in a balcony of the Miraflores presidential palace in a predawn address. His victory eased world oil prices, which had been buffeted by concerns that a successful recall, and the ensuing violence that some expected, could disrupt production at the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela.
[The Chávez campaign] also spent handsomely on a campaign that frightened many Venezuelans into believing that a yes vote to recall Mr. Chávez would be a vote for American imperialism and the corrupt political parties that ruled this country in the past.I suppose the "American imperialism" aspect is debatable, but was there some new political force other than the previously extant political parties that ruled the country, and weren't they pretty corrupt? The use of the word "frighten" bothers me, along with the fact that the photo included is of a weeping opposition member -- the caption says that "gunmen" opened fire on opposition protesters, while the story makes clear that it was pro-Chávez demonstrators whom those same protestors had previously attacked. (The caption seems to give one the impression that the opposition protestors were just minding their own business when Chávez sent in some gunmen.)
The BBC has a series of quotes including the quote from a US State Department representative who calls for a full audit but doesn't see any particular evidence of fraud -- and this is actually starting to bother me, because in all these stories I'm reading, the opposition claims there is fraud, but the only reason they seem to believe that there is fraud is that Chávez won the fucking election. No specific allegations have shown up so far, yet often half of the story is taken up with detailing the specific hyperbole that Chávez's opponents have hurled against him. But perhaps the excessive hospitality granted to the opposition in news stories is parallel to the hospitality offered by the president himself, as in this CNN story:
In a news conference Monday, Chavez said he would claim "victory with humility."He's willing to work around their schedule! If they only have time for coffee, that's fine! We need more rulers like this! But I probably wouldn't want to have coffee with Chávez if I were an opposition member, given that this same CNN story quotes him as accusing the opposition as being behind the aforementioned attacks by pro-Chávez demonstrators. Reuters has a pretty interesting story that talks about possible future implications for Venezuela. BBC has a series of quotes on that as well.
He acknowledged that 40 percent of the country opposed him, "and they are Venezuelans too."
"It's never too late for us together to build a new era in Venezuela, because as of now we begin a new era of transformation," he said.
He added that he had invited opposition leaders to lunch, and they refused, but that the offer remains open.
"They can still come for dinner, for breakfast or even just coffee," he said.
"It's never too late. I mean this sincerely."
CBS offers us Fidel Castro's perspective on these momentous events:
Here is the story from Cuba's Granma newspaper.
Although President Castro has not yet commented on the referendum results, he announced last week that he was postponing the celebration of his 78th birthday for two days, because he wanted it to coincide with Chávez ’s election “triumph.”
Aljazeera addresses the Chávez story in the context of a wider-ranging article about political factors affecting global oil prices; they mention the fact that opposition leaders thought there was fraud, but refer to the election as a "triumph." Many Asian and Pacific sources, including Australian ones, appear to be focussing mainly on the two incidents of violence and on American reluctance to endorse the results quite yet: see here, here, here, and here.
Agenzia Giornalistica Italia reports that the Italian Communist Renaissance party is behind Chávez 100%.
There are nearly 2000 more stories on this issue on Google News. I recommend that you read them all, as I have.
