Hugo Chavez is dead. Long live something other than Hugo Chavez's tyranny.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So long, Hugo.

It's something of an understatement to say that I didn't much care for Hugo Chavez. Which isn't to say that I prefer the right-wing plutocratic opposition in Venezuela, which is no better, and possibly worse, than Chavez's left-wing authoritarianism. Suffice it to say that I would prefer a third way, something in between those two extremes.

And perhaps such a third way is possible now that Chavez, and the cult of personality that he brought to his authoritarian rule, is dead. Needless to say, this is a significant historical moment for Venezuela. Will it fully embrace constitutional democracy and individual liberty (if more along the lines of a social as opposed to liberal democracy)? Or will it collapse into strife, the populists and anti-populists fighting over which side deserves to oppress the Venezuelan people?

No, I didn't much care for Chavez, but I wish his country well.

Read more »

Behind the Ad: Mitt Romney and the spirit of Joe McCarthy

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive " Behind the Ad" series.)  

Who: The Romney-Ryan campaign.

Where: Florida.

What's going on: This Spanish-language ad uses comments by Fidel Castro's niece and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez that they would vote for Barack Obama. As The National Memo points out, so would most everyone else around the world. The ad also suggests Obama's policies resemble those of Chavez and Castro:

Romney is targeting the Cuban population of Florida who are the only Hispanics in America he is having much success attracting. President Obama garners nearly 70 percent of the Latino vote nationally, but in Florida his lead is a mere 4 points. The Cuban community makes up about 60 percent of Miami-Dade County’s Republican voters, where the ad is airing.

Separate Cubans out and the president leads with Hispanic voters in Florida 65-32. The connection with Castro is clearly designed to incite memories of the island regime that many Cuban-Americans or their relatives fled.

Romney is so pathetic. Red-baiting in 2012. Imagine. The stench of desperation is in the air.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Media bias against Hugo Chavez

Guest post by Frank Moraes

Ed. note : This is Frank's fifth guest spot for us (in addition to live-blogging the debate with us last night). You can find his first, on the recent 60 Minutes interviews with Obama and Romney, here; his second, on European monetary policy and Spanish austerity, here; his third, on conservative desperation, here; and his fourth, on Romney's Santa phony Santa routine, here.

As for this post, on Hugo Chavez's re-election in Venezuela, I can't say I'm in complete agreement with Frank. I've never much cared for Chavez, and I've got the posts to prove it (see this one, with links to others) -- I've noted his use of "salami tactics" to acquire authoritarian power and referred to him as The Tyrant of Caracas. But I'm a fair-minded guy, and there's certainly something to be said for the abject ignorance of the American media when it comes to Venezuela (as with so much else), and Frank makes a good case here.

-- MJWS 

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor with much too much education. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it is really hard to be a liberal, and writes the blog Frankly Curious.

**********

Question: How many U.S. newspapers does it take to predict the Venezuelan presidential election?

Answer: Predict it wrong? All of them!

Maybe it's just because I'm some godless socialist, but I think Hugo Chavez has been pretty good for Venezuela. There is no subject on which the mainstream media are more clearly biased. I get the impression we're supposed to think that Chavez is some evil despot like Saddam Hussein or Charles Taylor. But to me, he seems like a democratic socialist.

I was most struck by this when Chavez tried to get a constitutional amendment to eliminate the presidential term limit. The U.S. media reported that the amendment was to make him "president for life." Amazing. But then, when the amendment failed by a really small number of votes, Chavez was asked if he would contest the results. He replied that he wouldn't because he didn't want the constitution amended unless the country was really behind it. How did the media respond? He must have some evil socialist plot!

Contrast this to President Bush, who at that time had the 50%-plus-one vote strategy — the idea being that the narrowest of margins gave him a mandate to screw roughly half the nation. In this case, who seems like the statesman: Bush or Chavez? I realize that Bush doesn't set the bar very high. But Bush is always treated with respect by the mainstream media. The same cannot be said about Chavez.

Afterword

Before anyone starts yelling at me that Chavez did this or that: stop! I don't doubt that Chavez is imperfect. I remember his infamous "Bush is Satan" speech at the U.N. But that is not what the U.S. media coverage of him is about. Chavez is a socialist. But that isn't it either. He's an advocate of the working class. But that isn't it either. He's nationalized industries and that has hurt profits for various corporations. Bingo!

Further, I really don't want to hear from people who know Chavez only through U.S. media coverage. It is clearly biased. No pretense is made at objectivity. If anyone can send me even to typical he said / she said coverage of Chavez, I will be grateful. And surprised.

Update 1

Via Corey Robin, Business Week writes:

Under Chavez, poverty fell to 31.6 percent at the end of 2011 from about 50 percent when he first took office. Extreme poverty declined to 8.5 percent from about 20 percent over the same period. Venezuela has the lowest level of inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the United Nations. 

But coming from Business Week, this is probably meant as an indictment.

Update 2

Yes! Mark Weisbrot writing in The Guardian: "Why the US demonises Venezuela's democracy." The subtitle is, "Venezuela is about to hold impeccably free and fair elections. Yet the US treats it as a dictatorship." Go read it. It's good. 

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Foreign policy ignoramus Mitt Romney set to fight Cold War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From Think Progress:

Romney's campaign often sounds like it still wants to fight the Cold War. Romney himself said that Russia is the U.S.'s "number one geopolitical foe" (a statement that even Colin Powell mocked) and back in April, a Romney adviser criticized President Obama's "Czechoslovakia" policy. Today during a foreign policy debate at the Brookings Institution, senior Romney adviser Richard Williamson, attacking Obama's Syria policy, said the Middle East country is "strategically important to the Soviet Union."

At some point it's not just an innocent mistake anymore. We're past that point.

**********

And from the Obama campaign (which includes us on its media distribution list and has included us in its blog round-ups, for which we're grateful), ten of Romney's foreign policy fails, important to note as he travels overseas, plays up his non-existent bona fides, and lies about President Obama:

Two hundred and ninety-one days after his last foreign policy speech, Mitt Romney stood up once more to deliver a major foreign policy plan and -- once again -- failed to offer any new or even credible policy ideas.

Romney has long displayed a significant lack of knowledge and experience over the years when it comes to foreign policy. But the commander-in-chief only has one chance to make the right decision.

Here's a look at ten times Romney and his campaign got it wrong:

1.      Romney "has been especially vague about how many U.S. forces he would keep in Afghanistan" and has no detailed plan for our engagement in the country.

2.      Romney's campaign said "real Americans" don't care what Romney’s Afghanistan policy is.

3.      Before Osama bin Laden's death, Romney said he wouldn't go into Pakistan if we had bin Laden in our sights and that it was "not worth moving heaven and earth" to find bin Laden.

4.      Romney pledged "to do the opposite" of what President Obama has done for Israel, which includes record-level security funding.

5.      Romney called Russia, a strategic partner of the United States on vital issues, America's "number one geopolitical foe."

6.      When asked how he'd approach going to war with Iran, Romney has said he'd defer to his lawyers: "You sit down with your attorneys" so they can "tell you what you have to do."

7.      Romney has said that bringing all our troops home from Iraq was "tragic" and that it was a "naked political calculation."

8.      Romney "fled down a hallway and escaped up an escalator" to avoid answering a reporter about his position on the NATO mission in Libya.

9.      Romney called the fading power of Venezeula's leader Hugo Chavez a serious threat to our national security.

10.    Romney's campaign said President Obama was not doing enough to protect Czechoslovakia -- a country that no longer exists -- from "the Soviets."

Reckless and stupid isn't a good combination for the Oval Office when it comes to anything, but especially foreign policy.

And Mitt's got it in spades.

Another salami slice: Chavez regime buys stake in opposition TV network, Venezuela moves closer to total authoritarian rule

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Readers of this blog, or who are otherwise familiar with my writing, will know that I detest Hugo Chavez, the Tyrant of Caracas. Whether it's of the left or right, or any other kind, I abhor tyranny, and Chavez has shown over the years that he is very much the tyrant, however much he may spin his authoritarianism as revolutionary populism.

I have written extensively on Chavez's tyranny in Venezuela -- see, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here -- describing his devious methods of aquiring ever more centralized power as "salami tactics," that is, slice-by-slice. Here's how I put it back in September '07:

[I]t is clear that Hugo Chavez is using salami tactics in his drive to establish so-called "Bolivarean" socialism -- that is, his own national-socialist autocratic rule -- in that country... Sometimes revolution can be achieved without sudden, dramatic bloodletting. There are a number of different prongs to Chavez's continuing revolution, a number of slices. They may be examined individually, but they are best understood as variations of the same, as components of a single overarching plan. The nationalization of industry, the seizure of private property, repression of dissent and opposition, control of the media, one-party rule, rule by decree, and, soon, the removal of constitutional impediments to the permanent and perpetual rule of the leader himself.

The pattern is clear. One slice, then another, and another, and another, with no one slice so grave as to compel anyone to act (although there are courageous opponents of Chavez's tyranny in Venezuela, and there was a coup, if not one worthy of much admiration, in 2002). 

Chavez has a long history of seeking to repress, salami-slice-style, any and all dissent and opposition to his rule, and specifically of seeking to control the outlets of dissent and opposition, particularly private industry and the media. And he's at it again. As the BBC is reporting:

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has said his government is due to take control of a minority stake in the country's main anti-Chavez television channel, Globovision.

The government would then be entitled to appoint a member of the channel's board of directors, Mr Chavez said.

His government has been in conflict with Globovision for several years.

It accuses the broadcaster of supporting a failed coup attempt against Mr Chavez in 2002.

If the plan goes through, the Venezuelan government could be on the verge of becoming an important shareholder in a television company dedicated to criticising its policies. 

To be fair, there is much to dislike about some of Chavez's opponents, many of whom are not democrats but oligarchs who would likely move the country far to the right -- and, of course, most of Latin America has had a long and bloody history of right-wing politics.

But there is really no excuse for what Chavez is doing, even if what he is doing lacks the heavy-handedness of the common tyrant. He knows, I'm sure, that he can't just crack down on, and censor, opposition media. That would look bad and undermine whatever pseudo-democratic credibility he has. Instead, he's worming his way into the key opposition media outlet by buying into it. Once in place, he will seek to control it, or at least to do enough to undermine it as a viable and influential voice for the opposition.

In this case, the Chavez government recently took over two companies, including a bank, owned by Globovision co-founder Nelson Mezerhane. As the two companies together own 25.8% of Globovision, Chavez is claiming that the state (i.e., Chavez himself) now controls that much of Globovision and should be allowed to appoint a board member. See? Another slice. On its own, it's an egregious move but hardly one that will likely arouse much popular outrage -- indeed, Chavez's supporters and government-run media will celebrate it as yet another step in the right Bolivarean direction. After all, it's just a minority stake and all he seems to want is a single board member. What's so wrong with that?

Well, other than the fact that the state is taking over private industry, the move can't be taken on its own. It's part of a larger pattern, of a larger effort on Chavez's part to suppress his opposition and rule Venezuela with an authoritarian hand. And so if it's just 25.8% now, who's to say it won't eventually be 50.1%? And if it's just one board member now, who's to say Globovision won't eventually be fully under Chavez's control? And with that, a significant slice would have been made, all for the sake of the tyranny of Hugo Chavez, which is all that this is really about.

With such salami tactics, there is a tendency to ignore them, or to downplay them, to make light of them, and to fail to connect the dots. But take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Hugo Chavez is a tyrant who is actively seeking to acquire ever more control over his country and to remove any and all obstacles to his authoritarian rule. He certainly seems to be smart enough to go about it in a rather under-the-radar sort of way, and it's disturbing that so many on the left refuse to acknowledge what's going on and continue to give him the benefit of the doubt (if they doubt him at all), but, if you're paying attention, what he's doing is clear and should be of great concern, to say the least, to anyone who cares about liberty, democracy, and the welfare of the Venezuelan people.

Tyrant on Twitter: Hugo Chavez takes to social networking

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As the proprietor of this blog, and generally as a blogger who has made a tiny bit of a name for himself, I find myself on a lot of mailing lists. Some are fine (Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's and Rep. Steny Hoyer's, for example), some annoy me (most of the conservative/Republican ones), and some are just downright amusing (if not in a funny way) -- such as that of the "Embassy of the Bolivarian Republican of Venezuela to the U.S.," which, as you might expect, bombards me with bombastic pro-Chavez propaganda.

I suppose I'm on that mailing list because I've written extensively on Chavez, though hardly in a friendly way. I prefer to call him "The Tyrant of Caracas." (See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Yes, it's pretty clear I loathe him.)

Anyway, whatever. I usually ignore the e-mails, but it's helpful, I suppose, to get the propaganda straight from the source, via a diplomatic channel in Washington.

What I learned yesterday is that Chavez is a big hit on Twitter:

Just two weeks after joining Twitter, President Hugo Chavez has become Venezuela's most followed user of the online social network, with over 265,000 followers as of Monday, May 10. He is also amongst the only heads of state that is using the network to directly engage with followers, both in Venezuela and around the world.

President Chavez joined Twitter on April 28, and within 12 hours had gained more than 45,000 followers. Since then, his Twitter account – @chavezcandanga – has gained followers at a rate sometimes exceeding 1,000 per hour. It is estimated that within the first month of use, President Chavez will gain one million followers.

While his first tweets were merely informational, on May 3 he began responding directly to other Twitter users, a practice replicated by virtually none of the other heads of state that use the service. (His first response was to a Mexican girl, to whom he wished a happy birthday to her sister.) He has also taken to responding to tweets during presidential addresses and speeches.

His is certainly a dictatorship with a smiley face. And while he may be popular on Twitter, it's apparent that social networking does not discriminate against tyranny. Hitler no doubt would have been bigger than Ashton Kutcher.

Barack Obama and American strength

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I wrote on Sunday about the Obama-Chavez handshake, the one that has stirred up so much hypocritical ado on the right. One of the points I made was that it wasn't a sign of weakness on Obama's part -- a sign that Obama is somehow a friend of Chavez's tyranny, a sign that the U.S. has somehow gone soft post-Bush -- but rather a sign of strength.

Yesterday at Slate, Fred Kaplan addressed that point eloquently:

The shockwaves over the handshake might best be explained as a hangover from the long years of George W. Bush's presidency, when dealings with those who disliked us were expressly forbidden, out of a vague fear that such contact might debilitate us or legitimize them. This fear is what was "not helpful." It tended to elevate the standing of a pipsqueak like Chávez; it made him seem more ominous than he was, and it made America seem like a he-man who's frightened by a mouse. By contrast, Obama's insouciant civility, far from appearing weak, strikes a chord of sense and self-confidence.

Furthermore:

As for less-friendly countries like Venezuela, though Obama did not say so, an unthreatening picture of America at the very least takes the wind out of Chávez, who has built power, at home and in some quarters abroad, by waving his fist at America and likening George Bush to "el diablo." And, who knows, it might maneuver Chávez more into our lane, too. "Even within this imaginative crowd," Obama said to the press corps, "I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of... having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela."

Agreed. In contrast to Bush and Cheney and their ilk, Obama believes in America strongly enough not to turn international relations into a simplistic battle between "us" and "them," with us hiding behind our barricades and refusing even to engage those with whom we disagree other to bombard them with self-righteous rhetoric and, literally, bombs.

With Obama in the White House, it is a new age for America and the world, much of which is looking again at America as a source of good. America is strong again, and we all better for it.

Venezuela voting: The entrenchment of Hugo Chavez's tyranny

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Over the weekend, as you might have heard, Venezuelans voted to lift the constitutional term-limit restriction on elected officials, thereby allowing Tyrant Chavez to run for re-election and essentially to remain in power as long as he wants. It was a huge victory for Chavez, who in December of 2007 lost a previous referendum on this and other constitutional reforms.

As I wrote at the time -- and I have written extensively (and critically) here on Chavez's slice-by-slice acquisition of power -- the 2007 referendum was not about reforming the constitution so much as it was about entrenching Chavez's tyrannical rule: "He threatened to resign if his reforms were defeated, if he was defeated, but he won't. This vote may slow down his 'revolution,' his slice-by-slice coup, his gradual acquisition of tyrannical rule, but he will remain in power and he will try again. And again. Until he gets what he wants."

And, yes, he tried again... and succeeded, winning about 54% of the vote.

"The doors of the future are wide open," he speechified from the balcony of his presidential palace, but, in reality, they're closed. The future is Chavez and Chavez alone -- 54% of voters made sure of that -- who will run for re-election in 2012 and, of course, win.

Of course, it was not an entirely free and fair vote, nor one that fully reflects the will of the Venezuelan people -- oh, sure, observers said it was free and fair, but it clearly wasn't. "Opposition figures... said victory had been achieved thanks to huge government funding and blanket state television coverage," reported the BBC (link above). "In 10 years we have had 15 elections, 15, and this has been the most unequal, the most abusive campaign of all," said opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez. "So that's why you are seeing more propaganda, more campaigning, more advertisement for the 'yes' vote."

As well, turnout was fairly low, if higher than in 2007, with just 11 million of 17 million eligible voters casting ballots. According to the BBC, "Chavez managed to persuade more of his supporters to vote, as turnout was considerably higher than in 2007. One factor was probably the change in the wording of the question, so that this time voters decided on whether term limits would be lifted for all officials not just the president." Not that it really matters about other elected officials. The vote was about Chavez, and he did what he had to do to win, pushing propaganda and getting his supporters to the polls.

Still, as bleak as this all seems -- and I remain a fervent foe of Chavez and his regime (and, weirdly, and not by my own doing, I'm now on the mailing list of the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, which spits out predictable propaganda) -- there may be a "silver lining," as Alvaro Vargas Llosa has suggested:

Hugo Chavez's victory in Sunday's constitutional referendum in Venezuela will allow him to run for re-election indefinitely, but it does not mean he will be able to establish a totalitarian state anytime soon.

*****

Even though the opposition was not able to defeat Chavez this time, the referendum confirmed that he still faces millions of Venezuelans who abhor his regime. The opposition obtained 45.6 percent of the vote -- 9 percentage points more than in 2006, when Chavez won his third term. The "no" vote won in five key states and got more than 40 percent in nine others. He was only able to win in one of the five states governed by the opposition -- and lost the state of Merida, governed by a Chavista.

If in next year's legislative elections the opposition obtains similar results, it will control almost half of the National Assembly -- a big shift with respect to the current situation, with Chavez in total control because the opposition boycotted legislative elections in 2005.

Perhaps more significantly, the results confirm that Chavez's base in the major urban centers, where Venezuela's biggest slums are concentrated, has been seriously eroded: His power is increasingly reliant on the more rural or provincial parts of the country.

Well, okay. Good.

The problem is that Chavez is still in power, and will remain in power, and still controls the levers of power, and is more powerful than he was last week. So while there may be cause for optimism -- with the country seemingly trending against Chavez -- tyranny, if not quite totalitarianism, is still the order of the day. And that isn't about to change anytime soon.

Terrifying the Jews

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In other words, McCain's latest campaign strategy.

We saw it in Pennsylvania, where prominent Republicans sent out an e-mail to Jewish voters likening the situation in 2008 to the situation in Europe in the 1930s and '40s (with Obama akin to Neville Chamberlain, an enabler of evil -- then the Nazis, now Iran).

And we're seeing it again in a new McCain ad likely to be aired in Florida (if it hasn't started airing already).

Via Benen, the ad says this:

Iran. Radical Islamic government. Known sponsors of terrorism. Developing nuclear capabilities to 'generate power' but threatening to eliminate Israel.

Obama says Iran is a "tiny" country, "doesn't pose a serious threat." Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren't "serious threats"?

Obama -- dangerously unprepared to be president.

Let's go to the video tape!

What Obama actually said, back in May, was that Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela are "are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." (And his point was that the U.S. engaged a superpower like the Soviet Union diplomatically, so why not an enemy like Iran?)

Which, of course, is absolutely true. Cuba isn't a threat at all, Venezuela has oil, and Iran may or may not have nuclear weapon capability sometime in the future. Last time I checked, these rogue states didn't have thousands of missiles pointed at the U.S. (or anywhere else, for that matter, including Israel). (As for Iran, Ahmadinejad is mostly bluster aimed at domestic consumption. I don't like him, and I certainly don't approve of such anti-Israel sentiment, nor of Iran's sponsorship of some terrorist organizations, but let's not exaggerate the threat. It's not in any way an immediate one.)

But no matter to McCain, whose campaign is all about lying and smearing and deceiving and otherwise trying to scare the hell out of voters, to portray Obama both as a dark and dangerous Other and as an enemy to Israel.

Fucking nonsense on both counts.

FISA revision revisited

By Carol Gee

Surveillance news alerts were most recently published here on May 21. It is time again for an update; and it may be time to say no to Congress again. The White House claims that something must be done to immunize the telecommunications companies who have been assisting with foreign and domestic surveillance using warrantless wiretaps. Revisions to FISA legislation were made in August of 2007 with the passage of the Protect America Act. Current authorities in use by the National Security Agency surveillance programs will expire in August of 2008. The House leadership is currently attempting to reach a deal on new legislation, having rejected the Senate version that is acceptable to the White House.

Leading the opposition, and holding their annual membership conference just this week and last, the "ACLU Says No Deal on an Unconstitutional FISA Compromise" (6/5/2008) from their website. In contrast, it appears that Senator John McCain is again willing to be a willing ally for our current president (OCP), who wants Congress to grant retroactive immunity for facilitating illegal spying on Americans.

"McCain's Ties To Telecoms Questioned After Wiretapping Flip-Flop" is the story by Ryan Singel, (6/9/08) at Wired - Threat Level. This is not the first instance of McCain switching positions in order to appeal to his traditional Republican base. (Glenn Greenwald, as usual, has the complete story on this matter. And one of his readers put together a very interesting FISA Wiki). To quote Wired:

If you've been wondering where all the telecom lobbyists went to lick their wounds after the House rejected retroactive immunity for wiretapping, the Electronic Frontier Foundation says it's found a bunch of them smack dab in the middle of John McCain's presidential campaign organization.

The group suggested Friday that the swell of current and former telecom lobbyists in the McCain camp might have something to do with the candidate's recent reversal on the legality of warrantless wiretapping. His most recent position "reads a lot like the talking points that a telecom lobbyist might employ," writes EFF senior staff attorney Kurt Opsahl.

McCain has long supported amnesty for telecoms who cooperated with Bush's warrantless domestic spying, but until recently questioned the legality of the program. After zig-zagging on the issue over the last few weeks, he eventually settled on a position nearly identical to President Bush's -- that presidential war-making powers trump the law when it comes to warrantless wiretapping.

Earlier FISA legislation news written by Andrew Tilghman - June 4, 2008, at TPM Muckraker, intimates that there may be a Deal in the Works for FISA Law. Time after time, Congressional Democrats have caved in to pressure from OCP and members of his administration. Let us hope this is not the case in this instance. Activists may again be called upon to shore up wavering Democrats who fear being called unpatriotic. To quote:

House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) may have agreed to a compromise on a deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws.

A report in Congress Daily says Reyes is "fine" with the Republican-brokered deal that would "leave it up to the secret FISA court to grant retroactive legal immunity" to telecoms that helped the Bush administration's warrantless conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens.

An even earlier warrantless wiretapping post by Ryan Singel, from Wired - Threat Level (5/29/08) is titled, "Spy Bill 'Compromise' Still Gives Amnesty to Telcoms, But Adds Trappings of Justice." In this instance compromise does not require giving in to the administration's unremitting lies, fear mongering and pressure. Stay tuned. To quote:

House and Senate leaders are still bargaining over how far to expand the government's domestic spying powers and whether to grant retroactive legal amnesty to companies that violated federal privacy laws by helping the government spy on Americans.

But if a proposal from the top Republican from the Senate Intelligence committee is any indicator, telecom amnesty would be all but assured in any final bill.

Last Thursday, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Missouri) announced his version of a compromise (.pdf), which would move 40 or so lawsuits facing telecoms accused of helping the government warrantlessly spy on Americans to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Bond has been working with Rep. Steny Hoyer, from the House leadership, who has been a vocal opponent of telecom amnesty.

Meanwhile other countries made the news recently with their own spy stories. Dandelion Salad's Stephen Lendman wrote (6/9/08) that "Chavez [is] revising, not revoking Venezuela's new intelligence law." To quote:

Over the weekend, Chavez showed his mettle as a democratic leader. He acknowledged “errors” in the newly enacted Law on Intelligence and Counterintelligence and will fix them to assure it fully complies with Venezuela’s Constitution.

He gave examples and cited Article 16 that cites the possibility of prison terms for persons not cooperating with intelligence services. It’s a “mistake,” said Chavez and “not a small (one).” The new intelligence services won’t oblige anyone to inform on others. Doing so is “overstepping,” and “I assume responsibility” for the error and will fix it.

Germany is worried that Russia is involved in widespread industrial espionage, according to The Middle East Times story which says: "The German government has accused foreign intelligence services -- blaming mainly Russian agents -- of having spied on German companies."

I will regularly focus on FISA issues raising civil liberties questions. The next post will come Saturday.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Around the World: Venezuela, Kenya, Chad, South Africa, Taiwan, and Georgia

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Quick links to some interesting international stories:

1) Venezuela: Anti-Semitism seems to be on the rise in Venezuela. Hardly surprising. After all, Hugo Chavez is best buddies with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

2) Kenya: Memories of Rwanda. One of the preferred weapons in the bloody post-election clashes among the various tribes -- Kikuyo, Luo, Kalenjin, etc. -- is the machete. (For background, see here.)

3) Chad: An EU peacekeeping force may be deployed as early as this month. Most of the 4,000 troops will be French, but their task, an enormous one, will be to protect about 400,000 refugees from Darfur.

4) South Africa: Finally, at long last, a black coach of the national rugby team. The Springboks will be renamed the Proteas as one of the last bastions of apartheid-era racism is uncovered and reformed.

5) Taiwan: The victory of the opposition Kuomintang party in Saturday's parliamentary elections could mean closer relations with China. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party, which supports Taiwanese independence, won only 27 of the 113 seats, with the Kuomintang picking up 81. Thankfully, most Taiwanese want the country to remain independent.

6) Georgia: Thousands took to the streets of Tbilisi today to protest last weekend's presidential election, which opposition groups say was rigged. President Mikhail Saakashvili, who came to power in 2003's Rose Revolution, "won" the election with 53 percent of the vote. (For my take on Saakashvili, a pro-western tyrant, see here.)

The first casualty of tyranny is intelligence

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Regular readers of this blog, and perhaps others as well, will know that I am no fan of Hugo Chavez -- and that's putting it mildly. I have called him "The Tyrant of Caracas," writing post after post detailing his ongoing pursuit of absolutism, his brutalization of Venezuela, his dreams of anti-American supremacy. He calls himself a socialist, a Bolivarean revolutionary, a man of the oppressed masses, but, in truth, he is an abusive, egotistical thug. That's it in a nutshell. For more, see here (written before the recent referendum, which I was almost sure he would win -- he didn't, but he'll try again to acquire the powers denied to him by a majority of voters).

Still -- allow me to take a deep breath -- he's not all bad. Or, rather, not everything he does is bad. Consider, for example, his efforts to free the hostages held by FARC, Colombia's "Revolutionary Armed Forces," one of the world's more atrocious terrorist organizations. Here's The Guardian with the latest developments:

A mission spearheaded by Hugo Chávez and Oliver Stone to free three hostages held by Marxist guerrillas in the Colombian jungle was on a knife-edge last night after the rebels failed to deliver on the promised handover.

Venezuelan military helicopters bearing the Red Cross insignia sat for a third day in Villavicencio, a small town on the edge of Colombia's vast eastern jungles where the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as Farc, holds sway. They waited in vain for the guerrillas to tell them where to fly to inside the rebel-controlled zone to pick up the hostages.

The mission is being watched by Latin American leaders, the US, France and other countries with citizens among the 3,000 hostages being held by Farc. They hope that the championing by Chávez -- the Venezuelan president -- of a political solution involving the exchange of hostages for jailed guerrillas could open the door to further releases.

A group of 10 international observers from Latin America, France and Switzerland included the unlikely late addition of Stone, a Hollywood director, who was invited to join the rescue mission only a week ago when he met Chávez in Caracas. Chávez quipped that Stone was George Bush's emissary to the operation; Stone in return called Mr Chávez a "great man". The two flew together to Colombia at the weekend on the presidential jet.

In an interview from Villavicencio with Associated Press, Stone said he had no illusions about Farc, "but it looks like they are a peasant army fighting for a decent living. And here, if you fight, you fight to win."

As bad as Chavez is, FARC is worse, and if it takes an abusive, egotistical thug like Chavez to work out a diplomatic solution, so be it. (For more on FARC, see here. See also Robert Kaplan's discussion of FARC and its atrocities -- and of U.S. special forces operations in Colombia, which is another issue entirely -- in his brilliant Imperial Grunts. This is a group that commits mass murder, engages in horrifying acts of brutality, profits off the drug trade, and essentially enslaves children.) Let's hope something good comes of this -- namely, the release of the hostages.

But what about Oliver Stone's involvement in this? I have long been a defender of Stone the filmmaker. I don't like all of his movies, but two of his more controversial efforts, JFK and Nixon, are genuine masterpieces -- not of veracity, perhaps, but certainly of filmmaking. And, of course, he has long had an interest in radical left-wing politics -- in Latin America, in particular. (See Salvador, for example.) Much of this interest, and much of the attention he has brought to his championed causes, has been worthy both of admiration and of emulation.

But it is one thing to address the plight of the downtrodden and to cast light on the operations of, say, right-wing death squads in El Salvador, quite another to go so far as to call Chavez a "great man" and to make apologies for FARC. Chavez is no "great man" in liberal and democratic terms, nor even in historical terms, whatever his aspirations, and FARC isn't some "peasant army fighting for a decent living" in the violent jungles of Colombia. On the latter point, one needn't side with the government in Bogota or approve of U.S. operations in Colombia in order to see FARC for what it is. It isn't an either/or situation. Unfortunately, Oliver Stone, in what may be a case of anti-American zeal, seems to think that it is. Either that, or he doesn't know what he's talking about -- a distinct possibility, to be sure.

Regardless, such stupidity notwithstanding, what matters here is the success of the effort -- the release of the hostages. But what then? What if the effort succeeds and the hostages are traded for guerrillas? Well, Chavez will still be Chavez and FARC will still be FARC. The former will continue his pursuit of absolutism; the latter will continue with its various atrocities.

Oliver Stone film(s) to follow, illusions and all.

The military and the tyrant: Reflections on the referendum in Venezuela

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From Newsweek (via Ed Morrissey):

Most of Latin America's leaders breathed a sigh of relief earlier this week, after Venezuelan voters rejected President Hugo Chávez's constitutional amendment referendum. In private they were undoubtedly relieved that Chávez lost, and in public they expressed delight that he accepted defeat and did not steal the election. But by midweek enough information had emerged to conclude that Chávez did, in fact, try to overturn the results. As reported in El Nacional, and confirmed to me by an intelligence source, the Venezuelan military high command virtually threatened him with a coup d'état if he insisted on doing so. Finally, after a late-night phone call from Raúl Isaías Baduel, a budding opposition leader and former Chávez comrade in arms, the president conceded—but with one condition: he demanded his margin of defeat be reduced to a bare minimum in official tallies, so he could save face and appear as a magnanimous democrat in the eyes of the world. So after this purportedly narrow loss Chávez did not even request a recount, and nearly every Latin American colleague of Chávez's congratulated him for his "democratic" behavior.

This from Jorge Castañeda, former Mexican foreign minister and now a global distinguished professor at New York University, likely a reputable source.

For my comments on Chavez's ruler-for-life referendum, see here (before) and here (after). Here's how I put it in the former: "The entire process has been rigged, and the referendum is no exception. If he can't win through intimidation, he will find some other way. Whatever the polls say, Chavez's power grab is pretty much a sure thing."

It may still be a sure thing -- he will try again and he may well succeed.

(Ed predicts he will target the military: "He will have to find some way to diminish the military command to reduce their threat to his regime, so expect some show trials and mass purges in the next couple of years. Once he has reduced the military threat to his regime, the next vote will go Hugo's way, regardless of the will of the Venezuelan electorate.")

As for this past referendum, I thought he would win -- or rig it to win. My error, it would seem, was not taking into account the will of the Venezuelan military. It may have been motivated more by self-preservation than by a commitment to democracy, but at least its last-minute stand against Chavez's encroaching tyranny enabled the will of the Venezuelan people to prevail.

For the time being.

**********

At TNR, Georgetown professor Michael Shifter is more optimistic, interpreteting the "stunning" referendum result as "the beginning of the end" for Chavez:

Chávez's loss reveals his domestic vulnerability and the limits of his aggressive petrodiplomacy. True, he will continue to seek to expand his influence in Latin America, even beyond such close allies as Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia. He will lose his ideal foil when Bush leaves office in January 2009, but he will continue his belligerent verbal assaults on the United States and will move to strengthen links with anti-US regimes like Iran. None of that is likely to change. After all, Chávez remains on a mission that is essentially about extending power, but after last Sunday's setback , it is unlikely that Chávez, for all his political talents, will succeed in reversing his regime's decay.

Yet this conclusion seems to be at odds with much of the rest of Shifter's piece, including this:

The loss, his first in nearly nine years in power, must have been tough for Chávez, but he shouldn't be underestimated. To his credit, he quickly acknowledged defeat, thereby fending off international opprobrium for a regime already under intense scrutiny. His claim to enhanced legitimacy -- in a democracy, you win some and you lose some -- might gain Chávez some favor with foreign governments troubled by his authoritarian moves. Most importantly, Chávez's existent power was not on the line in this vote. Despite emerging fissures, he still controls all key institions -- the courts, the National Assembly, the armed forces -- and will continue to do so. The Constitution of 1999, which Chávez designed, gives him enormous powers and allows him to remain in office until 2013. Time is on his side, and he has plenty of money to spend.

Indeed, Chávez may have been gracious in defeat, but he certainly hasn't given up. He invoked the phrase that catapulted him to political stardom after his failed coup attempt in 1992, saying "We couldn't do it, for now." It seems he will use other means -- such as his broad decree powers or another constitutional assembly -- to relentlessly pursue his plan of 21st Century Socialism, including indefinite reelection. Moderation or backtracking is out of character and should not be expected. Chávez is a consummate military man who thrives on combat and disdains the give-and-take of democratic politics. He is a shrewd political operator who tends to strike back quickly (rhetorically, at least) when he feels vulnerable. As in the past, he could well turn the loss to his advantage and emerge even stronger.

And therein lies the key point: Chavez may have lost this battle, but he remains in power and in control of much of the country. The referendum was not a vote on his tyranny but rather on allowing him to extend his tyranny -- and, indeed, he remains a tyrant.

He came close to overturning the outcome of the vote but apparently had the good sense not to. That doesn't mean he accepted the outcome of the vote, just that he decided for tactical reasons to take the fight elsewhere.

Temporarily aligned against him, however much at cross-purposes, are the military high command and various and largely impotent opposition groups, and perhaps also a large chunk of the Venezuelan people, and he will take the fight to them in other, non-electoral arenas.

There is hardly any reason to be optimistic. The end has not begun.

And he will try again, later.

DA! and NO!

By MSS

Russian voters Sunday gave a huge "DA!" to President Vladimir Putin in legislative elections that were a de-facto referendum on extending Putin's "national leader" status beyond the scheduled expiration of his presidential tenure next spring.

Meanwhile, Venezuelan voters narrowly gave a "NO!" to the referendum called by President Hugo Chávez to extend his own tenure, as well as his powers and the role of the state in the economy.

I am unsurprised by the Russian result. Some months ago I said Putin's party would win two thirds to three fourths of the seats, despite polls at the time that said 47% of the vote. It would appear that United Russia will have right around 70% of the seats. Stay tuned as to whether this is a step towards having the power to amend the constitution and abolish the term limit, or whether he will find other ways to exercise the dominance that he will claim a mandate for.

I am surprised by the Venezuela result. Pleasantly so. A 51-49 YES would have been a terrible outcome. A 51-49 NO could be salutary.

A couple of paragraphs from Monday's LA Times well sum up what Venezuela's voters turned down:

Chavez's goal is authoritarian in nature, said Agustin Blanco Munoz, a researcher at Central University of Venezuela who wrote a biography based partially on jailhouse interviews he conducted after Chavez was imprisoned for leading the unsuccessful 1992 coup attempt.

"His model isn't communism or socialism. It's a varnish, a cover for a personalist system that exalts Chavez above all else as the caudillo, the new messiah, not the collective society," Blanco Munoz said.

On the Russian vote, it is interesting that the other parties on the ballot listed the top three candidates on their national lists, whereas United Russia listed only Putin. The Times reported that many voters appeared unaware that it was a legislative election. Clearly, that was Putin's intent, by abolishing the nominal tier of the former electoral system, and by creating the mass movement demanding him to stay on. Putin continues to deny he intends a third term. Will he be convinced otherwise, by the great "democratic outpouring"?

Turnout was only around 55% in Venezuela, meaning only around 28% of those eligible actually voted no. But good enough, for now, anyway. Russia's turnout was around 60%, so only about 38% of the eligible electorate has endorsed this overwhelming majority. But good enough.

**
The above was originally posted on Monday at fruitsandvotes.com/, where there is also a more extensive (and "political-sciency") discussion of "The electoral path to authoritarianism." The latter post has an extensive and very interesting comment thread, thanks to several very knowledgeable readers from around the world.

Thanks to Michael for reminding me of my blogging privileges here as a member of The Reaction team!

CHAVEZ LOSES

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Wow.

Truly astonishing.

Hugo Chavez has lost.

In a nation-wide referendum held on Sunday, Venezuelans voted against the constitutional reforms proposed by Chavez and approved by his parliamentary rubber-stampers.

For background, see my previous post here.

And make sure to check out our friend Daniel at Venezuela News and Views, that country's courageous voice of liberalism in the blogosphere.

The vote was, for a time, too close to call. Officials were citing exit polls showing the YES side ahead, but the opposition was claiming that the NO side would prevail.

The National Electoral Council has declared, however, that the NO side won 51-49 -- see the BBC for the latest (and see also a Q&A and additional background).

Here's the Times:

The results were a stunning defeat for a leader who was trying to extend already broad powers and lead his country in a radical new direction.

The commission said 50.7 percent voted against the referendum and 49.3 percent voted in favor. The results were all the more surprising given that Mr. Chávez and his supporters control nearly all of the levers of power.

"The result is quarrelsome," Vice President Jorge Rodríguez said in comments broadcast on national television.

Quarrelsome -- an odd choice of adjective. Evidently, you are being hostile and contentious and combative if you don't support Chavez's tyrannical ways.

Democracy has prevailed in Venezuela. For now.

**********

The Times article has been updated:

It was the first major electoral defeat in the nine years of his presidency. Voters rejected the 69 proposed amendments 51 to 49 percent.

The political opposition erupted into celebration, shooting fireworks into the air and honking car horns, when electoral officials announced the results at 1:20 a.m. The nation had remained on edge since polls closed Sunday afternoon and the wait for results began.

The outcome is a stunning development in a country where Mr. Chávez and his supporters control nearly all of the levers of power. Almost immediately after the results were broadcast on state television, Mr. Chávez conceded defeat, describing the results as a "photo finish."

"I congratulate my adversaries for this victory," he said. "For now, we could not do it."

For now -- which is to ask, what now?

Hard to say. Honestly, I did not predict this. In fact, I thought Chavez would find a way to win, any way.

He threatened to resign if his reforms were defeated, if he was defeated, but he won't. This vote may slow down his "revolution," his slice-by-slice coup, his gradual acquisition of tyrannical rule, but he will remain in power and he will try again. And again. Until he gets what he wants.

The people have spoken and rebuked him by a narrow margin, but they have not stopped him.

Trouble for Hugo

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Venezuelans are set to go to the polls this coming Sunday, December 2, to vote in a referendum on constitutional reforms that would expand President Hugo Chavez's powers and allow him to remain in power indefinitely (with the abolition of presidential term limits).

There seemed to be no doubt, at first, that passage was inevitable. Chavez would win, or, put differently, would not allow himself to lose. But recent polls suggest that the outcome is uncertain. Indeed, some polls put the No side in the lead. And Chavez, the Tyrant of Caracas, is not amused:

President Hugo Chávez is encountering unexpectedly strong opposition to a referendum on constitutional reform which would cement his rule in Venezuela, with violent clashes between rival demonstrations and security forces feeding a mood that the country is at a turning point.

According to opinion polls, the socialist leader could lose this Sunday's vote amid unease over his radical policies and ambition to stay in power for decades.

Defections from his movement's ranks and food shortages have galvanised a student-led opposition campaign which is due to climax at a final rally in downtown Caracas today.

Defeat would stymie Chávez's effort to abolish term limits and oblige him to step down in five years. He has expressed a desire to keep running for president until 2030.

The president, a formidable and charismatic campaigner, has cast the referendum as a verdict on his rule and said anyone who supported him but voted against would be a traitor. "It's black and white. A vote against the reform is a vote against Chávez," he told state television.

He said he would enter a period of "profound reflection" if he lost, but dismissed the prospect. "We're obligated to victory, to continue triumphing. This is a battle of world proportions."

The referendum is not about reforming the constitution so much as it is about entrenching Chavez's tyrannical rule. In other words, it's personal, as he himself has acknowledged. It is not "a battle of world proportions," of course, but he is fighting as if this is the fight of his life, a fight for his life, and, "obligated" or not, he will do whatever it takes to win.

For example, troops have used tear gas on student protesters opposed to Chavez's reforms. (Although it seems that the military is divided.) These courageous and determined students have taken the lead in speaking out and demonstrating against what they correctly see as their president's quest to obliterate democracy in their country. But it isn't just tear gas they're facing out in the streets. Some have been attacked by gunmen, thugs no doubt in Chavez's employ. There have been more protests this week -- more tear gas and rubber bullets, more clashes with police. Given that the more formal opposition has been beaten into submission, given that Chavez effectively controls the legislature, the judiciary, and the media, hope rests with these students and those who, like them, are prepared to take a firm stand against tyranny by voting No on Sunday.

But do the protests even matter, other than to express disaffection with Chavez, other than to raise awareness of what is going on in Venezuela? A poll conducted by a firm close to Chavez puts the Yes side ahead by as many as seven points. No wonder Chavez can be so confident. No wonder he can pre-emptively attack the No side's accusations of fraud if and when it loses. No wonder he can assert that the referendum "cannot fail". No wonder he can threaten to resign if he loses. He won't lose. He won't allow it. The entire process has been rigged, and the referendum is no exception. If he can't win through intimidation, he will find some other way.

Whatever the polls say, Chavez's power grab is pretty much a sure thing.

"I'll be there for you / When the rain starts to pour..."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, welcomes his Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chavez, to Tehran." (photo: The Globe and Mail)

In case you were wondering, here's part of their conversation:

Hugo: Look, Mahmoud, I can make this coin disappear.

Mahmoud: You are a man of many talents, Hugo. You know what I can make disappear?

Hugo: What's that, my friend?

Mahmoud: Homosexuals. There aren't any in this country. We execute them.

Hugo: Ha-ha. I love your sense of humour. So dry.

Mahmoud: No, Hugo, I'm being serious.

Hugo: Oh, okay. Sure. You know what I'm making disappear in my country?

Mahmoud: Homosexuals?

Hugo: No, no, not them, not so much.

Mahmoud: What then?

Hugo: Democracy!

Mahmoud: Ah! Yes! Very good!

Hugo: I won an election, you know.

Mahmoud: Hey, so did I. We're both democratic.

Hugo: Yes, of course we are! Ha-ha! Democratic revolutionaries!

Mahmoud: Do you ever read those -- oh, what are they called? -- web logs?

Hugo: Blogs? Yes, sometimes.

Mahmoud: I read one, by some guy in Canada, who said you're using salami tactics to seize more and more power. That's how he describes your revolution.

Hugo: Yes, yes. I know that one. La reacción. I hate that blog.

Mahmoud: So do I. He says mean things about me. They're all so mean!

Hugo: They don't like Bush, though.

Mahmoud: Bush, huh. Stupid idiot. But he's good for me. He's turning my people against the West.

Hugo: Same with me, my friend, same with me. Besides, look what he's doing to his country.

Mahmoud: Yes, I respect him, in a way.

Hugo: Yes, I know what you mean. Just don't say that publicly!

Mahmoud: Of course not! Never! Now, off we go, please. Let me tell you about our energy program, the one that has Bush shitting his pants.

Hugo: You're a good man, Mahmoud.

Mahmoud: Thank you, Hugo. It's mutual.

Hugo: Down with America!

Mahmoud: Down with America!

Tear gas and tyranny

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Not a big fan of Hugo Chavez? Not so enthusiastic about his tyrannical rule? Well, take that:

Venezuelan troops have used tear gas and water cannon to disperse thousands of students in the capital, Caracas.

The students are demonstrating against constitutional reforms proposed by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.

One of the reforms would abolish term limits for the presidency, thus allowing President Chavez to stand for re-election indefinitely.

The students want a December referendum on the reforms to be postponed, to give voters more time to study the plans.

That's right, all the protesters want is a postponement, hardly a radical proposal. But any opposition to Chavez is anathema to his national socialist revolution, which does not allow for opposition, and, it seems, any opposition will be put down. Brutally, if necessary -- and even if not. Brutality comes with the revolution, a revolution to install Chavez himself as permanent dictator of a brutalized Venezuela, just as it comes with Chavez's rule generally.

And the use of tear gas is probably on the soft end of the brutality. The troops were no doubt going easy on the protesters -- easy this time, but what else is going on in Venezuela? What else is Chavez inflicting on the people of his country? Enough to turn even Giuliani's stomach, one imagines.

It must be very, very bad in today's Venezuela. And it is only going to get worse.

**********

I have already, in many other posts, addressed Chavez's tyranny, as well as these reforms. For my recent post on what I called Chavez's "salami tactics," tyranny slice-by-slice, see here. For more on this "coup," see here. For previous posts on Chavez's "abolition of democracy," see here.