Pussy Riot: "Putin Lights Up the Fires"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As we bid farewell to Sochi, to a Winter Olympics that in many ways was, disgustingly, a celebration of Putin's Russia, if not of the man himself, with Putin presiding over the whole thing like the tyrant he is, playing statesman and host when really he was just engaging in shameless self-aggrandizement, it makes sense to turn to Pussy Riot, the punk group that has become one of Putin's arch-nemeses, not least because members of the group were beaten and whipped by Putin's security forces in Sochi in a truly ugly and yet for some reason generally ignored incident, at least when compared to all the warm feelings about all that athletic achievement.

Last month we posted "Punk Prayer." Here's another of Pussy Riot's well-known songs, "Putin Lights Up the Fires," which takes on additional significance given the imposition of police rule in Sochi, the crackdown on dissent and difference that is central to Putin's tyranny, and of course the very real fires that were lighting up Kiev, with people dying, before Putin's puppet, Viktor Yanukovych, was kicked out of office (actually he fled, having been impeached by parliament) over the weekend, just as things were wrapping up in Sochi.

Here are some of the lyrics:

Putin is lighting the fires of revolution
He's bored and scared of sharing silence with the people
With every execution: the stench of rotten ash
With every long sentence: a wet dream

The country is going, the country is going into the streets boldly
The country is going, the country is going to bid farewell to the regime
The country is going, the country is going, like a feminist wedge
And Putin is going, Putin is going to say goodbye like a sheep

We can only hope so.

Here's a video montage for the song put together back in 2012 by The Guardian:

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 »

Free Pussy Riot -- all of them

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Today, one member of the Russian punk group Pussy Riot, Yekaterina Samutsevich, was freed, but the convictions of the other two, Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, were upheld -- and they'll now spend the rest of their two-year sentences at a prison camp.

And not for hooliganism, as alleged, but for daring to challenge the authoritarian rule of Vladimir Putin:

The case against Pussy Riot, a feminist punk collective formed to challenge the government of Vladimir Putin, has laid bare the crackdown under way as Russia's powerful leader seeks to overcome growing opposition to his rule.

Arrested for singing an anti-Putin "punk prayer" inside a Moscow cathedral that caters to the governing elite, the three members of Pussy Riot maintain they were carrying out a political protest. The prosecution argued that the goal of their February performance was to offend Russian Orthodox believers.

It doesn't matter whether you find the form of the protest appropriate. (And perhaps they could have found a different venue for their protest, but the struggle against authoritarianism often requires such public displays of dissent.) This is about freedom in the face of tyranny.

Pussy Riot deserves our support. And all three deserve to be free.

Scenes from Syria

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The BBC reports on the outburst of violence by Assad's brutal regime:

At least 72 protesters have been killed by security forces in Syria, rights groups say -- the highest reported death toll in five weeks of unrest there.

Demonstrators were shot, witnesses say, as thousands rallied across the country, a day after a decades-long state of emergency was lifted.

Many deaths reportedly occurred in a village near Deraa in the south, and in a suburb of the capital, Damascus.

US President Barack Obama called for a halt to the "outrageous" violence.

"This outrageous use of violence to quell protests must come to an end now," the president said in a statement.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said he was "extremely concerned" by reports of deaths and casualties across Syria and urged restraint on the country's authorities.

"Political reforms should be brought forward and implemented without delay," he said. "The Emergency Law should be lifted in practice, not just in word."

That would be a start, but I just don't see that happening anytime soon. Syria isn't Egypt, where the military wanted Mubarak out after his position become untenable, and which in any event is more westernized than Syria.

Just consider what's happened: Assad lifted the state of emergency, essentially encouraging more protests, and then responded by murdering demonstrators critical of his regime.

Obama and Hague and other world leaders can say all they want. What are they actually going to do about the situation in Syria? Likely, nothing. Nothing beyond saying the right things, which is something but certainly not nearly enough. (Although Aljazeera reports that U.S. has been supporting/funding the Syrian opposition.)

The demonstrators are largely on their own, I fear. And they likely won't get far.

Here's an Aljazeera report on the protests and crackdown:

Slow train coming

By Capt. Fogg

One of the most frequently recurring themes echoing inside the bubble of Obamahate culture is that the President, although handily elected, was somehow thrust upon us by mistake and is an unelected tyrant.

It takes a special kind of person to believe that. It takes a special kind of person to attempt to profit by that belief and it takes a special kind of specialness not to be able to smell the boot polish and Cordite when reading about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's plan to take over municipal governments (duly elected) as part of his plan for prosperity through penury.

Forbes' Rick Ungar calls it Financial Martial Law. The Walker plan: 

would empower the governor to insert a financial manager of his choosing into local government with the ability to cancel union contracts, push aside duly elected local government officials and school board members and take control of Wisconsin cities and towns whenever he sees fit to do so.

I have no doubt that's just what the Tea-Shirts would like and little doubt that they will be able to reconcile that with their flimsy facade of Constitutional reverence. 

Such a law would additionally give Walker unchallenged power to end municipal services of which he disapproves, including safety net assistance to those in need.

That's not tyranny, that's not the kind constitution shredding the baggery would love to attribute to the President: at least it's not to the Tea-drunk masses longing to break free of any remaining bonds of civilization.

It'll never happen? It's liberal hyperbole? Think a state government can't simply strip a municipality's elected government of all power by gubernatorial fiat? You say this isn't possible in America? It's already happened in Michigan. Perhaps it's coming soon, to a state near you.

I'll spare you a rant about Fascism and Mussolini, the perils of "special emergency powers" and Orwell's eternal boot heel, I suspect you've read enough 20th-Century history to know what I'm talking about, but I suspect too that the years I have left to me will be years of counting up the mounting victories of barbarism, and the steady descent of our empire. Perhaps it's high time that I got back to studying Chinese.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

The crackdown in Libya and the end of tyranny

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATE (11:06 pm) According to Aljazeera and The Guardian, the protests have spread to Tripoli. In Benghazi, a military unit has allegedly joined the protesters. And Gaddafi's son is warning of imminent civil war. The crackdown continues, but all the Gaddafi regime has is brute force. It's the protesters who have justice, and the righteousness of a noble cause, on their side.

**********

Updating my post from yesterday, the Libyan "government" (and I put that in quotes because Gaddafi's regime is really just an oppressive tyranny) continues to crack down on opposition demonstrations, even targeting funerals.

Here's the BBC:

Details have emerged of huge casualty figures in the Libyan city of Benghazi, where troops have launched a brutal crackdown on protesters.

More than 200 people are known to have died, doctors say, with 900 injured.

The most bloody attacks were reported over the weekend, as funeral marches were said to have come under machine-gun and heavy weapons fire.

One doctor, speaking amid the sound of fresh gunfire on Sunday, told the BBC that "a real massacre" had happened.

Human Rights Watch says at least 173 people have been killed in Libya since demonstrations began on Wednesday.

And here's the NYT:

Libyan security forces opened fire again Sunday on residents of Benghazi as they attended a funeral procession for the dozens of protesters killed there the day before, and quickly crushed three smaller uprisings in working-class suburbs of the capital, Tripoli.

*****

The escalating violence in Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city and the center of the protests, appeared to mark a decisive turn in the protests that have shaken Libya, a North African nation rich in oil.

The shooting at the funeral, where the number of casualties could not immediately be confirmed, reinforced what seems to have become a deadly cycle in a city where thousands have gathered in antigovernment demonstrations: security forces fire on funeral marches, killing more protesters, creating more funerals. 

As I wrote yesterday, while there appears to be a certain domino effect going on, with anti-regime protests in one country picking up on protests elsewhere, it's not like this will be an easy transition to liberal democracy. What has happened in Egypt, where it's still not clear what will happen under military rule, or in Bahrain, where there is reason for optimism, may not be replicated elsewhere, including in Libya. These regimes are responding in vastly different ways to efforts to overthrow them, and some, like Gaddafi's, are apparently resorting to extreme violence to thwart them.

Just consider how long it took Europe to throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression, albeit long before the days of Facebook and Twitter, and even then much of Europe was under authoritarian fascist rule even towards the end of the last century. We must stand behind the courageous men and women who are standing up against the regimes that for decades (if not centuries, in terms of social and political oppression) are kept them down, but we cannot expect meaningful change overnight.

I am encouraged by what I am seeing, by the reports I am reading, but I realize that it's going to take a long time, during which much blood will be spilled, before liberty, democracy, and human rights triumph in places where they have few, if any, roots. It is inspiring, though, what we are witnessing, and for once there is hope for a better future.

People power in Bahrain

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The NYT's Nicholas Kristof reports from the ground (Manama, Bahrain) on some encouraging developments in the tyrannical Middle Eastern state:

There's delirious joy in the center of Bahrain right now. People power has prevailed, at least temporarily, over a regime that repeatedly used deadly force to try to crush a democracy movement. Pro-democracy protesters have retaken the Pearl Roundabout – the local version of Tahrir Square – from the government. On a spot where blood was shed several days ago there are now vast throngs kissing the earth, chanting slogans, cheering, honking and celebrating. People handed me flowers and the most common quotation I heard was: "It's unbelievable!"

When protesters announced that they were going to try to march on the Pearl Roundabout this afternoon, I had a terrible feeling. King Hamad of Bahrain has repeatedly shown he is willing to use brutal force to crush protesters, including live fire just yesterday on unarmed, peaceful protesters who were given no warning. I worried the same thing would happen today. I felt sick as I saw the first group cross into the circle.

But, perhaps on orders of the crown prince, the army troops had been withdrawn, and the police were more restrained today. Police fired many rounds of tear gas on the south side of the roundabout to keep protesters away, but that didn't work and the police eventually fled. People began pouring into the roundabout from every direction, some even bringing their children and celebrating with an almost indescribable joy. It's amazing to see a site of such tragedy a few days ago become a center of jubilation right now. It's like a huge party. I asked one businessman, Yasser, how he was feeling, and he stretched out his arms and screamed: "GREAT!!!!"

Many here tell me that this is a turning point, and that democracy will now come to Bahrain – in the form of a constitutional monarchy in which the king reigns but does not rule – and eventually to the rest of the Gulf and Arab world as well. But some people are still very, very wary and fear that the government will again send in troops to reclaim the roundabout. I just don't know what will happen, and it’s certainly not over yet. But it does feel as if this just might be a milestone on the road to Arab democracy.

I hope so, I really do. Certainly the recent developments in Egypt suggest that even the most entrenched tyrants can be overthrown (or at least forced out), even if so much uncertainty remains -- like, in Egypt, will there actually be liberalization and democracy or military rule and another strongman?

But there's reason to be optimistic. This isn't Islamism on the rise, after all. These pro-democracy movements -- in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Bahrain, and elsewhere -- are generally liberal/progressive and somewhat Western-oriented, and they might just manage to reshape the entire Middle East, if not the Muslim world generally. And it's not happening because Bush called for regime change and invaded Iraq, as the neocons would have us believe, but because courageous men and women have had enough and are standing up for their freedom, and what we're witnessing may very well be a sort of domino effect as the recognition that now is the time is spreading from one country to another.

It won't be easy. There will be a lot more bloodshed and it may take a long time for liberal democracy to take hold in some of these places. Consider how long it took in Europe, albeit long before the days of Facebook and Twitter. But these steps are necessary, the first steps to shed the yoke of tyranny, and this could well be an amazing moment in the history of freedom.

(You can find more at CNN, Aljazeera, the NYT (photo below), and the BBC.)

Dictatorships 101, in 2011

Guest post by Ali Ezzatyar

Ali Ezzatyar is a journalist and American attorney practising in Paris, France.

(Ed. note: This is Ali's second guest post at The Reaction. In January 2010, he co-wrote a post on Iran with Bryan Tollin. -- MJWS)

As Egypt moves ever closer to life without Hosni Mubarak, governments and analysts everywhere ponder the important question of what will come next. The conventional and clichéd wisdom pronounced by pundits and politicians the world over focuses on the risk of a dramatic rise to power for the Muslim Brotherhood and the inevitability of a new Islamist, and implicitly dictatorial, ruling establishment. Disaster for the U.S., for Israel, and for the future of Egypt, right? If the events of recent weeks demonstrate anything, however, it is that dictatorship is increasingly difficult to manufacture in the age of modern communications.

Let's take a step back and acknowledge exactly what these Twitter and Facebook "revolutions" have managed to overcome in just Tunisia and Egypt so far (bearing in mind events in Jordan and Yemen as well). Former president Ben-Ali ruled over Tunisia, with the help of a highly-trained secret police force (among other levers of control), for over 20 years. Just weeks before he fled the country, few a Tunisian would have ever imagined a day where he and his cronies would not dominate the landscape of politics and life in Tunisia for as long as he lived. What had largely been considered one of the most stable and pacified populations in the Arab world, however, took to the streets in large numbers, rendering the president's apparatus of control inoperable against the masses of people from which it was drawn. Increasingly facing the possibility of internal betrayal and what that would mean for his own head, Ben-Ali fled. What happened afterwards, however, was in many ways more remarkable than his being deposed.

The government that immediately replaced the Ben-Ali regime was largely made up of his associates. And while that new government immediately pledged and took concrete steps to dismantle the means of censorship and develop democratic institutions, the Tunisian population, well-informed, continued to protest. Staging demonstrations and continuing to put pressure on a still-infant government, remaining elements from the old guard were purged from the new interim regime. All the evidence suggests that Tunisia is on its way to democratic institution-building and free elections. From communication to coordination, it is hard to imagine how such an historic sequence of events could have happened without the Internet tools that have only become widely used in the region in the last few years.

Events in Egypt are, in the most important ways, following a similar trajectory. While such events are impossible to predict, it is reasonable to hypothesize that, as in Tunisia, no group that fills the potential power vacuum in Egypt will have the clout, influence, or muscle that Mubarak developed over the last 30 years to implement his dictatorial rule. With the tools at the disposal of the world's citizens today, the fear of new dictatorships springing out of such well-established ones -- former dictatorships that had decades to harness accountability from their repressive systems -- seems almost far-fetched. The protesters and the press, emboldened by the information and images they see and transmit in seconds, are already focusing their rhetoric on a post-Mubarak era and the avoidance of a failed transition to democracy.

The world's governments that have been criticized for becoming more dictatorial in the last decade seem to have done so through reform, not revolution. Take Venezuela, for example. The specter of an Iranian-type genuine revolution turned radical Islamic regime also seems unlikely in the Egyptian context. The lack of a unified and charismatic Islamic front (with the Muslim Brotherhood being rather late to the game), coupled with the modern means of communication that are helping to topple Mubarak, will threaten to make the consolidation of power for a new dictatorial regime untenable unless it is extremely popular.

Most importantly, though, let's acknowledge that democracy's growing pains, whatever they may be, deserve the opportunity to play themselves out. It is not the business of entities foreign to Egypt to try and divine the potential makeup of a future government, and then exercise preference over whether or not Egyptians have a right to their own destiny. Foreign influence (short of intervention) should be designed to help strengthen populations and countries that seek to take destiny into their own hands, in the model of Tunisia (with the U.S.' encouragement of Ben-Ali's stepping down), and not in the old model of Iran. Note that the undermining of Iran's popular and democratic movements of yesterday are thought to have contributed to the radicalism and anti-Americanism of its revolution and its government today.

U.S. policy suggests it is frantically trying not to be on the wrong side in Egypt, and in the region generally. We should consider, though, the monumental reputational damage the U.S. will sustain if it stands on the side of autocracy or even ambiguity as it has done in the last two weeks. The specter of loss of interests should yield to the realization that only democratic partners in the region can protect our interests permanently, and that those democratic partners had better be our friends.

You're a good man, Hosni Mubarak

By Capt. Fogg

"I also think there comes a time for everybody when it's time to hang it up and move on,"

Said Former Vice President Dick Cheney. It would seem that he didn't feel the end of his term in office was such a time for him, smoothly transitioning from denouncing all critics in an official and perhaps illegal fashion to doing as much as a private citizen. He's only moved out, not moved on.

He was of course referring to the apparent end game of Hosni Mubarak, a "Good man" says he.

"he's been a good friend and ally to the United States, and we need to remember that"

That's a statement hard to remark upon so I won't. I'll only add the good Mr. Mubarak to the list of rogues our government has supported for similar reasons through the years, choosing "stability" over every other consideration. Like many administrations from Reagan, whose anniversary he was celebrating, to that of Cheney and Bush, we've provided weapons to tyrants while the people suffered from want. We've overthrown democratic choices and prevented elections and installed monsters and looked the other way at nauseating atrocities simply to serve our appetites.

Yes, Mubarak did what we paid him to do and you'll note that those are American tanks patrolling the streets, American jets overhead. He maintained an uncomfortable peace with Israel and helped us punish oil-rich Iraq. He did resist the pressure from fundamentalist Theocrats and he helped us to apply torture methods even our own flimsy consciences wouldn't allow -- and we paid him to do it and didn't place many strings on our largess. He was a good man.

Cheney as an unhealthy old man, younger but much sicker than Mubarak and I'm sure we can look ahead to other, not too distant days and the gathering of other people telling us Dick Cheney was a "good man" just like the other good and bloody handed friends and allies. Let the circle be unbroken.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

The self-aggrandizing bullshit of Hosni Mubarak

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ABC News's Christiane Amanpour sat down yesterday with the Tyrant of Cairo, Hosni Mubarak. Here were some of the highlights of the interview:

He told me, "I was very unhappy about yesterday. I do not want to see Egyptians fighting each other." 

Then stop sending your thugs out into the streets to attack the peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators, as well as journalists. We get what you're trying to do. You're creating "chaos" so as to be able to justify a crackdown -- or at least to secure your position for the time being, until you leave on your own terms. And perhaps you're also trying to goad the pro-democracy protesters into committing retaliatory violence so as to discredit them in the eyes of the rest of the world.

But it's you, Mubarak, who has no credibility.

When I asked him what he thought seeing the people shouting insults about him and wanting him gone, he said, "I don't care what people say about me. Right now I care about my country, I care about Egypt." 

Sure you don't. Which is why you have a history of silencing your critics.

Sure you do. Which is why you have a history of oppressing its people.

He told me that he is fed up with being president and would like to leave office now, but cannot, he says, for fear that the country would sink into chaos.

Well, maybe you're tired, sure, but the rest is pretty much what all authoritarian dictators say, isn't it? And of course it might only descend into chaos because of those thugs of yours. (Do you really think so little of your fellow Egyptians that it would be chaos and not peaceful democratic governance?)

Let me repeat: You have no credibility. Period.

Good riddance -- whenever you do finally leave office. Or are forceably removed.

If this be treason...

By Capt. Fogg

The Republicans like to use the word "tyrant" a lot. Perhaps it's the same sort of tendency you find in liars and cheats and thieves of other types who use those words to describe those who threaten to expose them. Perhaps not, but I've noticed of late that there have been a lot of calls for summary and extra-legal executions coming from right-wing writers and hate-shouters like good ol' love thy neighbor Mike Huckabee or Foxboy Tucker Carlson, who "personally" would like to have had Michael Vick put up against a wall and shot even though dear justice loving Tucker professes to be -- you guessed it -- a Christian. Pardon me, but I'm confused.

If you find it hard to reconcile what you think you know about Jesus and non-judgmentalism and forgiveness with summary executions for animal cruelty, perhaps you're unaware of the overriding moral imperative of the Values Party: anything we do to undermine Obama and the Democrats is patriotic and is justified through patriotism because our word is law, not your damned Constitution. Barack Obama praised the NFL's Eagles for giving quarterback Michael Vick a second chance and of course Barack Obama is the Tyrant Prince of Darkness so if he does anything, it's a bad thing. Vick must die, even if those animal rights people are bleeding heart liberals and even if you don't give a damn about dogs.

Last Wednesday in my local paper, I suffered through a tortuous justification of summary execution for treason of the fellow who leaked those diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, the essence of which was that had he leaked different information under different circumstances at a different time, some terrible thing might have happened. That's the basis of Mike Huckabee's equally loathsome demand for twisting the treason definition to allow the Republicans to kill their critics for the crime of informing the public that our allies aren't our allies and the government doesn't know what it's doing.

Of course if someone were lying about the failures of our government, that would be different. They'd get a regular show on Fox like Huckabee and Beck, make the big bucks and none would dare call it treason. The truth is what makes it bad, you see.

Never mind that something is exposed that would cause us to hang a foreigner the way we did an Nuremberg for, if we do it, it's not a crime. A bit like saying that if your aunt had had wheels instead of legs she'd have been a bus and so she can be sued for not picking you up at the bus stop this morning even if you don't ride the bus and she has legs anyway -- and you'd see the logic of that if you weren't a damned Libtard lover of tyranny.

Pfc. Bradley Manning, the fellow who embarrassed the military with his Afghanistan videos of course should be put up against the same wall for revealing the incompetence of government, the lies, the cover ups, and perhaps the slaughter of innocents, because, after all, anything that doesn't cover up our misdeeds is treason unless the deeds have political importance for Republicans -- then anything is fair game and lawbreakers are heroes and patriots. Are you starting to get it? Criticizing the government is treason because it helps the enemy and there's always an enemy, don't you know -- except when the elite does it, of course, and you know who they are.

Yes, the government is corrupt, incompetent and can't do anything and so we're against it as long as that's actually false. If it's true and you prove it, you're a traitor and should be shot without due process. That's not tyranny -- a middle class tax cut is tyranny, ending insurance company abuse is tyranny, taking deadly contaminated meat off the shelves is tyranny, ending bigotry against law abiding citizens is tyranny, addressing schoolchildren on TV is tyranny as bad as anything Pol Pot ever did. Making BP pay for its incompetence is tyranny, and, if you don't agree, the unelected leaders at Fox want you dead and aren't embarrassed to suggest that you be killed. Sic semper tyrannis.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

The rise of Kazakhstan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

If you're looking for something to read over the weekend, check out:

-- Der Spiegel: "Nazarbayev Dictates a Bright Future for Kazakhstan," by Erich Follath and Christian Neef.

It's a fascinating look at an up-and-coming authoritarian country with huge reserves of natural resources:

Kazakhstan has oil, coal and uranium -- and a capital full of stunning architecture. President Nursultan Nazarbayev hopes his country can become the region's leading economy, but his heavy-handed cult of personality is not universally welcomed. Others worry about China's growing influence.

It's a part of the world that we don't think nearly enough about but that we need to understand with great urgency. (Even if there's an awful lot that's truly awful about this country in particular. Including Borat.)

Here are a few photos from Der Spiegel's gallery:

"Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev is everywhere in the country. He has been able to greatly improve the country's economy and has built a shiny new capital city, but many complain of the strong hand with which he rules Kazakhstan. Opposition isn't tolerated and when he steps down, most assume that one of his relatives will step up."

"Now, [Astana, Kazakhstan's new capital city] boasts a large collection of ultra-modern buildings and is the epicenter of Nazarbayev's cult of personality. This tower is dedicated to the country's president -- opposition leaders have vacated Astana for fear of persecution."

"The Ministry of Oil and Gas resembles a kind of triumphal archway. The country has high hopes for its reserves of fossil fuels. Nazarbayev calls Kazakhstan an 'Asian Snow Leopard,' a reference to the Asian Tiger economies further east."

Through the archway of this statist monstrosity, you can see Khan Shatyr, the world's largest tent, opened earlier this year, cult of personality in full swing, to celebrate Nazarbayev's 70th birthday.

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.

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.

Nom nom nom

By Carl

It's fun to juxtapose stories!

Item 1-

"I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach," Gingrey said. "I mean, it's easy if you're Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party. You know you're just on these talk shows and you're living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn't be or wouldn't be good leaders, they're not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

Asked to respond to Gingrey, Limbaugh, in an email to Politico, wrote: "I'm sure he is doing his best but it does not appear to be good enough. He may not have noticed that the number of Republican colleagues he has in the House has dwindled. And they will dwindle more if he and his friends don't show more leadership and effectiveness in battling the most left-wing agenda in modern history. And they won't continue to lose because of me, but because of their relationship with the grassroots, which is hurting. Conservatives want leadership from those who claim to represent them. And we'll know it when we see it."

Item 2 -

As they begin meeting in Washington today, many members of the Republican National Committee are focusing their ire against what they considered George W. Bush's anti-conservative policies and trying to dump the man he tapped to run the GOP.

[...]Duncan "has never criticized Bush when the president was wrong," said Shawn Steel, an RNC member from California. "He's the agent of the establishment, and we need a change in personnel."

Can't you just feel the love?

I have a reminder for the Limbaughs and the arch-conservative right wing of the Republican party: Robespierre.

Actually, for Limbaugh, a more appropriate reminder might be Marat.

The trouble with revolutions egged on by people who are fraudulently interested "in the common good" is that eventually the masses find out the true nature of the "leadership" and rebel. Marat, for example, was stabbed to death by an admirer, Charlotte Corday, after his influence in the Revolution and the Reign Of Terror had waned.

Much like Limbaugh's position today, Marat had aligned himself with a lucky star in Robespierre, but once on the tiger, had to hold on literally for dear life and was unable to. That hard stuff you feel under your flabby ass, Rush? That's the ground. The tiger is turning. Too bad you can't run very fast, isn't it?

Similarly, Robespierre was an ideologue, much like Limba -- I mean, Marat. Much like the GOP, Robespierre was accused of tyranny and dictatorship after he passed laws that effectively barred citizens from their rights and established networks of spies that would act without regard for the truth to "protect the people." The Patriot Act, anyone?

Like the GOP, Robespierre tried to instill a quasi-religious governing policy, putting God (actually, Être suprême or Supreme Being) into the French constitution.

Like the GOP, Robespierre tried to stamp out the only real political opposition he faced, the Hébertists.

And like the GOP, Robespierre was ultimately beheaded when the people realized that he was worse than the royalty he had replaced! This after the people had been terrified into order, threatened with wolves at the door, and subsumed into complicity with the Reign of Terror.

Life is fractal, and in this instance, the larger playwright of the French Revolution has writ small, tiny, insignificant, the future of the GOP.

We are watching the GOP now eat itself, much as the Jacobins (ironically, also called Republicans) of Robespierre did, in the individual quest for power in the wake of the loss of their leadership.

Oh... keep in mind that, while the Repub-- er, Jacobins, were cannibalizing themselves, a figure arose out of the ranks: a fairly low ranking officer with little political experience who would lead France to her greatest glory ever.

Life does present us with unusual parallels, does it not?

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

Is he dead yet?

By Mustang Bobby

Still another report of the imminent demise of Fidel Castro.

''High sources in Washington are saying that reliable sources have said that he has taken gravely ill,'' said University of Miami's Andy Gomez, who serves as an advisor to the U.S. Task Force on Cuba, an arm of the Brookings Institution think tank comprised of academics and former diplomats. ''They are monitoring this very closely, including looking for additional movements of security and troops. So far, none of this has happened.''

Castro's continued absence from public view, an unusually long break from published essays, failure to schedule private chats with recent visiting presidents and veiled remarks by Venezuelan ally Hugo Chávez has elevated the unconfirmed reports of the Cuban leader's pending death.

U.S. officials from the State Department acknowledged that they were aware of the reports on Castro's health but denied they were monitoring troop activities on the island.

For those of you outside of the Miami area, this is a regular feature in our news here. Rumors start to spread: somebody heard from their cousin who got a late-night phone call from their sister's neighbor in Havana that Castro had fallen off the perch, and pretty soon everybody from Calle Ocho to Hialeah is sure that not only is he dead, but he's been dead since July 2006 and all the pictures of him have actually been of his brother Ramon, who's been his stand-in, and what we've been treated to for the last two years is the Latin version of Weekend at Bernie's. But then... nothing. No somber music over Radio Havana, no black-draped editions of Granma, and pretty soon it's all forgotten until the next one.

This time around there's little more than tea-leaves and vague signals, and The Miami Herald's Cuba watch-blog, Cuban Colada, is being very cautious. But the timing would be interesting; Fidel Castro goes out, the Obama administration, which has promised to lift the Bush administration's travel and money restrictions, comes in, and one of the unspoken requirements for lifting the embargo -- Fidel's passing -- is met.

It would be one of life's little ironies that Castro, who made his career out of being larger than life and who dominated the Latin American policy of the U.S. for fifty years, should fade away with barely a whimper on the eve of the inauguration of a president who is willing to deal with the Cuban government rather than isolate and lecture them.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Truth, justice, and the Zimbabwean way

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, things are pretty bad in Zimbabwe:

Zimbabwe has refused transfer to hospital of a top rights activist and several others accused of plotting against the regime as ordered by a court...

High Court judge Yunus Omerjee on Wednesday ordered police to release to hospital Jestina Mukoko and several opposition activists accused of recruiting or inciting people to undergo military training to fight Robert Mugabe's government.

The detainees' lawyer has said they may have been tortured in custody.

Mukoko, director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project -- a rights group which has been compiling cases of election violence -- was seized from her home on December 3 by armed men who identified themselves as police.

Two members of her staff were taken away from their office days later. They are being accused together with 28 members of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party of recruiting anti-government plotters.

The detainees, including a two-year-old boy, were taken from their homes and some from their workplaces.

That's right, one of the detainees is two years old. And while the Mugabe regime is portraying Mukoko as some sort of violent insurgent, she is actually a former journalist and one of the country's leading human rights activists -- and, yes, one of the leaders of the opposition to Mugabe's tyranny. Obviously, the Mugabe regime is trying not just to smear her but to do whatever it takes to silence her. Even if she and her fellow activists are transferred to hospital, it's not like they can expect any justice.

For more on her arrest, see here. As as Amnesty International official put it, "Mukoko's abduction or arrest was part of an established pattern of harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders by Zimbabwean authorities in an attempt to discourage them from documenting and publicizing the violations that are taking place."

The Mugabe regime is the enemy of truth and justice. There won't be any of either in Zimbabwe until Mugabe is gone.

China cracks down on Tibet -- again

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the NYT:

Chinese security forces were reportedly surrounding three monasteries outside Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, on Thursday after hundreds of monks took to the streets this week in what are believed to be the largest Tibetan protests against Chinese rule in two decades.

The turmoil in Lhasa occurred at a politically delicate time for China, which is facing increasing criticism over its human rights record as it prepares to play host to the Olympic Games in August and is seeking to appear harmonious to the outside world.

Needless to say, China is one of the world's worst abusers, and its brutal oppression of Tibet is a decades-long crime against humanity.

And yet it was awarded the Olympics -- which says a lot about the IOC.

And multinational businesses are thriving there -- which says a lot about corporate ethics and priorities.

And Western liberal democracies like the U.S. are playing along, profiting where possible and offering mild and ineffectual criticism where necessary -- which says a lot about our alleged commitment to the spread of freedom and democracy.

Meanwhile, the Tibetan people, like other people under the Chinese yoke, are continuing to suffer -- and to fight for their freedom.

They deserve our support, our committed and meaningful support. Instead, all we are doing is enabling their oppressors.

Bush and the tyrants

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In response to Obama's suggestion that, as president, he would talk and negotiate with enemies of the United States -- a very sensible component of a very sensible approach to foreign policy (taking and negotiating, from a position of strength, are not the same as giving in or surrendering and are not at all reflective of weakness; diplomacy can be a powerful and effective tool, can be combined with other, more aggressive approaches on a case-by-case basis, and would bolster America's legitimacy and credibility, and hence power and influence, around the world) -- President Bush on Thursday declared, seemingly without even the tiniest shread of self-awareness or irony, that sitting down with and having one's picture taken with a tyrant only serves to support that tyrant's position insofar as American recognition is somehow conferred on that tyrant through the president's act of sitting down with the tyrant. In other words, if Bush were to sit down with Raul Castro, Castro and his tyranny (his brother's tyranny, that is) would somehow be granted American approval.

Bush is wrong, of course. It is one thing to make friends with a tyrant -- remember the famous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, for example? -- quite another to talk and negotiate. But Bush is also, as he so often is, hypocritical. Approval -- or recognition as an equal -- need not come into it. One can sit down with a tyrant while also calling the tyrant a tyrant. And this is surely what Obama means. He would sit down with Castro, say, without approving of Cuban tyranny. He would only talk to the tyrant, not confer legitimacy upon the tyranny.

The problem with Bush -- one of many problems -- is that he doesn't seem to get any of this. And it isn't so much that his world is so black-and-white that he simply refuses to talk to or negotiate with tyrants. Because he actually does it all the time. Maybe not to or with Castro or Ahmadinejad, say, but he is a friend, a close friend, of many tyrants around the world. And, in so doing, he does confer legitimacy upon them, does provide them with America's stamp of approval. He talks about freedom and democracy, and about the evildoers who must be destroyed, but the hollowness of his high-falutin' rhetoric is glaring. Indeed, throughout his presidency he has consisently undermined America's credibility around the world, not to mention his own credibility, by forming alliances with tyrants and tyrannies -- solid friendships with some, convenient relations with others. And here, just to prove the point, are four notable examples:

Call him what you will -- a hypocrite, a liar, a moron, or just plain stupid -- the pattern is clear. While Obama just wants to talk to America's enemies, Bush has been more interested in befriending, and allying America with, some of the world's leading tyrants.

Embracing tyranny

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As Fareed Zakaria put it on last night's Daily Show, the U.S., and the Bush Administration in particular, supports democratic reform only in "strategically insignificant" countries like Burma -- and not in, for example, Pakistan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, where U.S.- and Bush-friendly dictators, or seemingly friendly dictators (like Pakistan's Musharraf), accept U.S. aid in return for their compliance with U.S. interests, or seeming compliance with seeming U.S. interests. It's all about seeming, you see, which is to say, about appearance. In the end, for Bush and the Bushies, democracy means much less than whatever it is they can get out of their friendly dictators, like oil, which may be real, or support for Bush's war on terror, which may not be -- support in speech is not support in deed, something Bush has yet to figure out.

Billions to Pakistan -- for what? Billions to the Saudis -- for what? For a hug, for a photo-op, for empty promises, for nothing.

And now Bush is in the Middle East making nice with his dictator pals.

First photo below from The Globe and Mail: "U.S. President George W. Bush embraces Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah upon his arrival at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh."

Later, Bush announced that he was going ahead with the sale of sensitive military technology, specifically laser-guided bomb technology, to Saudi Arabia. In what is surely related news, Abdullah awarded Bush the Saudi Order of Merit. Second photo below from the BBC.