[Peace-discuss] Answer to Kerry on Venezuela

[C. G. Estabrook]

[I'm very much afraid that Kerry's stupid and dangerous statement on
Venezuela is the work of Rand Beers, his "terrorism advisor." Until a year
ago, Beers was the *White House* terrorism advisor. Before that, he was
"Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs" (1998-2002), where he once claimed under oath that
Colombian guerrillas were trained in al-Qaeda camps -- and then was forced
to withdraw the claim as false.  "Beers was most closely associated with
the disastrous aerial crop fumigation program the U.S. introduced in
southern Colombia," says Sean Donahue in "The Toxic Career of Rand Beers,
Kerry's Drug War Zealot" <www.counterpunch.org/donahue01262004.html>.
Randy (as he was then) and I grew up together; he lived in my house one
year when we were in school.  But he doesn't answer my e-mail these days.
He's an example of why Kerry is "Bush Lite." --CGE]


	A Rebuttal to Senator Kerry's Statement on Venezuela
	Monday, Mar 22, 2004
	By: Gregory Wilpert - Venezuelanalysis.com

Senator Kerry's press statement was issued on March 19, 2004.

	[Text enclosed by _ _ is Senator Kerry's statement. 
	Unmarked text is Gregory Wilpert's rebuttal.]

_With the future of the democratic process at a critical juncture in
Venezuela, we should work to bring all possible international pressure to
bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed._

It is not up to President Chavez whether there is a referendum.  
Venezuela's constitution clearly establishes rules that must be followed
for a referendum to be called. The president has nothing to do with this
procedure. If Kerry has any evidence that Chavez is preventing the
referendum process from proceeding, then he should spell out what it is
that he has done.

_The [Bush] Administration should demonstrate its true commitment to
democracy in Latin America by showing determined leadership now, while a
peaceful resolution can still be achieved._

U.S. interference in Venezuela's referendum process will distort and
damage Venezuela's democracy more than help it. If there is outside
interference, it is more likely that the results of the process will not
be recognized as legitimate by one of the sides in the conflict and this
would probably lead to violence, not to "a peaceful resolution."

_Throughout his time in office, President Chavez has repeatedly undermined
democratic institutions by using extra-legal means, including politically
motivated incarcerations, to consolidate power._

How does Kerry know that the incarcerations of some protestors were
politically motivated? As the cases stand right now, it has not been
clearly established that any of the arrests that have occurred during the
recent spate of violent protests involved people who were innocent of all
charges. As the cases proceed and come to trial, there will be plenty of
opportunities to find out if this was the case. To prejudge the arrests as
Sen. Kerry does, does not help.

_In fact, his close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious
questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government._

If relationships with undemocratic rulers are enough to question a
leader's commitment to democracy, then the commitment to democracy of just
about every president in U.S. history must be questioned.

_Moreover, President Chavez's policies have been detrimental to our
interests and those of his neighbors._

Exactly what "our interests" is is of course a much disputed issue.  If it
includes Venezuela's opposition to the WTO and the FTAA, then, indeed,
President Chavez' interests have been detrimental to U.S.  interests.
However, many in the U.S. and in Latin America would argue that these
institutions are not in the U.S. interest, but only in the interest of
transnational corporations, such as the one that Senator Kerry's wife is
heiress to (Heinz Ketchup). Besides, governments are not there to pursue
U.S. interests anyway, no matter where they are;  only national and human
interests.

_He has compromised efforts to eradicate drug cultivation by allowing
Venezuela to become a haven for narco-terrorists, and sowed instability in
the region by supporting anti-government insurgents in Colombia._

Sen. Kerry stands in direct contradiction with U.S. government testimony
that says that the Venezuelan government has been very cooperative with US
drug enforcement agencies. More drugs have been intercepted by the Chavez
government than any previous government.  While this could reflect in
increase in drug trafficking in Venezuela, it proves that Venezuela's
government has far from "compromised efforts."[1]

Even the head of the U.S. Southern Command, Gen. James Hill, who is
directly involved in plan Colombia and the U.S. anti-drug trafficking
effort, has denied that there is any evidence of connections between the
Venezuelan government and "anti-government insurgents" in Colombia.[2] If
Senator Kerry has any evidence of such connections, he should provide them
to the U.S. military so that they might be properly informed.

_The referendum has given the people of Venezuela the opportunity to
express their views on his presidency through constitutionally legitimate
means._

Perhaps it would have been good to mention at this point that the recall
referendum was proposed by President Chavez and his party when the
country's constitutional assembly wrote the new constitution.  This fact
directly contradicts Sen. Kerry's questioning of President Chavez'
democratic credentials.

_The international community cannot allow President Chavez to subvert this
process, as he has attempted to do thus far._

Without mentioning concrete examples of President Chavez' supposed efforts
to "subvert" the referendum process, Sen. Kerry's statement is pure
innuendo that intends to slander a head of state.

_He must be pressured to comply with the agreements he made with the OAS
and the Carter Center to allow the referendum to proceed, respect the
exercise of free expression, and release political prisoners._

First, the agreement Sen. Kerry refers to here was not made with the OAS
and the Carter Center, but with the opposition. The OAS and Carter Center
acted as facilitators for this agreement. Second, the agreement does not
mention the recall referendum at all. Rather, it calls on both sides to
reject violence and to support the constitution. While there has been some
debate in Venezuela as to who started the violent protests, there is much
evidence that members of the opposition sought out a violent confrontation
with state security forces. As for respecting the right to freedom of
expression, there is complete and total freedom of expression in
Venezuela, more than at any point in Venezuela's history. Finally, with
regard to political prisoners, this is a term that Venezuela's opposition
uses for them, but one which internationally recognized human rights
organizations have yet to adopt. As such, Senator Kerry is placing himself
as a solid supporter of Venezuela's opposition, which does not bode well
for future relations between the government of Venezuela and a possible
President Kerry.

_Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by
supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere -- including in
Venezuela, where they acquiesced to a failed coup attempt against
President Chavez._

Actually, the Bush administration's signals with respect to undemocratic
processes has not been mixed at all: as long as the undemocratic processes
favor the Bush administration's policy interests, it will support them. It
is Senator Kerry who is sending mixed signals by issuing a statement like
this, one which does not give Venezuela's referendum process a chance to
play itself out, which makes unsubstantiated claims about the Chavez
government, and which encourages a recall referendum even when it is not
yet clearly established that the requisite number of Venezuelan citizens
want one.

_Having just allowed the democratically elected leader to be cast aside in
Haiti, they should make a strong statement now by leading the effort to
preserve the fragile democracy in Venezuela._

Allowing a "democratically elected leader to be cast aside" in Venezuela
via a possibly fraudulent recall referendum process would be little
different from what happened in Haiti. It would destroy what has actually
become a more vigorous democracy in Venezuela than ever. More people are
involved in Venezuela's political institutions now than before, from land
reform committees, to local participatory planning councils, to public
accountability efforts ("contraloria social"). This week thousands of
candidates are being nominated for August regional elections of governors,
mayors, state legislators, and city council persons. There have been
absolutely no limitations on anyone's ability to participate.

The only reason Venezuela's democracy is in danger is because opposition
forces have never accepted President Chavez as the legitimately elected
president and have tried to undermine his presidency via a coup attempt
and a politically motivated shut-down of the country's all-important oil
industry - an act that would have been considered completely illegal in
any country in the world (and for which no one in Venezuela has been
imprisoned). It is due to these acts of the opposition that President
Chavez and his supporters are so suspicious of the signatures that were
recently collected for the recall referendum. The best way to ensure that
Venezuelan democracy remains strong is by making sure that all sides agree
that the referendum is legitimate. This is the main reason why the process
has been taking so long.

By issuing this statement, Senator Kerry is clearly taking sides in
Venezuela's conflict and is supporting the opposition. As such, he is
placing himself to the right of President Bush, who has so far only
supported Venezuela's opposition more or less covertly.

[1] The U.S. Embassy in Venezuela says the following about the Venezuelan
government's efforts: "Against this upsurge in activity of Colombian
narcotrafficking organizations operating in Venezuela, the Government of
Venezuela (GOV) has attempted to pass expansive new legislation, refine
the focus of its small force of criminal investigators and public
prosecutors, and worked with the USG toward the development of improved
intelligence, investigative, interdiction, and judicial capabilities. GOV
drug enforcement officials are dedicated, professional, and sincere in
their efforts to combat narcotrafficking and drug abuse in Venezuela." The
report also states that, "USG narcotics control efforts and programs
underwent significant expansion in Venezuela in 2001."  
(http://embajadausa.org.ve/wwwh1695.html)

[2] "U.S. General Sites Progress in Colombia", The Miami Herald, October
9, 2003, Page 16A

<http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/print.php?artno=1136>  

 ***