Chavez - perspective
Hey Folks,
I’ve been discussing Hugo Chavez of late. Well, Georgie Anne Geyer has too, and I think her column will give some perspective on what I’ve been saying. We often can’t see incongruities in our own positions that are glaring to others looking from a different perspective.
Chavez is not Geyer’s major focus. She takes on Ahmadinejad and the Bush crowd as well - on the way to proposing that nationalism – not “radical Islam” – is the driver of the confrontation.
But here’s the perspective: Geyer says of Chavez:
“before he was elected in 1998, the two political parties that had ruled Venezuela since 1957 had robbed the country blind: Billions of dollars in oil money went into their private bank accounts, while 80 percent of the people lived below the poverty level.”
But then she also says, “Chavez immediately chose to become the clone of the hemisphere’s most daring revolutionary, his pal in paranoid behavior, Cuban leader Fidel Castro [emphasis added].” She also characterizes him as “difficult and potentially dangerous.”
Hey !! 80% of the Venezuelan people lived BELOW the poverty level, and had been kept there SINCE 1957!!! And we are supposed to believe that Chavez is ______________ (fill in any of the many derogatory adjectives we’ve been hearing) for attempting to CHANGE that??? Paranoid and dangerous???
In any movie, TV series, novel, or comic book; CHANGING that would be seen as heroic (remember “The A Team”??). Geyer goes so far as to say that even Ahmadinejad’s behavior is rational if seen from the Iranian point of view: the history of British and American suppression and the present condescending and bullying posture of the Bush regime.
Geyer’s column makes it clear – at least to me – that Chavez is being described negatively by so many people NOT because he is acting without concern for the people who democratically elected him, but because he is not acting with the US electorate (actually, the US and Venezuelan elite) in mind.
- Uke Man
Confrontational approach is counterproductive
Friday, September 29, 2006
GEORGIE ANNE GEYER
The incredible displays of hubris, resentment and sheer theatrics at the United Nations the past two weeks started with Iran’s president and ended with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
But beyond his superficial theater on the East River, which was obviously designed to further Venezuela’s claim for one of the open seats on the Security Council, what is behind this rambunctious man? One must remember that, before he was elected in 1998, the two political parties that had ruled Venezuela since 1957 had robbed the country blind: Billions of dollars in oil money went into their private bank accounts, while 80 percent of the people lived below the poverty level, thus providing a perfect opening for a charismatic populist caudillo.
Like all of last week’s players, Chavez hardly came out of nowhere. Even though the United States meddled relatively little in Venezuela compared with many Caribbean countries, Chavez immediately chose to become the clone of the hemisphere’s most daring revolutionary, his pal in paranoid behavior, Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Even Chavez’s trip last week to Harlem to hand out free oil was patterned on Fidel’s trip there after he came to power in 1959.
Then we had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the "sage" of Tehran, the strange man with the open-shirt-as-statement, the supernaturally gleaming eyes and the perpetually confident smirk. Saying little of any coherence and answering questions with his own questions, the Iranian president was nevertheless touted as "a leader of the world," so strongly had his anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism resonated.
But despite the mystery surrounding him for many Americans, Ahmadinejad didn’t come out of nowhere, either. This fierce Persian, seemingly composed but always carrying a potential nuclear bomb in his back pocket, came from the repressions of British colonialism, when the Iranians were not allowed to build their own railroad, and later when the United States supported the shah, who cut off from upper mobility the Shiite Muslims Ahmadinejad represents.
If we had an administration that would meet with them, "dialogue" with them and show some respect for them, a lot could be done.
The Bush people have a list of "evil" folk they won’t shake hands with, be in the same room with or answer a letter from; they make Nixon’s enemies list look like a grocery list. And they obviously think that even having our diplomats talk with the Chavezes and the Ahmadinejads of this crazy world is demeaning. It’s so much easier to just threaten them with annihilation and get it over with.
In fact, they are driving admittedly difficult and potentially dangerous men like these two to further depredations and threats.
Middle East expert Jon B. Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says of the Iranians’ playacting with the West over its potential nuclear bomb: "I think this is very rational from the Iranian point of view. Their policy makes a lot of sense in the present environment. They’re trying to become the dominant regional power in the Middle East. We have here an Iranian nationalism that is guided by a thirst for prestige and jealousy for what the smaller Gulf states have accomplished.
‘‘It all comes out of the nationalist Iranian desire, which had a very long history. First, they want to develop nuclear weapons because (those weapons) are the real first accomplishment of the revolution — even if they gain attention, that’s an accomplishment. In Malaysia, in Pakistan, in other countries, suddenly they’re talking about Iran. They want attention! "
Looked at from their perspective, and not ours, why wouldn’t they do what they are doing, such as using threats, however unpleasant or heinous, to gain what they want, and trying to back the West into a corner? Especially in Iran’s case, when the United States has done it the great favor of eliminating a functioning Iraq as Iran’s historical enemy and balancer of power in the region?
Those wonderful guys who gave us Vietnam came to realize that the problem there was nationalism, not communism. In the Near East today, the problem is far more nationalism than radical Islam. And nationalism rises when energy prices go up. That’s another reason for Venezuela’s and Iran’s crazy monarchical attitudes in the world.
But energy prices also go down. Look a little closer and you find that both countries have more unemployment, labor unrest and poverty than before. In effect, the errant nationalism displayed at the United Nations is vulnerable to changes that could come any day.
"I think the Iranians want to talk," Alterman said. "They want to talk about talking. We are destined to manage this situation. It creates time. There are options for things to change, but at the same time be very realistic about how fast it can be done."
Thus, the answer to today’s Iranian question and, perhaps, in part, to Venezuela, is not to confront, but to manage. These are fluid situations; things change; bizarre negotiations may go on forever.
But in the meantime, nobody’s bombing. Ride the river out. Don’t try to dam it up, or the waters may flood the dikes. Georgie Anne Geyer writes for Universal Press Syndicate.
I’ve been discussing Hugo Chavez of late. Well, Georgie Anne Geyer has too, and I think her column will give some perspective on what I’ve been saying. We often can’t see incongruities in our own positions that are glaring to others looking from a different perspective.
Chavez is not Geyer’s major focus. She takes on Ahmadinejad and the Bush crowd as well - on the way to proposing that nationalism – not “radical Islam” – is the driver of the confrontation.
But here’s the perspective: Geyer says of Chavez:
“before he was elected in 1998, the two political parties that had ruled Venezuela since 1957 had robbed the country blind: Billions of dollars in oil money went into their private bank accounts, while 80 percent of the people lived below the poverty level.”
But then she also says, “Chavez immediately chose to become the clone of the hemisphere’s most daring revolutionary, his pal in paranoid behavior, Cuban leader Fidel Castro [emphasis added].” She also characterizes him as “difficult and potentially dangerous.”
Hey !! 80% of the Venezuelan people lived BELOW the poverty level, and had been kept there SINCE 1957!!! And we are supposed to believe that Chavez is ______________ (fill in any of the many derogatory adjectives we’ve been hearing) for attempting to CHANGE that??? Paranoid and dangerous???
In any movie, TV series, novel, or comic book; CHANGING that would be seen as heroic (remember “The A Team”??). Geyer goes so far as to say that even Ahmadinejad’s behavior is rational if seen from the Iranian point of view: the history of British and American suppression and the present condescending and bullying posture of the Bush regime.
Geyer’s column makes it clear – at least to me – that Chavez is being described negatively by so many people NOT because he is acting without concern for the people who democratically elected him, but because he is not acting with the US electorate (actually, the US and Venezuelan elite) in mind.
- Uke Man
Confrontational approach is counterproductive
Friday, September 29, 2006
GEORGIE ANNE GEYER
The incredible displays of hubris, resentment and sheer theatrics at the United Nations the past two weeks started with Iran’s president and ended with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
But beyond his superficial theater on the East River, which was obviously designed to further Venezuela’s claim for one of the open seats on the Security Council, what is behind this rambunctious man? One must remember that, before he was elected in 1998, the two political parties that had ruled Venezuela since 1957 had robbed the country blind: Billions of dollars in oil money went into their private bank accounts, while 80 percent of the people lived below the poverty level, thus providing a perfect opening for a charismatic populist caudillo.
Like all of last week’s players, Chavez hardly came out of nowhere. Even though the United States meddled relatively little in Venezuela compared with many Caribbean countries, Chavez immediately chose to become the clone of the hemisphere’s most daring revolutionary, his pal in paranoid behavior, Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Even Chavez’s trip last week to Harlem to hand out free oil was patterned on Fidel’s trip there after he came to power in 1959.
Then we had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the "sage" of Tehran, the strange man with the open-shirt-as-statement, the supernaturally gleaming eyes and the perpetually confident smirk. Saying little of any coherence and answering questions with his own questions, the Iranian president was nevertheless touted as "a leader of the world," so strongly had his anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism resonated.
But despite the mystery surrounding him for many Americans, Ahmadinejad didn’t come out of nowhere, either. This fierce Persian, seemingly composed but always carrying a potential nuclear bomb in his back pocket, came from the repressions of British colonialism, when the Iranians were not allowed to build their own railroad, and later when the United States supported the shah, who cut off from upper mobility the Shiite Muslims Ahmadinejad represents.
If we had an administration that would meet with them, "dialogue" with them and show some respect for them, a lot could be done.
The Bush people have a list of "evil" folk they won’t shake hands with, be in the same room with or answer a letter from; they make Nixon’s enemies list look like a grocery list. And they obviously think that even having our diplomats talk with the Chavezes and the Ahmadinejads of this crazy world is demeaning. It’s so much easier to just threaten them with annihilation and get it over with.
In fact, they are driving admittedly difficult and potentially dangerous men like these two to further depredations and threats.
Middle East expert Jon B. Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says of the Iranians’ playacting with the West over its potential nuclear bomb: "I think this is very rational from the Iranian point of view. Their policy makes a lot of sense in the present environment. They’re trying to become the dominant regional power in the Middle East. We have here an Iranian nationalism that is guided by a thirst for prestige and jealousy for what the smaller Gulf states have accomplished.
‘‘It all comes out of the nationalist Iranian desire, which had a very long history. First, they want to develop nuclear weapons because (those weapons) are the real first accomplishment of the revolution — even if they gain attention, that’s an accomplishment. In Malaysia, in Pakistan, in other countries, suddenly they’re talking about Iran. They want attention! "
Looked at from their perspective, and not ours, why wouldn’t they do what they are doing, such as using threats, however unpleasant or heinous, to gain what they want, and trying to back the West into a corner? Especially in Iran’s case, when the United States has done it the great favor of eliminating a functioning Iraq as Iran’s historical enemy and balancer of power in the region?
Those wonderful guys who gave us Vietnam came to realize that the problem there was nationalism, not communism. In the Near East today, the problem is far more nationalism than radical Islam. And nationalism rises when energy prices go up. That’s another reason for Venezuela’s and Iran’s crazy monarchical attitudes in the world.
But energy prices also go down. Look a little closer and you find that both countries have more unemployment, labor unrest and poverty than before. In effect, the errant nationalism displayed at the United Nations is vulnerable to changes that could come any day.
"I think the Iranians want to talk," Alterman said. "They want to talk about talking. We are destined to manage this situation. It creates time. There are options for things to change, but at the same time be very realistic about how fast it can be done."
Thus, the answer to today’s Iranian question and, perhaps, in part, to Venezuela, is not to confront, but to manage. These are fluid situations; things change; bizarre negotiations may go on forever.
But in the meantime, nobody’s bombing. Ride the river out. Don’t try to dam it up, or the waters may flood the dikes. Georgie Anne Geyer writes for Universal Press Syndicate.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home