[RD] News Thread of the Americas

[Ajidica]

Vice President Mike Pence wrote that “the tyrant in Caracas danced” as his henchmen “burned food & medicine.” The State Department released a video saying Mr. Maduro had ordered the trucks burned. And Venezuela’s opposition held up the images of the burning aid, reproduced on dozens of news sites and television screens throughout Latin America, as evidence of Mr. Maduro’s cruelty.

But there is a problem: The opposition itself, not Mr. Maduro’s men, appears to have set the cargo alight accidentally.

Unpublished footage obtained by The New York Times and previously released tapes — including footage released by the Colombian government, which has blamed Mr. Maduro for the fire — allowed for a reconstruction of the incident. It suggests that a Molotov cocktail thrown by an antigovernment protester was the most likely trigger for the blaze.
At one point, a homemade bomb made from a bottle is hurled toward the police, who were blocking a bridge connecting Colombia and Venezuela to prevent the aid trucks from getting through.

But the rag used to light the Molotov cocktail separates from the bottle, flying toward the aid truck instead.

Half a minute later, that truck is in flames.
...
Yet the claim about a shipment of medicine, too, appears to be unsubstantiated, according to videos and interviews.

The United States Agency for International Development, the principal supplier of the aid at the bridge, did not list medicine among its donations. A top opposition official on the bridge that day told The New York Times that the burned shipment contained medical supplies like face masks and gloves, but not medicine. And video clips reviewed by The Times show some of the boxes contained hygiene kits, which the Americans identified as containing supplies like soap and toothpaste.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/...f45l5V4kjaDvhh62dAxCEAkBSgp0kRuUoUHAFHIhcu72I

 

[innonimatu]

I didn't even bother posting about that, but I'm surprised to see the NYT publishing it. It will make it harder for the rabit anti-venezuelans who keep quoting Miami newspapers to deny that the "himanitarian aid" was just a political ploy, and one designed to try to incite violence (see the Blomberg piece I linked too).

Now waiting for someone to say that the NYT and Blomberg are communist propaganda...

 

[luiz]

I dodn't even bother posting about that, but I'm surprised to see the NYT posting it. It will make it harder for the rabit anti-venezuelans who keep quoting Miami newspapers to deny that the "himanitarian aid" was just a political ploy, and one designed to try to incite violence (see the Blomberg piece I linked too).

Now waiting for someone to say that the NYT and Blomberg are communist propaganda...

1) anti-Venezuelans are those that support this murderous dictator, and continue to post ridiculous lies such as "Venezuela has fair elections". Ask a Venezuelan who they feel is anti-Venezuelan!

If you bothered reading the article, you'll note that it's just about one specific incident, and that even if everything happened as they interpreted, it was an accident. That is, it's not as if the US or Colombia destroyed the convoy on purpose and then lied about it to make Maduro look bad (as if that's necessary at this point). No, some Venezuelan protestor threw his molotov cocktail rather stupidly.

It really doesn't change anything at all.

BTW, obviously the humanitarian aid was a move by Guaidó to try to push the army away from Maduro. Nothing wrong with that either. And it would have helped people who are desperately in need. The blame for it not reaching the people who need it lies with the regime that blocked its entrance and provoked all that confrontation - confrontation with their own people, which ultimately resulted in the destruction of the convoy mentioned above.

Not sure what massive conspiracy you see this time. But isn't it puzzling that the Illuminati Media contradicts the US government?

Curiously I've never seen the Bolivarian media contradict Maduro, or Russian state media contradict Putin, or any Cuban media contradict Castro. And we all know according to you those are vibrant democracies, unlike the evil dictatorships that are the US and EU.

 

[innonimatu]

Curiously I've never seen the Bolivarian media contradict Maduro, or Russian state media contradict Putin, or any Cuban media contradict Castro. And we all know according to you those are vibrant democracies, unlike the evil dictatorships that are the US and EU.

Has or has not Venezuela always had plenty of media hostile to Chavez and later Maduro? You pretend that it is some kind of totalitarian dictatorship, it isn't.

 

[luiz]

Has or has not Venezuela always had plenty of media hostile to Chavez and later Maduro? You pretend that it is some kind of totalitarian dictatorship, it isn't.

Have Chavez and Maduro shut down countless newspapers, radios and TV stations for disliking their editorial line or not?

Venezuela is not totalitarian, but it's more of a dictatorship under Maduro than say Brazil was from 64 to 85. And the regime certainly killed far more than the Brazilian military dictatorship. And it's also way more incompetent, but that's another point.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Venezuela press freedom index is among the worst of all America, only better than Cuba and Mexico and slightly worse than Colombia. However in Mexico and Colombia it is because drug cartel violence, which includes murdering and kidnapping journalists. In Venezuela on the other hand media coaction comes directly from the government in the same way as Cuba. So, maybe not totalitarian yet, but getting closer and closer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

https://rsf.org/en/Venezuela

Venezuela’s president since 2013, Nicolás Maduro does his utmost to silence independent media outlets and keep news coverage under constant control. The climate for journalists has been extremely tense since the onset of a political and economic crisis in 2016, and is exacerbated by Maduro’s frequent references to the “media war” being waged by national and international media outlets to discredit his administration. Arbitrary arrests and violence against reporters by the police and intelligence services reached a record level in 2017. Foreign journalists are often expelled. A 2010 law provides for sanctions in the event of any content “calling the legitimately constituted authority into question.” This has led to arbitrary arrests and defamation prosecutions. The print media are meanwhile often threatened by strange newsprint shortages.

 

[Hrothbern]

My boring opinion is that new elections, fully controlled by the UN (incl newsmedia), should take place ASAP.
Full stop.


On this "who is more bad"

If I take the very selfish approach to "judge" this Venezuela issue on what is good for my country only.
Amost everything that (in reality) happened in Venezuela since Chavez has only be detrimental for the left cause in my country.


Not everything was clear in the beginning, and lots of ill-informed support was there. Some journalists, newsmedia, politicians, etc using the socialist Venezuela to tell their own story of hope for their own country: "if we only get there to be in charge, everything we always wanted can be done".
The grass looks always greener at the other side of the river.... until you cross the river.

Has as such nothing to do with the left. Happened enough as well in my country with the right.
The magic of the free market is just like the magic of good intentions.
Both function pretty well at very small scale.
Distance clouds your info and hinders to adress abuse. Distance means much more efforts to handle reality and make good choices. Distance is a risk... a risk needing mitigating efforts.

 

[luiz]

My boring opinion is that new elections, fully controlled by the UN (incl newsmedia), should take place ASAP.
Full stop.


On this "who is more bad"

If I take the very selfish approach to "judge" this Venezuela issue on what is good for my country only.
Amost everything that (in reality) happened in Venezuela since Chavez has only be detrimental for the left cause in my country.


Not everything was clear in the beginning, and lots of ill-informed support was there. Some journalists, newsmedia, politicians, etc using the socialist Venezuela to tell their own story of hope for their own country: "if we only get there to be in charge, everything we always wanted can be done".
The grass looks always greener at the other side of the river.... until you cross the river.

Has as such nothing to do with the left. Happened enough as well in my country with the right.
The magic of the free market is just like the magic of good intentions.
Both function pretty well at very small scale.
Distance clouds your info and hinders to adress abuse. Distance means much more efforts to handle reality and make good choices. Distance is a risk... a risk needing mitigating efforts.

By that metric Chávez and Maduro have been pretty positive for the rest of South America, especially after the final collapse begun in 2014. Basically they have become a warning story about the dangers of left-wing extremism, and have thoroughly discredited an entire generation of left-wing South American politicians that had developed strong ties with the Bolivarian regime. Venezuela was a big topic in the Brazilian elections last year, probably the first time a foreign affairs discussion had that much impact on internal politics since WW2.

 

[Hrothbern]

By that metric Chávez and Maduro have been pretty positive for the rest of South America, especially after the final collapse begun in 2014. Basically they have become a warning story about the dangers of left-wing extremism, and have thoroughly discredited an entire generation of left-wing South American politicians that had developed strong ties with the Bolivarian regime. Venezuela was a big topic in the Brazilian elections last year, probably the first time a foreign affairs discussion had that much impact on internal politics since WW2.

Sure
That's the backfire.

Whereby I consider blind and uncritical support for something happening at distance to be as bad and risky as blind and uncritical rejection of something happening at a distance.
Both risk your own cause.
And the latter has the additional risk that your politics get dominated by things you are against. Once that gets your dominating political culture, you move towards more political stagnations, less cohesive constructive governing, and ending up in diminishing the value of the public institutions.

If you are genuinely against something, you must be able to formulate that in the constructive terms. What you are against is a consequence of that.
For example:
Saying I am in favor for a fair living wage (based on this and that, implementable by this and that) is something that can construct that goal, and fundamentally differing from saying I am against socialist this and that, leaving open how to achieve what you want, leaving open whether you wanted anything at all (as public government).
And yes, if it comes to a constructive debate, it will be the debate on what is "fair". And for sure that "fair" will move over time depending on changing circumstances.

 

[BirraImperial]

My boring opinion is that new elections, fully controlled by the UN (incl newsmedia), should take place ASAP.
Full stop.

I agree 100%... But the problem with this is that there can't be free elections in Venezuela until the ruling party gives up control of the Venezuelan Electoral Authorities...There can't be fair elections while Maduro's goons are running the show...

 

[Hrothbern]

I agree 100%... But the problem with this is that there can't be free elections in Venezuela until the ruling party gives up control of the Venezuelan Electoral Authorities...There can't be fair elections while Maduro's goons are running the show...

yes
In the root of our worldorder is the souvereignity of the nation-state.
And allowing a qualified majority vote in the UN as legitimation to interfere in that souvereignity at the minimal level of forcing elections, controlled by the UN, would already be a revolution in that worldorder.
But much, much better than letting the misery prolong until some military action mostly causing more damage than good.

It's for me a bit like: "Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" ("Furthermore, (moreover) I consider that Carthage must be destroyed") said to be stated by Cato the Elder as conclusion of all his speeches.
Repeat the main message over and over again, to ensure what is basic, to keep the focus, the objective and the means clear, to not confuse it with details.

If you have a good friend, or a brother, and he is doing something stupid.... do you help him by keeping your mouth shut ? by evading and ignoring the issue behind the day-to-day stuff ?
When it is going to blow over it could be... but when it is not going to disappear on its own you are obliged as a friend to do something (imo).
What I miss from all over the world is interaction with Maduro.
I do not mean the day-to-day formal international positioning of diplomatic moves. Are those really aimed at Maduro ? Or more driven by: "if that and that country moves position, can I allow it to happen that I do not move ?"
and "did I do enough now to get enough positive newsmedia attention in my own country I did the right thing. Yes ? Ok, back to business as usual. Ohh... do I have to sign up to some humanitarian aid, some sanctions ? ok.. back to business as usual".

But that only drives Maduro in further isolation and deeper in his trenches, only prolonging the misery of the Venezuelan people.

I mean constructive interaction from all those people that used the Venezuelean Revolution of Chavez for their own banners, and happy with Venezuelean financial aid when Chavez was a money fountain for the countries of his friends.

And recognising that most "friends" flee when your have run out of liquor and money....



I prefer repeating over and over again my boring opinion: get elections controlled by the UN.


.

 

[luiz]

They don't even need to be controlled by the UN. International observers should suffice. But Birra Imperial is right, this is only possible after Maduro is gone.

 

[Hrothbern]

They don't even need to be controlled by the UN. International observers should suffice. But Birra Imperial is right, this is only possible after Maduro is gone.

Why would Maduro need to be gone ?

In theory he can be elected president in those new presidential elections.

We just need elections forced by the UN.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Forced and supervised.

 

[luiz]

Why would Maduro need to be gone ?

In theory he can be elected president in those new presidential elections.

We just need elections forced by the UN.

Well yes if the country is under occupation by UN forces or whatever Maduro could be present. But I'm saying is that if he and the Bolivarian goons are gone, there's no reason why Venezuela can't have free elections, supervised by the UN, EU, South American neighbors, etc.

 

[Takhisis]

Bolsonaro's situation is getting more complicated by the minute. Of course, even if his implication in some corruption and/or the (as of yet unproven) participation of his son in the murder of a legislator do result in his impeachment and removal from office, it's still the very same corrupt congress and his VP and so on that will retain power so it's just one of the hydra's heads. But it'd be better to start somewhere.

ok

So why is the Southern cone differing ?

I'll dig up some more on that tomorrow/later today.

Argentina and Chile are a bit weird. They are still thoroughly bananacratic; after all, one gave birth to Perón and the other to Pinochet. They were part of Britain's informal empire:

Alongside the formal control it exerted over its own colonies, Britain's dominant position in world trade meant that it effectively controlled the economies of many countries, such as China, Argentina and Siam, which has been described by some historians as an "Informal Empire"​

Britain attacked Argentina several times, before and after its independence, occupying Buenos Aires twice, penetrating quite a way up the River Plate basin, and also forcing the independence of Uruguay after Argentina had defeated Brazil when the latter had tried to conquer it. It failed to acquire political control of the country, but until it was replaced by the US as hegemon (i.e. after WWII) it effectively controlled the transportation networks (roads, shipping, railroads), plus the agricultural exports on which the country, to this day, still depends. Chile was more of an overt puppet and the British tried to play the two against each other and against recalcitrant powers; Chile brought Bolivia and Peru to heel while Argentina (and Uruguay and Brazil) did the same with Paraguay.

It gets a lot more complicated than that, but it's very-late-a.m. now and I'd rather go on later.

I'm not disputing that there is plenty of negative reportage about the Bolivarian government. I specifically stated as much. I'm specifically querying the claim that Maduro is manipulating elections through the use of force- either by forcing voter at gunpoint, per your claim, or by intimidating opposition voters, per Luiz's claim. Perhaps I'm not reading the right sources, but so far I've yet to see even clearly-stated claims of ballot stuffing or voter suppression. If there was clear and unambiguous evident of the use of force, as described, it would surely be hard to miss.

Ooookay.
I've finally found a paywall-free reprint of an NYT article detailing how in the 2013 and 2018 elections the Venezuelan government (after declaring that Chávez had been assassinated by unnamed foreign operatives who injected him with cancer cells and his spirit is still with us, guiding the government, a claim which, as of this week, is still the official line in Telesur) did all sorts of things such as withholding food and medical treatment from voters unless they voted from them, forcing voters to identify themselves using party-issued membership cards instead of state-issued national ID, only issuing medical care and only allowing the famed Cuban doctors into neighbourhoods right before election time, having the same Cuban doctors tell Venezuelan voters that they wouldn't get treatment unless they voted for the ruling party, use fo fake IDs, handing out wrong or outright fake medication. The same doctors interviewed for the article (branded as desertors by the Cuban government) describe gun battles at polling centres, destruction of ballots, and a myriad other crimes which, to a sometimes lesser extent, I myself have witnessed/suffered here in far-off Argentina.

Also the professional association and the national trade union of journalists in Venezuela have officially denounced the recurring repression, imprisonment, forced disappearance and torture of journalists by the government.

And that's just a snippet.

 

[Hrothbern]

Argentina and Chile are a bit weird. They are still thoroughly bananacratic; after all, one gave birth to Perón and the other to Pinochet. They were part of Britain's informal empire:
Alongside the formal control it exerted over its own colonies, Britain's dominant position in world trade meant that it effectively controlled the economies of many countries, such as China, Argentina and Siam, which has been described by some historians as an "Informal Empire"Britain attacked Argentina several times, before and after its independence, occupying Buenos Aires twice, penetrating quite a way up the River Plate basin, and also forcing the independence of Uruguay after Argentina had defeated Brazil when the latter had tried to conquer it. It failed to acquire political control of the country, but until it was replaced by the US as hegemon (i.e. after WWII) it effectively controlled the transportation networks (roads, shipping, railroads), plus the agricultural exports on which the country, to this day, still depends. Chile was more of an overt puppet and the British tried to play the two against each other and against recalcitrant powers; Chile brought Bolivia and Peru to heel while Argentina (and Uruguay and Brazil) did the same with Paraguay.

It gets a lot more complicated than that, but it's very-late-a.m. now and I'd rather go on later.

Thanks for adding that historical element.
Did not know about it, though it feels unsurprising as well at the same time. Spain weakened by the Napoleontic wars, Britain seizing the opportunities. And "imperium by trade" with the carrot and the stick of investments and gunboats in the background appear to work fine as businessmodel in the first phase nation-state era (I consider the emergence of supra-national bodies as a second phase, adding some mitigating rules. That's why the US almost never sign their convenants).
The remark of Luiz, that the South cone was less a plantation and more a farmer economy as first sector, somehow has to fit in as well I think. Farmers (can) add more strongly an element of personal independence (and another property structure) in the societal equation.
Besides putting some remarks in Henry Poirot detectives in better context (how silly as info source..., but so are Jules Verne's descriptions for me) it gives another aspect as well on the Falklands war.

 

[innonimatu]

As far as I could see throughout recorded history, governments that want to really repress journalists do it. And there won't be any left to complain, much less an organized association, after 20 years of that government.
And as far as I can see, that have always been during those 20 years plenty of "free media" inside Venezuela, very much against the government.

If someone self-proclaimed himself president, called for the armed forces to turn against the government, and called for foreign countries to intervene, how many governments in the world would not react? I wonder what the life expectancy of someone who attempted that in the US would be, before the FBI surrounded him and his supporters and started shooting...

About that reprint of a NYT article, they have one source. Was it telling the truth, or collaborating in a propaganda campaign? Because it is crystal clear that there is one, recently very much intensified, to paint the government of Venezuela as a dictatorship and justify an attack against it to overthrow it. Having seem an endless number of lies being employed already towards similar ends before, I remain skeptical. Maduro is not a nice guy and has been clinging to power, but in that he behaves no differently from any other elected president who felt that he was under attach by an illegitimate campaign. The issue is for the venezuelans to decide, they better than anyone else are in a position to evaluate and judge. Not for the UN, not for other countries. If Maduro is as bad as some here like to paint him, then surely he will have so little support remaining that he'll be removed from power. In fact if he were so he would have been removed long ago. That has not yet happened. Perhaps because those people have been exaggerating or relying on distorted reports about the situation and the divisions inside Venezuela?

The facts do not match the allegations. The hoped-for removal of the government continues not to happen. It can only happen through the will of the venezuelans, the collapse of support for that government. Until it happens I'm going to be very, very skeptical of the reports the media publishes.

 

[innonimatu]

This is just too clownish not to post: Juan Guaido the Schroedinger president...

State Department Briefing With Special Representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams

QUESTION: And second, could you explain to us the article under which Mr. Guaido declared himself president? It is said that it has expired last month. Could you explain that to us? What is the --

MR ABRAMS: As to the Venezuelan constitution, the National Assembly has passed a resolution that states that that 30-day period of interim presidency will not start ending or counting until the day Nicolas Maduro leaves power. So the 30 days doesn’t start now, it starts after Maduro. And they – that’s a resolution of the National Assembly.

QUESTION: When did they – they did that after he --

MR ABRAMS: They did that – this is roughly a month ago. We could try to find the date for you.

QUESTION: When he was – when he was – took the mantle of interim president, that wasn’t there.

MR ABRAMS: Yes, when – that’s correct. And so people --

QUESTION: Can you do that ex post facto like that?

MR ABRAMS: When people ask a question how do --

QUESTION: That seems to be like saying I was elected for four years to be president, and then two years in you change the rules so that your term didn’t start – hasn’t even started yet. How does that happen?

MR ABRAMS: Well, you don’t get a vote because you’re not in the National Assembly.

QUESTION: Well, you don’t. You’re not in the National Assembly either.

QUESTION: If it matters, does the U.S. view that as constitutional under their system?

MR ABRAMS: Yes. I mean, we’re taking the – the National Assembly is the only legitimate democratic institution left in Venezuela, and their interpretation of the constitution, as you know, is that as of the date of this alleged term for Maduro, the presidency is vacant. But they have also said that that 30-day period starts when Maduro goes.

QUESTION: So Juan Guaido is the interim president of an interim that doesn’t exist yet?

MR ABRAMS: The 30-day end to his interim presidency starts counting. Because he’s not in power, that’s the problem. Maduro is still there. So they have decided that they will count that from when he actually is in power and Maduro’s gone. I think it’s logical.

QUESTION: So then he really isn’t interim president, then?

MR ABRAMS: He is interim president, but he’s not --

QUESTION: With no power.

MR ABRAMS: -- able to exercise the powers of the office because Maduro still is there.

QUESTION: So their interpretation is that until and unless he actually has the power to run the country, he’s not actually the interim president?

MR ABRAMS: No. Their interpretation is that the constitution requires a 30-day interim period, but it – those 30 days should not be counted while Maduro is still there exercising the powers of his former office.

According to the Sate Department he is president because Maduro deserted the post, you see? But he is not president because Maduro is still in the post, you see? So the very same article of the constitution invoked by the State Department to claim he is president does not apply, but applies...

Fact: this was a Washington-orchestrated attempted coup with which all the mainstream media around the world happily collaborated, either out of incompetence or in full boot-licking mode. Now that it failed some journalists seem pissed off at least enough to ridicule Abrams at press conferences.

 

[Estebonrober]

This is just too clownish not to post: Juan Guaido the Schroedinger president...

State Department Briefing With Special Representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams



According to the Sate Department he is president because Maduro deserted the post, you see? But he is not president because Maduro is still in the post, you see? So the very same article of the constitution invoked by the State Department to claim he is president does not apply, but applies...

Fact: this was a Washington-orchestrated attempted coup with which all the mainstream media around the world happily collaborated, either out of incompetence or in full boot-licking mode. Now that it failed some journalists seem pissed off at least enough to ridicule Abrams at press conferences.

Look I get what the interviewer was trying to do and I get what you are trying to say here, finally I'm no fan of the fact that the Trump administration and Mr. Abrams (worst pick possible for this btw), BUT!, the logic in that stance is obvious. The idea behind an interim post is to fill in from one post to the next. Since the guy in the first post has decided to stay no matter what, his "interim" hasn't really began. What Abrams is caught here on is trying to deny the reality that guiado has no power. That at this moment in time is a fools errand. Clearly Guaido does not have the powers of the presidency nor has he had them in the preceding month or so. . .

You can look at this from Maduro's viewpoint, he can't cynically run out the clock on his assembly calling him an unconstitutional usurper. That should not be a thing anyways.

Also after reading this and reading about this stuff it seems you have a couple of fake stories about Maduro's military burning supplies. The overall reality about inflation (before this crisis btw), and the systemic removal of his enemies are not made up stories and are orchestrated only by the wannabe dictator Maduro.