Wolf! Wolf! As I recall, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but Castro was a so-called 'social democrat' until he consolidated his control in Cuba, at which point he (SUPRISE) announced he was a communist. When one considers that his idol is Castro...connect the dots. However, I'm not sure what the disagreement over his status does to this debate anyway. Certainly socialist governments have nationalized corporations and not continued down the road to communism. Maybe you can explain how the 'entrenched powers' could refuse to do what the government tells them to do, but then can't stop the government from nationalizing the companies, lol. It would seem that if they were all powerful, they wouldn't have gotten nationalized no would they?
WHen these industries are nationalized, are they being bought out, or confiscated? Are the former owners being compensated. If not, and you support this action, shouldn't you also support similar measures in the US, where the rich/poor divide is considerable and adequate health care is not available to all. Quite appart from any human rights violations, and postulations on what may happen with the 'democratic' system, this seems like a pretty big shift from what we tend to consider basic rights and order in Western culture. Not all North American wealth was honourably earned, yet we do not condone wholesale confiscations. I expect that the good guy/ bad guy divide is not so clear down there either. This stuff cannot be good for the nation. They'll always have the oil, but capital and educated or mobile folks will leave. Yet...democratically elected. What do you do? Sometimes democracy means you don't get your way. Does it give the elected government a free reign? Do other nations have a right (or a responsiblilty?) to interfere?
Hayes, takes the usual line on private property. It is enough to make most of us socialists. In the case of Saudi Arabia he would say that if the unelected king gives the oil to international oil comapnies then the poeople have no claim to it, it is then owned by the oil companies. Similarly if we can briefly get an Iraqi government of our choosing to sign over all the oil to the Majors the Iraqi people have no rights to it.. I'm not quite sure, Pro-consul Brmer prior to secretly turnming over power might have already have done this. Or perhaps Allawi he of the 1.5% to 9% poularity can be told to do so. Baqui, history is replete with examples of people rising up against brutal kings and dictators. If you check back you might discover that orur Europeans forefathers and mothers did that. In neiigboring Iran they did that against the Shah who the US installed to replace the democrat we ovethrew in a violent coup. (I know ancient history now we believe in democracy.)
You are ignoring the point about the separation of powers that he is eroding by changing the rules so he can pack the judiciary with his followers. You call it <i>solidifying his power base</i> while it could also be called the first step towards moving to the <i>Cuba</i> model of government. As far as winning the election........does everybody who voted for him realize the implications of what he is doing by packing the judiciary? If it truly <i>Democracy</i> as you, zion and glynch seem to think, then why does HRW seem concerned? <a HREF="http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/venezu9020.htm"> Testimony of José Miguel Vivanco</a> <i>....... A third issue—and the main subject of my remarks today—entails threats to the independence of the country’s judiciary. Over the past year, President Chávez and his allies have taken steps to control Venezuela’s judicial branch. These steps undercut the separation of powers and the independence of judges. They violate basic principles of Venezuela’s constitution and international human rights law. And they represent the most serious threat to Venezuela’s fragile democracy since the 2002 coup. The most brazen of these steps is a law passed last month that expands the Supreme Court from twenty to thirty-two members. The new law allows Chávez’s governing coalition to use its slim majority in the legislature to obtain an overwhelming majority of seats on the Supreme Court. The law also allows his coalition to nullify the appointments of sitting justices based on extremely subjective criteria. In short, Chávez’s supporters can now both pack and purge the country’s highest court. It is this court that may ultimately determine the outcome of the recall referendum scheduled for August 15. It will have to decide whether Chávez, should he lose the recall, can run again in the subsequent election. And it will have to resolve any legal challenges that arise from the recall vote itself, which is expected to be hotly contested. Pro-Chávez legislators have already announced their intention to name the new justices by next month, in time for the referendum. Such a political takeover of the Supreme Court will also compound damage already being done to judicial independence by the Court itself. The Supreme Court has summarily fired several lower-court judges after they decided politically controversial cases. And it has failed to grant 80 percent of the country’s judges security of tenure, which is an essential ingredient of judicial independence. President Chávez’s supporters in the legislative and judicial branches have sought to assuage concerns about the court-packing law by insisting that those wielding authority over judges and justices will show restraint and respect for the rule of law. Such assurances are beside the point, however. A rule of law that relies on the self-restraint of those with power is not, in fact, the rule of law. Chávez supporters justify the court-packing law largely as a response to pro-opposition rulings in a deeply divided court, such as a highly questionable one that absolved military officers who participated in the 2002 coup. They also point to the failure of lower court judges to address allegedly illegal activities carried out as part of the general strike in 2003 that cost the country billions of dollars in oil revenue and did enormous harm to the economy. It may be true that some judges have let opposition members off the hook after they sought to undermine the rule of law. <b>But Chávez and his supporters should now be taking steps to strengthen the judiciary. Instead they are rigging the system to favor their own interests. We have seen similar efforts before elsewhere in the region. During the 1990s, President Carlos Menem severely undermined the rule of law by packing Argentina’s Supreme Court with his allies. In Peru, President Alberto Fujimori went even further in controlling the courts, through mass firings and the denial of tenure to judges. Venezuela is currently pursuing both a court-packing scheme, similar to that of Menem, and an assault on judicial independence, similar in spirit (if not in scope) to that of Fujimori. As the experiences of Argentina and Peru demonstrate, these efforts do not bode well for Venezuela’s democracy. </b> What makes the developments in Venezuela especially alarming is their potential impact on the country’s already volatile political situation. Whether the current crisis is resolved peacefully and lawfully will depend in large part on the country’s judiciary. It is the courts that must ultimately determine whether decisions by the country’s electoral authorities are valid—as well as whether the actions of Chávez’s supporters and opponents, in the streets and elsewhere, are legally permissible. It is, in other words, the courts that must ultimately ensure that the political conflict does not result in the trampling of people’s freedom of expression and association, due process guarantees, and other basic human rights. To do so effectively, it is imperative that judges and justices be able to act with the independence and impartiality that are mandated by both the Venezuelan constitution and international human rights law. It is not too late for Venezuela to reverse course. President Chávez’s governing coalition in the National Assembly could still suspend implementation of the new law before any permanent damage is done. And the Supreme Court could strike down, on constitutional grounds, the provisions of the court-packing law that subject the court to political domination by the governing coalition. The international community should do all it can to encourage Venezuela to protect and strengthen judicial independence. Unfortunately, however, the ability of the United States to advocate for democracy in Venezuela was severely hurt in 2002 when the Bush administration chose to blame Chávez for his own ouster rather than unequivocally denouncing the coup. In addition, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal has undermined the administration’s moral authority when it comes to promoting the rule of law abroad. If the United States is to have a positive influence in Venezuela today it will have to be through the sort of multilateral diplomacy that the Bush administration endorsed when it signed the Inter-American Democratic Charter in 2001. The Democratic Charter authorizes the OAS to respond actively to threats to democracy in the region, ranging from coup d’états to government policies that undermine the democratic process, and it identifies judicial independence as an essential component of a democratic system. During Venezuela’s 2002 coup, the Charter was crucial in mobilizing member states to join the chorus of condemnation that helped restore President Chávez to office. The OAS should now use its authority under Article 18 of the Charter to press the Venezuelan government to suspend implementation of the court-packing law. The OAS should also offer to mediate Venezuelan efforts to reach a consensus on how to strengthen the independence of the judiciary. International lending agencies could also have a positive influence on the situation in Venezuela. The World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank have supported projects aimed at improving the administration of justice in Venezuela—from training prosecutors and police to developing court infrastructure. The most urgent improvement needed now is the strengthening of judicial independence and autonomy. Without that, other improvements may only help a fundamentally flawed system function more efficiently. To encourage progress where it is most needed, all future international assistance aimed at improving the Venezuelan justice system should be made contingent upon Venezuela taking immediate and concrete steps to shore up the independence of its judges and the autonomy of its highest court. When the United States, Venezuela, and other countries in the hemisphere signed the Democratic Charter in 2001, they committed themselves to work together to defend democracy in the region and to respond to emerging threats before serious harm is done to a country’s democratic institutions. Today Venezuela faces such a threat, and the international community should engage with the Venezuelan government to address it.</i>
Hayes, at least we can still laugh about it. I get a laugh out of thinking of you being drafted to defend the monarchy of Saudi Arabia against the people. Did you? lol
I don't dislike you, glynch. I just think you're a little outdated and wacky at times. But to each his own!
Either way, it is not for the US to decide what kind of government Venezuela chooses. I will not personally be concerned until they suspend or cancel elections. IMO, the people who are now in power have been oppressed for so long that they have every right to demand massive change, as they have done by electing Chavez FOUR SEPARATE TIMES. I don't think they care, considering that they are now receiving education and health care that was denied them under previous governments. 59% of the people who voted (nearly 95% of eligible voters excercised their rights) feel like Chavez is the one to lead them and that is all I need to know about their government. Until Chavez starts executing political opponents, committing genocide on his people, or suspending elections, he is the right man for the job as evidenced by his overwhelming support. Again, when Chavez does something egregious, I will stop supporting him, but he is doing what he has to do to make sure that the people who voted for him get education and receive health care. If he needs to pack the judiciary to make that happen, then those are the breaks. Again, the elite in that country had every opportunity to address the concerns of the peasants for decades. They chose to ignore the peasants instead and are now reaping what they have sown.
Andy, From your posts it seems that your main concern is that this is something to be decided by the people themselves, and not an outside power. I don't really have to much of a problem with that. I'm not sure if you need to be FOR chavez to take that position though. I am curious though what people's opinion is of nationalization of industry. In the increasingly globalized economy, nationalizing a corporation can and probably IS nationalizing property owned by people outside a particular country. So then the question becomes should we intervene to maintain our own property rights? I'm not sure how the government not funding education, for example, justifies them basically confiscating MY property (just as an example).
Hayes, my example. The King of Saudi Arabia of course with the consult of a few family members signs contracts to sell oil at a certain fixed price for say 100 years or until it runs out with Exxon, and the usual suspects. I guess that is it for the Saudis and their oil as you and I are the owners thorugh our index funds. Can't go stealing from poor little us can you?
Hey I don't dislike you guys either and I still remember Jacie's advice on possibly buying a RTW ticket in another country.
If we all had the same views all the time, this forum would be boring. And that one maybe says some harsh things in the heat of an argument does not mean that one dislikes the other poster, even if it may seem like that in that moment. I appreciate everyone's views, as long as they do not promote hate, which glynch's never do. All that being said, I would like to stress that I am always right, and whoever disagrees with me on anything is a total fool .
All the middle east countries nationalized their oil reserves years ago. I think Saudi, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran etc..etc..etc.. Most from US companies like Exxon and Shell. I think they still signed deals with them, but their equipment and refineries belonged to the governments of those countries. DD
I know Iran and Libya did, but that's part of the reason they've got embargos and funds seized. Don't know about Saudi or Kuwait. Anyone else? Anyway, is it legitimate to nationalize something that the indigenous people don't own, or has been sold to someone outside the country? I think this is a very difficult question. On one hand I understand the argument that a totalitarian regime, for instance, may make deals that a succeeding regime doesn't want to uphold. But what does that do to globalization as a whole, and how can we reliably conduct business investment in a climate where its OK to say 'forget it that was a different government?'
