[angaq0k]

From this site:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=500711

[quote][b]
US revealed to be secretly funding opponents of Chavez

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

13 March 2004

Washington has been channelling hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund the political opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - including those who briefly overthrew the democratically elected leader in a coup two years ago.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that, in 2002, America paid more than a million dollars to those political groups in what it claims is an ongoing effort to build democracy and "strengthen political parties". Mr Chavez has seized on the information, telling Washington to "get its hands off Venezuela".
(...)
Jeremy Bigwood, a Washington-based freelance journalist who obtained the documents, yesterday told The Independent: "This repeats a pattern started in Nicaragua in the election of 1990 when [the US] spent $20 per voter to get rid of [the Sandinista President Daniel] Ortega. It's done in the name of democracy but it's rather hypocritical. Venezuela does have a democratically elected President who won the popular vote which is not the case with the US."

The funding has been made by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) a non-profit agency financed entirely by Congress. It distributes $40m (£22m) a year to various groups in what it says is an effort to strengthen democracy.

But critics of the NED say the organisation routinely meddles in other countries' affairs to support groups that believe in free enterprise, minimal government intervention in the economy and opposition to socialism in any form. In recent years, the NED has channelled funds to the political opponents of the recently ousted Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide at the same time that Washington was blocking loans to his government.

"It the sort of stuff that used to be done by the CIA," said Mr Bigwood. "I am not particularly interested in Mr Chavez - I am interested in what Washington is doing." In Venezuela, the NED channelled the money to three of its four main operational "wings": the international arms of the Republican and Democratic parties - the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs respectively - and the foreign policy wing of the AFL-CIO union, the American Centre for International Labour Solidarity.

These groups ran workshops, training sessions and provided free advice to three political parties in Venezuela - Democratic Action, Copei and First Justice - the leaderships of which have been at the forefront of efforts to recall Mr Chavez.

Chris Sabatini, the director of the NED for Latin America, claimed the organisation's aim is to promote democracy and "build political space". He told the New York Times that the endowment had been working with civic groups in Venezuela with no political ties and human rights groups.

Relations between the US and Venezuela have not been so tense since April 2002 when Mr Chavez was briefly ousted by opponents who had been supported by the US in the run-up to the coup. At the time, Washington blamed Mr Chavez for his own downfall.

Washington's antipathy towards Mr Chavez is fuelled by his friendship with Cuba's Fidel Castro and his open criticism of Washington-backed free market policies. But Venezuela is also America's fourth largest supplier of oil - something that gives Mr Chavez a degree of leverage but, at the same time, makes him vulnerable to those who would like to see a more pro-American leader in power.

In recent days, Caracas and other cities have been rocked by demonstrations in support of the recall vote. Those intensified after the supposedly independent elections council ruled that government opponents lacked enough total signatures to force the vote. There have also been large and vociferous marches by thousands of supporters of the president who oppose the vote.

[Ratm]

I f****ing hate the U.S Gov. despicable undemocratic tactics. Does the AG not think SA rebels will go straight to the source. NAmerica will have a lot more problems in the future if this keeps up. The hispanic population is 20 million+ -- you do it to yourselves.

[fizzlemynizzle]

golly, and venezuela has lots of oil.. never woulda guessed.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
From this site:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=500711

Jeremy Bigwood, a Washington-based freelance journalist who obtained the documents, yesterday told The Independent: "<snip> Venezuela does have a democratically elected President who won the popular vote which is not the case with the US."

Ah yes, it just wouldn't have been a story without bringing that up.

[lil'babykitten]

"US revealed to be secretly funding opponents of Chavez"

No surprises there at all. But Chavez has known this for a long time and has acted accordingly. Good for him.

[Spheric Harlot]

How long until accusations of ties to al Qaeda?

What do you think?

[Logic]

The western media is just now picking up on it?

Chavez himself held a pressconference a few weeks ago(IIRC) where he showed proof of this.

Ah, well. It's good to see how the US spreads democracy around the world............

[Zimphire]

Yeah Chavez is a cool guy.

http://www.freeserbia.net/Articles/2002/Chavez.html

[SimeyTheLimey]

Good grief people! This is international democracy promotion. The National Endowment for Democracy and its activities are hardly "secret." It's all completely in the open.

It's also not unique. The US got the idea for NED from the Germans. They have several party Stiftungen that engage in democracy promotion around the world. There are five of those: the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, which is SPD, the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, which is FDP, the Hans Siedel Stiftung, which is CSU, the Heinrich Boell Stifting, which is Green, and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, which is CDU. All of them funnel aid to promote democracy in various countries around the world. For example, here is the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Venezuela. They have been there since 1962.

After the US followed the German lead in developing these international aid programs to promote democracy, the British also founded one called the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

So: why is the Independent writing about the US one as if it is this evil subversive influence when both the Germans and the British are doing exactly the same thing? Because it's a crappy slanted paper with an anti-American agenda, that's why.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So: why is the Independent writing about the US one as if it is this evil subversive influence when both the Germans and the British are doing exactly the same thing? Because it's a crappy slanted paper with an anti-American agenda, that's why.

Of course

Or perhaps since you don't promote democracy by inciting violence and riots in nations that already are democracies. Perhaps since promoting democracy is about helping nations and parties in democracies and not choosing which party is more to your likening. Perhaps because most of the western media has ignored this problem and continued to spread lies about what is really going on in Venezuela. Perhaps........

But of course it is easier for you to blast the source and not the content. Nothing new here.......

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:

But of course it is easier for you to blast the source and not the content. Nothing new here.......

I'm not just blasting the source. I'm blasting its content, which is biased and misleading. Typical for the Independent. But if you like your sources to do nothing but feed your prejudices, carry on.

All of the international democracy promotion foundations do the same thing. They provide aid and advice to grass roots democracy organizations like trades unions and opposition political parties. They have been active in countries as diverse as Chile, where they helped Chileans peacefully bring down Pinochet, and eastern Europe and Russia, where some of them are still working. They were also highly active in South Africa under Apartheit, and I believe a number are still there. Of course repressive governments dislike opposition. But a vibrant opposition is essential in any democracy.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not just blasting the source. I'm blasting its content, which is biased and misleading. Typical for the Independent. But if you like your sources to do nothing but feed your prejudices, carry on.

Thanks

And the same goes for you

[slow moe]

Yeah, and like George Soros would spend millions to help re-elect Bush.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
Thanks

And the same goes for you

Follow the links I gave you. Educate yourself.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Follow the links I gave you. Educate yourself.

You are hardly a source for education Simon.

Education is unbiased..

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
You are hardly a source for education Simon.

Education is unbiased..

As is ignorance. But the ignorant are easily mislead by an article like this one.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As is ignorance. But the ignorant are easily mislead by an article like this one.

So now you are calling me ignorant?

This article has very little "news" for me. I've been following the events closely for quite a while using various sources.

[Logic]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Yeah, and like George Soros would spend millions to help re-elect Bush.

The difference being that both are in the US.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As is ignorance. But the ignorant are easily mislead by an article like this one.

So we've established that education and ignorance isn't biased. Good stuff

It only supports what I wrote that you are not looking to educate. You are too biased

Thanks for confirming what I wrote.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
So now you are calling me ignorant?

This article has very little "news" for me. I've been following the events closely for quite a while using various sources.

Hopefully not all the sources you have been following are in the same ideological corner as the Independent.

Come on! You can't defend that article. It's grossly misleading, either deliberately, or because the "journalist" doesn't understand the subject matter. Either way, it is clearly written to appeal to anti-American senitment. If it weren't, it would talk about all the western democracy promotion foundations, not just the American one, and it wouldn't use inflammatory (and inaccurate) rhetoric about "secret" funding.

It's a terrible article, and you guys bought it lock, stock and barrel.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
But of course it is easier for you to blast the source and not the content. Nothing new here.......

Did you read it? He did both.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not just blasting the source. I'm blasting its content, which is biased and misleading. Typical for the Independent. But if you like your sources to do nothing but feed your prejudices, carry on.

All of the international democracy promotion foundations do the same thing. They provide aid and advice to grass roots democracy organizations like trades unions and opposition political parties. They have been active in countries as diverse as Chile, where they helped Chileans peacefully bring down Pinochet, and eastern Europe and Russia, where some of them are still working. They were also highly active in South Africa under Apartheit, and I believe a number are still there. Of course repressive governments dislike opposition. But a vibrant opposition is essential in any democracy.

True. I agree that the title is misleading, and the content heavily biased. Maybe it was meant to offset the blatant pro-opposition bias in most of the media, but that is no justification. It is a shame for the NED to use 1/40 of its budget to support a virulently anti-democratic opposition (which promoted and participated in the failed coup of 2002) poised at removing from office a democratically elected president.

A cursory look at the declassified documents found on http://venezuelafoia.info/ shows how the main beneficiaries of the grants are those same figures that cheered when Pedro Carmona abolished the constitution and disbanded the parliament.

It's no secret that the administration hates Chavez and what he stands for, and claiming that the NED funds are 'just the tip of the iceberg' is hardly debatable. The administration's praises for the wannabe-dictator (retracted only after a military and civilian uprising restored the constitutional order) is tale-telling.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
How long until accusations of ties to al Qaeda?

What do you think?

I read an editorial in the Washington Times a few days ago making that claim...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
True. I agree that the title is misleading, and the content heavily biased.

Well, that's good at least.

It's no secret that the administration hates Chavez and what he stands for, and claiming that the NED funds are 'just the tip of the iceberg' is hardly debatable.

That might be so. But NED is not a creature of the Administration. Congress funds it directly. The board is independent. More to the point, NED is structured in three parts. One part is affiliated with the Democratic Party, one part with the Republican Party, and the third part with the AFL-CIO. I don't think that the Democrats or the AFL-CIO are in the Administration's pockets. It was quite wrong (or ignorant) of the Independent to pretend otherwise.

NED is involved in Venezuela for the same reason the other country's democracy promotion quasi-NGOs are there. Venezuela is a transitioning democracy with a long history of undemocratic government with a tendency to repress the opposition. Just because the left is ideologically sympatico with Chavez is not a reason to pretend that his government hasn't been quite undemocratic, or that democracy in Venezuela isn't shaky at best.

[benb]

Originally posted by voodoo:
You are hardly a source for education Simon.

Education is unbiased..

Then there has never been any educating. Ever.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
NED is involved in Venezuela for the same reason the other country's democracy promotion quasi-NGOs are there. Venezuela is a transitioning democracy with a long history of undemocratic government with a tendency to repress the opposition. Just because the left is ideologically sympatico with Chavez is not a reason to pretend that his government hasn't been quite undemocratic, or that democracy in Venezuela isn't shaky at best.

Yeah, but NED should be focussing on promoting democracy, not weaken it as it's doing in Venezuela. Venezuela has improved greatly under the current government in matters of human rights and democratisation - and while I agree that a democratic opposition would strengthen this tendency and prevent it from going back to authoritarianism, the strongly anti-democratic tendency of the current opposition (which lost big time in 4 consecutive elections the last 6 years) is not likely to help anyone. The NED should back organizations with proven democratic tendencies, not just whomever claims to be the ideological equivalent of the afl-cio etc.

I'm not aware of the current government being undemocratic - as I said, compared to past administrations the current one seems to be the most democratic ever; just because some at the right (and at the left as well) feels a strong antipathy for Chavez is no reason to believe his government hasn't been quite democratic.

I do agree that democracy in Venezuela is in danger - shouldn't NED support a democratic opposition and pro-democratic forces inside the government, instead of working against a democratic development?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Yeah, but NED should be focussing on promoting democracy, not weaken it as it's doing in Venezuela. Venezuela has improved greatly under the current government in matters of human rights and democratisation - and while I agree that a democratic opposition would strengthen this tendency and prevent it from going back to authoritarianism, the strongly anti-democratic tendency of the current opposition (which lost big time in 4 consecutive elections the last 6 years) is not likely to help anyone. The NED should back organizations with proven democratic tendencies, not just whomever claims to be the ideological equivalent of the afl-cio etc.

I'm not aware of the current government being undemocratic - as I said, compared to past administrations the current one seems to be the most democratic ever; just because some at the right (and at the left as well) feels a strong antipathy for Chavez is no reason to believe his government hasn't been quite democratic.

I do agree that democracy in Venezuela is in danger - shouldn't NED support a democratic opposition and pro-democratic forces inside the government, instead of working against a democratic development?

Sorry. You can't have democracy without an opposition. One party states aren't the answer.

NED and the other foundations aren't there to control the oppositon in any of the countries they operate in. hey don't have the ability, or, frankly, the interest in doing that. what they try to do is build the grass roots of democracy -- which is far more than elections. It's natural that undemocratic governments would hate anything that smacks of supporting the opposition. But Chavez has the entire power of the state. He doesn't have anything to fear from NED and its army of phtocopiers, posters, and cell phones. It's his own countrymen he's scared of.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by benb:
Then there has never been any educating. Ever.

True.

In order for education to have taken place, Simey’s mentally-unarmed opponents would actually have had to LEARN something for a change.

Clearly this hasn't happened.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sorry. You can't have democracy without an opposition. One party states aren't the answer.

Huh?

NED and the other foundations aren't there to control the oppositon in any of the countries they operate in. hey don't have the ability, or, frankly, the interest in doing that. what they try to do is build the grass roots of democracy -- which is far more than elections. It's natural that undemocratic governments would hate anything that smacks of supporting the opposition. But Chavez has the entire power of the state. He doesn't have anything to fear from NED and its army of phtocopiers, posters, and cell phones.

Huh?

It's his own countrymen he's scared of.

I don't think so:


Caption: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez rallied supporters in Caracas last month as opponents demonstrated in several cities to call for his ouster.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
I don't think so:

I think you could find similar pictures of people that I am sure you would agree are not democratic leaders.

I don't want to post any pictures of the obvious candidates, because I don't necessarily want to draw a direct parallel between Chavez and some of history's worst dictators. Just consider that the fact that a large crowd support him is not necessarily evidence that he doesn't have undemocratic tendencies.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think you could find similar pictures of people that I am sure you would agree are not democratic leaders.

We had a civilized, constructive exchange of ideas until this point - where you decided to go for the tangent, ignore my arguments and pull off a red herring (hint: read my comment and your reply to it).

If you don't want to address the issues as an intelligent debate I can't force you - I can, however, debunk your arguments. The picture was a direct reply to your allegation that Chavez does not enjoy popular support (quote: "It's his own countrymen he's scared of").

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Just consider that the fact that a large crowd support him is not necessarily evidence that he doesn't have undemocratic tendencies.

What undemocratic tendencies?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Logic:
What undemocratic tendencies?

I think he's talking about these people

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
We had a civilized, constructive exchange of ideas until this point - where you decided to go for the tangent, ignore my arguments and pull off a red herring (hint: read my comment and your reply to it).

If you don't want to address the issues as an intelligent debate I can't force you - I can, however, debunk your arguments. The picture was a direct reply to your allegation that Chavez does not enjoy popular support (quote: "It's his own countrymen he's scared of").

A rally by supporters, even a lot of them, doesn't equate to popular support. Even quite unpopular leaders have rallies. You know that.

In any case, demopcracy promotion isn't focussed on any one leader, whether supporting or opposing him. The idea is to promote democracy itself as a long term matter. Your call to not support democracy promotion in Venezuela because you happen to like the incumbent and don't like his opposition is misplaced. If he is truly popular, then he has nothing to fear from more stable and broader democratic institutions. But Venezuelans will benefit anyway.

Anyway, the bottom line is this. There are western democracy promotion quasi NGO's operating around the world sponsored by a number of democratic countries -- beginning with Germany. It's not some American plot and there is nothing secret or sinister about what any of them do. Rather, you should wonder about any government that complains about democracy promotion. A truly democratic government would not.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Rather, you should wonder about any government that complains about democracy promotion. A truly democratic government would not.

I would complaint of having a foreign government patronizing in my democracy.

How about sending a Candian mission in the U.S. to promote democracy in Florida?

A truly democratic government would not complain if we start to visit specific groups of the population of Florida.. say... whoever was not included on the voting list for instance?

Or the Governor of Florida?

Or some other groups like democrats in need of power?

How about some Unions?

Or how about the homeless of Miami?

Then we'll go in DC to talk democracy in front of the WhiteHouse. How about that!

Should I wait for an invitation? Or should I just drop by?

;o)

And how about involving other countries and have them talk about their "emergent democracy"?

[James Christ]

Chavez, like Castro, is being hit before he can do enough good. As a response he is coming down hard on the corrupt competition. The events of Cuba are repeating themselves.

-A corrupt puppet regime is ousted by popular uprising or election.
- A popular leader is chosen.
-The popular leader has to take controversial steps and reorganise society so that it works for the poor indigenous under classes.
-The white upper classes don't like the idea of them not being allowed to milk the country and store their money in foreign banks.
-The US and the oil cartels don't like the idea of money going to the poor when it should go abroad to them.
-Popular leader has his life threatened with assassination and coup attempts.
-Popular leader defends himself and his reforms by strengthening his defenses.
-Popular leader tells comes down hard on his undemocratic competition.
-Foreign media says popular leader is a tyrant because he now has strong defenses, ie bodyguards, etc.
-Sanctions are placed on the country (is this next?)
-Popular leader stays in power because with sanctions the economy is stagnant and in a stagnant economy it makes no sense to hold elections because chaos can ensue and a very bad regime takes its place.
-Popular leader takes action against subversive elements who are funded by foreign cartels.
-Media again says popular leader is a tyrant and mentions his name next to 'true' tyrants.

Repeat as necassary. Politicians don't learn from history and they don't like colored people having power and wealth. If this was almost Caucasian or European country there would no problem with the White House.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by James Christ:
Chavez, like Castro, is being hit before he can do enough good. As a response he is coming down hard on the corrupt competition. The events of Cuba are repeating themselves.

-A corrupt puppet regime is ousted by popular uprising or election.
- A popular leader is chosen.
-The popular leader has to take controversial steps and reorganise society so that it works for the poor indigenous under classes.
-The white upper classes don't like the idea of them not being allowed to milk the country and store their money in foreign banks.
-The US and the oil cartels don't like the idea of money going to the poor when it should go abroad to them.
-Popular leader has his life threatened with assassination and coup attempts.
-Popular leader defends himself and his reforms by strengthening his defenses.
-Popular leader tells comes down hard on his undemocratic competition.
-Foreign media says popular leader is a tyrant because he now has strong defenses, ie bodyguards, etc.
-Sanctions are placed on the country (is this next?)
-Popular leader stays in power because with sanctions the economy is stagnant and in a stagnant economy it makes no sense to hold elections because chaos can ensue and a very bad regime takes its place.
-Popular leader takes action against subversive elements who are funded by foreign cartels.
-Media again says popular leader is a tyrant and mentions his name next to 'true' tyrants.

Repeat as necassary. Politicians don't learn from history and they don't like colored people having power and wealth. If this was almost Caucasian or European country there would no problem with the White House.

Very interesting explanation...

It should also be added that politicians usually don't like any people having that form of power and wealth which could make the politicians themselves redundant!

[Nicko]

Before spouting more BS I urge everyone to check out this documentary of the coup in 2001.......

The Revolution will not be Televized


Like Mulder used to say...the truth is out there.


( Oil, money, Oil, ruling elite trying to control the country, US money, media manipulation ect.... oh and did I mention Oil?)

[voodoo]

I'd like to see that movie!

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I'd like to see that movie!

Some excerpts:

http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demn...;start=24:22.1

and

http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demn...;start=20:32.8

[medmuse]

...Miguel Diaz, with the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies, doubts that Chavez is susceptible to outside pressure.

Short of an outright U.S. invasion, which is "not even in the realm of consideration," Diaz suggests holding top Venezuelan officials and Chavez himself accountable to any human rights violations, much the same way the U.S. arrests corrupt Latin American officials who seek refuge in Miami.

U.S. officials say Chavez has been working with Castro to dislodge elected governments in Latin America and that he is at best a reluctant collaborator in the fight to keep Colombia's armed groups out of the border regions with Venezuela.

He appears to be gaining the upper hand in his fight, using legal challenges and technicalities, to stop a bid by the opposition to force a mid-term referendum on his rule, despite opposition claims that they have more than the 2.4 million signatures needed to force a vote.

Chavez says many of those signatures were fraudulent.

Chavez is a "democratically elected president ... who seems to be systematically dismantling democracy and turning Venezuela into an authoritarian government," said Eric Farnsworth of the Council of the Americas.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Anyway, the bottom line is this. There are western democracy promotion quasi NGO's operating around the world sponsored by a number of democratic countries -- beginning with Germany. It's not some American plot and there is nothing secret or sinister about what any of them do. Rather, you should wonder about any government that complains about democracy promotion. A truly democratic government would not.

And the essential point you continue to ignore is that these "democratic opposition" groups being funded for a healthy, happy, diverse society recently conducted a military coup of the country, disbanded the Parliment, and shreded the Constitution--ONLY TO BE THWARTED BY POPULAR DISSENT.

So please continue to lecture us on how funding groups that back such a Coup is in the interests of fleshing out democracy in Venezuala?

And do the nasty Aryans you keep screaming about have a history of funding groups who conduct military coups against popularly elected leaders?