NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. Outburst at OAS Meeting: Chavez and the Bolivian Crisis
By Al Giordano, Wed Jun 8th, 2005 at 09:16:29 AM EST

Towards the end of the two-day session by the Organization of American States (OAS) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the U.S. ambassador to the organism, Roger Noriega, threw a temper tantrum.

After all, Washington had just received a stunning rebuke from the other countries around the table against its proposal to create mechanisms for foreign meddling in the affairs of other countries (read: Venezuela), and Bolivian President Carlos Mesa had just offered his resignation in the face of a massive popular movement to nationalize the Bolivian gas industry.

Noriega, not used to losing gracefully, simply blew his top, spitting loudly that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is to blame for Bolivia's crisis.

Noriega has a point, but not in the way he thinks he has it...

Check out this account in Oligarch's Daily, er, The Miami Herald:

As Bolivia drifted toward political chaos Tuesday, Washington's top diplomat form Latin America hinted that Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chávez was somehow responsible for the worsening situation.

"Chávez' profile in Bolivia has been very apparent from the beginning,'' Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega said in response to a question about Chavez' influence on the turmoil in Bolivia.

Im no Chavez fan. But what evidence do they have that he is meddling in Bolivias affairs?

The neo-cons hate successful examples of defiance.

This is why Cuba gets it so bad, not because that little banana republic is worth a damn, but because it is an embarassing example of successful defiance.

Venezuela reversed a liberalisation of energy policy. Some time later, Bolivia does the same. Chavez is blamed not for any involvement, but for proof of principle.

The reasoning goes, the bastard showed it could be done.

And the US really is impotent in thse situations, a national oil company in a functioning democracy isn't something you can do much about.

I am no fan of Chavez, but he's the legitimately elected leader of his people. it's time the U.S. got over the 'gun-boat diplomacy' ! I mean they never send them in to help kidnapped Americans anymore, I remember when that changed. If you are going to do that, it has to be for regular citizens as much as for oil companies. Otherwise it's less effective.

God I wish people would stop hating on Chavez.

Seriously, it's like the US needs a new enemy now that Saddam's captured and UBL's no longer making headlines... well good luck. You won't be ousting Chavez, period. He defies the US, and that makes him a target, but he's not coming out of there, and the US can't go in, unless it's master plan is to torpedo relations with the rest of the world.

More power to Chavez. Inspire leaders around the world to have a pair when dealing with the US.

And on the article, there is no way Chavez is causing Bolivia's problems. There is no evidence of that at all. The US ambassador just had a hissy fit. Next prominent US diplomats will be claiming the OAS doesn't exist... I shudder to imagine it...

We wouldn't touch Venezuela because that would legitimize Chavez's claims that the United States would like to take military action against his country. We don't want to because we don't feel particularly threatened by them.

Im no Chavez fan. But what evidence do they have that he is meddling in Bolivias affairs?we did have evidence that Saddam had WMD and able to launch in 45 minutes...rigth?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Blair+45+minutes&btnG=Search&meta=
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4362747.stm

we did have evidence that Saddam had WMD and able to launch in 45 minutes...rigth?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Blair+45+minutes&btnG=Search&meta=
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4362747.stm

UNSCOM had evidence that Iraq had 1800 gallons of anthrax - more than enough to kill everyone on the planet.

Oh, and the US had evidence of the same, but I thought you might only be interested in the UN evidence.

Anthrax, by the way, is WMD. And we did find out what happened to it. But as of the start of the war, EVERYONE's information said that Saddam had 1800 gallons of anthrax.

UNSCOM had evidence that Iraq had 1800 gallons of anthrax - more than enough to kill everyone on the planet.

Oh, and the US had evidence of the same, but I thought you might only be interested in the UN evidence.

Anthrax, by the way, is WMD. And we did find out what happened to it. But as of the start of the war, EVERYONE's information said that Saddam had 1800 gallons of anthrax.

Well...I guess no one had any trendy quip to refute this fact. And the thread died for hours. Maybe I shouldnt have resucitated it

What's Chavez, Venzuela, and Bolivia have to do with Iraq?
they're separate issues entirely.

Chavez needs to convince people the U.S. is going to invade-people will accept remarkable amounts of dictatorship when they are under threat of war.
Chavez probably didn't have much to do with the situation in Bolivia, but without good information, I don't think any Non Bolivians can really give a definitive answer to Noriega's charges... unless someone has access to classified State Department intel they'd like to post??

Oh, and the US had evidence of the same, but I thought you might only be interested in the UN evidence.actually im interested in... your web Links...

What's Chavez, Venzuela, and Bolivia have to do with Iraq?
they're separate issues entirely.

Chavez needs to convince people the U.S. is going to invade-people will accept remarkable amounts of dictatorship when they are under threat of war.
Chavez probably didn't have much to do with the situation in Bolivia, but without good information, I don't think any Non Bolivians can really give a definitive answer to Noriega's charges... unless someone has access to classified State Department intel they'd like to post??

Chavez is in no way a dictator. He's a three time democratically elected leader with an approval rating of about 84%.

UNSCOM had evidence that Iraq had 1800 gallons of anthrax - more than enough to kill everyone on the planet.

Oh, and the US had evidence of the same, but I thought you might only be interested in the UN evidence.

Anthrax, by the way, is WMD. And we did find out what happened to it. But as of the start of the war, EVERYONE's information said that Saddam had 1800 gallons of anthrax.
Had.


Past Tense.


:D

Chavez is in no way a dictator. He's a three time democratically elected leader with an approval rating of about 84%.
Yep. He is a shameless populist, but let's face it, his approval ratings are the sort that Bush and Bliar would kill for.

I don't see what's wrong with people voting in an authoritarian leader anyway, if there was nothing wrong with the process.

I mean, we all know what kind of people would win any free and fair election in the Middle East, democratically elected politicians who would make any of the dictators there now, look moderate. Were that to happen, and the US/UK to intervene and replace them with good-old-fashioned despots, I would like to think they would honestly state "We didn't like who the people there chose" instead of trying to claim black is white and paint the new guys as dictators worse than the last lot.

The real issue here is, majority support for national industries in developing countries is unacceptable to the West, as it reduces investment opportunities and hence profits. If they said this is the case and they feel it is worth the coups and proxy wars, maybe it would be a position worth examining. As it is, this BS patronises me.