[NYTr] A strange op-ed by COHA's Larry Birns on Venezuela

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[Another strange piece from COHA, this time an Op-Ed for Reuters by
Larry Birns himself.  Whatever the reasons -- old-timers' disease or
creeping neoliberalism, or some kind of naive nostalgic notions about
"democracy" -- Birns is all for Chavez making the kind of suicidal
concessions to Washington that did in the FSLN's Daniel Ortega in the
late 1980s. Hugo's not dumb; a revolution's not a tea party. -NYTr]

Venezuela Information Office (VIO)
http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com

excerpted from VIO Venezuela Daily News Roundup - Nov 20, 2007

[A Reuters opinion piece by Larry Birns of the Council on Hemispheric
Affairs points out the democratic nature of the the constitutional
reforms, but makes the mistake of saying that they would suspend habeus
corpus during national emergencies.  This provision was put forth by
the National Assembly, but later struck down in debates by lawmakers.
Birns also suggests that opposition calls to delay the December
referendum should be heeded.  Venezuela's independent National
Electoral Commission responded to such petitions by explaining that
national law requires reform proposals to be put to voters through a
national referendum within 30 days of being elaborated.  -VIO]


Reuters - Nov 19, 2007
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSDIS95487120071119

Comment

Larry Birns on Venezuela and Chavez

Hugo Chávez cannot be faulted on his democratic lapses, because there
have been few of these. This is why he has proven to be such a
frustrating adversary to Washington policy makers in that he hasn't
thrown many home-run pitches to State Department batters - that is,
there are no political prisoners, no firing squads, and no arbitrary
arrests that are familiar to many U.S. allies around the world. While
Chávez has been maddeningly lean on substance when it comes to
irritating U.S. interests, he has been very generous in creating
situations where he easily can be made to appear to be erratic,
presumptive, violating the rules of protocol's niceties and good
behavior, and incapable of respecting the canons of diplomacy.

It is there to be seen that Hugo Chávez is doing some of the most
innovative thinking in all of Latin America. At the very time that the
U.S. is at its nadir in terms of regional relevance, such
transformative ideas as the Venezuelan leader's various social
missions, or the use of some of the state oil company PDUSA's profits
from record oil sales being diverted to social spending on the poor, or
his use of petrodollars to speed to poor neighborhoods in the U.S., as
well as poor countries throughout the world, various grants and
concessions on oil prices, and his notion that Latin America has
reached the point where it should decide whether the time has come for
it to declare autonomy from the U.S., are examples of true generosity
and self-enlightenment policy. With all of these good works operating
on his behalf, why does he have grounds to be demeaned, discounted, and
dismissed by lesser figures than himself, like when Spain's King Carlos
shouted at Chávez the other day "why don't you shut up", after he had
repeated his accusations against extreme rightwing former Spanish Prime
Minister José María Aznar as being a "Fascist?"

Without question, Hugo Chávez has turned out to be a public relations
disaster and a person who feasts on confrontation and diatribes. Yet
his derelictions are clearly more bark than bite, and his ordinary
transactions are filled with good will and cheer. He is a million light
years away from being a Pinochet, nor is Venezuela anything near to
being akin to what Argentina was under military rule during the 'Dirty
War'.

But Chávez eclipses his own notable contributions to improving the
region's agenda and wounds his own hemispheric standing by the rants,
reversions to childish imbecilities, and petty insults against his
opponents, even though there is more fact than fiction in his claims:
the Brazilian Senate is a "bunch of parrots", President Bush may be a
"donkey" when it comes to honoring the American people's right to
reliable information, and Aznar is, of course, a "Fascist", but you
don't necessarily have to give wings to these birds.

The December referendum will far from inalterably change Venezuela, nor
will the 69 articles do much damage to the country's democratic fabric,
except, arguably, for the provision relating to an emergency suspension
of habeas corpus. Elements of the opposition have called for a delay in
holding the referendum in order to give the nation an adequate amount
of time to debate the issue. Since this is not merely a matter of
timing, but also a question of how best to provide legitimacy to the
process and slow one's respect for democratic rights, why not commit a
gesture of goodwill and show that you are not the Borstal boy that your
detractors claim you to be? Delay the referendum until the beginning of
next year - no one will be hurt by this and the cause of reconciliation
just might be helped.

[Larry Birns, Director of Council on Hemispheric Affairs.]