Open Thread

Al,

My Spanish isn't great. this link was summarized by RealClearWorld, which I don't entirely trust.

Here is the original link from El Universal, the main newspaper of Venezuela:

 

http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/06/21/pol_ava_chavez-pide-respetar_21A24...

 

I know there was a conversation on an earlier thread about the politics of "denouncement" but I also think the actions of the Iranian Government may be an opportunity for the US and Venezuela to issue some kind of joint statement about human rights, the right to protest, etc.

Keep up the great work!

 

andrew Sullivan has this "Mental Health Break" on The Dish, Atlantic.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/mental-heal...

The music is haunting, and the image of the Earth from the Moon, always reminds me of what we all know, and sometimes forget: we are all the same, living on the same planet, and what harms one of us, harms all of us.  Tho' I was seeing the video and listening to the music, in my mind's eye, I was also still seeing and crying for Neda.

Looking forward to learning what Al's learning.

There's some knowlegeable analysis by Pepe Escobar in Asia Times Online entitled "Meet Shah Ali Khamenei". He covers the goings on in Qom, splits among the elite, the significance of Montazeri's call for three days of mourning, and the crass stupidity of some (thankfully few) Western leftists' attempts to support the regime.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF23Ak01.html#

 

 

What's the gist of the statement by Chavez? Is it supportive of the election "results" or not? My Spanish, sadly, is a far cry from what it was 20 years ago.

On Chavez, the Houston Examiner reports:

He was quoted in Caracas' el Universal as saying:

"They are trying to undermine Ahmadinejad's triumph, and with it weaken the government and the Islamic revolution. I know that they will not succeed."

The same report mentions that Venezuela's Foreign Policy Minister "lauded President Obama for his restraint regarding the outcome of the Iranian election."

Seems a bit of a mixed message, assuming the Examiner report is accurate, given Obama's "restraint" was expressed recently with the following words: 

The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.   

As Will Rogers o nce said: Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie," until you can find a rock. 

Also, in case you didn't see it, a few days back:

Statement of Iranian documentary filmmakers

 We are documentary filmmakers. Our work is to discover and to tell the truth. Truth can only be found when all aspects of reality are told. In the course of recent events in our country, our national media, by deliberately hiding the reality of the situation, is making it impossible for the public to access the truth.

Video link here.

 

 

Russell,

Basically, (and I don't claim to be a translator) from what I could make out, Chavez was circling the wagons, saying the West needed to respect Iran's election results.

Here is the Real Clear World Article:

http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2009/06/chavez_reaffirms_his_support_...

with a short video link and a couple transcribed paragraphs:

"We send a greeting to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran't great president, to Ayatollah Ali Hamenei, and to the Iranian people. We ask the world to respect Iran because they are trying to undermine the Iranian revolution's strength."

 

 

 

When the western-allied government of Turkey congratulated Iran on its elections, nobody said a peep. Not even when the Iraq government congratulated Ahmadinejad did anybody say squat about it.

But when Chavez says anything, about anything, some folks always seem to form a line to denounce it. It's a double standard.

The truth is, that what any other government says about events in Iran has zero impact whatsoever on the outcome in Iran. If anything, denouncements of Iran from foreign governments only play into the regime's game plan of making its opposition look foreign. But I'm curious: since it doesn't mean anything at all, why all the poutrage?

It is completely consistent to oppose the coup d'etat against the people's will in Iran and oppose the coup d'etats against the people's will in Venezuela. To do anything else would be inconsistent.

And whatever Chavez says or doesn't say about Iran doesn't change that one iota. Understanding that is called nuance. And it's a necessary skill set to have to analyze global events!

Is the obession, well first of all some don't like him and therefore showing him in a bad light is a bonus. But really for some, they want to like him and believe he is for 'the people' and justice, and so double standards come along because you care for someone and therefore expect more from them? maybe maybe not. that and I suppose some maybe analysing him as a 'model' of some sort (of course you models aren't really real) for a leftist government and so want everything to be perfect or at least be a leader in demonstrating how things should be or could be done. and its if he can't see the injustice in iran then what Does he see (I mean everywhere not just in Iran). Its not to do with what affect Chavez will have on Iran. More ethics and 'meaning' it may bestow on understanding the man and his government in Venezuela. and I suppose whether his gov/movement etc is seen/believed to be 'authentic'. 

I still don't know enough about Venezuela and Latin America full stop, so I'm withholding all judgement until I do :). this website is a handy tool for that.  

This report from Eurasianet:

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav062209.shtml

 

For what it's worth, reports on Twitter that Rafsanjani has obtained control of major elements of the Army, waiting for the trigger moment.

and its not poutrage. I think there is an opportunity here in some way to open dialogue between Chavez and the US. Maybe not on this subject. It seems like Chavez weakens himself by shilling for Ahmadinejad. I don't in the slightest consider the two comparable.

Maybe not a public statement, maybe a phone call to Chavez from Obama asking what he thinks and soliciting his opinion. I don't know, I'm not even a blogger I just comment occasionally. 

Anyway, I wanted to know what you thought of the article. I don't think it's irrelevant, I think it's a missed opportunity for Chavez.

 

 

 

 

 

I guess the question is whether Chavez (or any other government) thinks the coup or potential coup is being perpetrated by the people gainst the government or the government against the people. Clearly, Venezuela, Turkey, and Iraq feel like they are being appropriately diplomatic in the truest sense of the word based on each of their own situations/relationships with Iran, but I'd like to know if any of them have weighed in on the rights of citizens to protest (without negating the Revolution itself, since Mousavi's language has always been respectful of the Revolution and the overall regime itself), assemble, not get beaten, etc. Have any of them expressed the idea of government restraint? Sure, those in power in Iran will do whatever they want or think will bolster their control irrespective of what other governments say, but words do have some power (hence our belief that the Cairo speech mattered in real ways). If governments friendly to the Iranian regime started publicly airing concerns for the rights of citizens, it might be a lagging indicator of shifting levels of support for Ahmadinejad from strong to less strong (a "realpolitik" approach sort of).

Just for the record, actually, I was trying to be nuanced — given my view of diplomacy is not far off from Will Rogers's take, in that he's really saying judge people, and nations, by their actions, and don't get hung up on their conversations -- especially when world events are heated.

Maybe that didn't come across; if so, I'm setting matters straight. I am not obsessed with Chavez or what he has to say about Iran, nor am I obsessed with Obama's words on the matter. 

I do get the sense that some folks in the long-running anti-Chavez camp want to set up disingenuous logic boxes on this topic, to box people into some faux ideology trap. But that's their problem.

The rarified world of diplomacy plays by its own set of Alice in Wonderland rules, so it's best to judge actions, which is why I included the link to the Iranian documentary filmmakers statement: Truth can only be found when all aspects of reality are told.  

Reality, in this case, isn't what's said, but what happens [most of which, in the seats of power that hover above all nations, is going on behind the scenes unseen, until exposed — an argument for the elucidating power of authentic journalism].  

Until then, it's just talk, a soap opera on a ratings-driven channel with a neverending plot.

 

 

I kind of wish that new people (not you, Bill!) bringing up Chavez would read through the comments the last umpteen times somebody brought up Chavez. That way we don't have to keep having the same conversation again and again.

And it speaks to the notion of action trumping words — from the bottom up, as it should be:

Tweets were reported on Andrew Sullivan's page that a General

Strike was called for Tuesday (it's Monday night in US now, Tuesday day in Iran).  Mousavi's FB page doesn't call for strikes, mentions international day of solidarity on Thursday.  Has a strike been called? Can anyone clarify?

Message of the Free Trade Union of Iranian Workers to Iranian workers

http://iwsn.org/labour/free-union-workers-18jun09.htm

 

it is more or less on the same lines as the message from the Vahed bus drivers already reported here: they did not support anyone in the election, none of the candidates supported workers rights, but they support the movement with their own demands