Ecuador's Minister of Economy Patino has been replaced following the recent scandal. And only a week and a half after I called for his removal. I feel like an empowered blogger. Patino will be moving to a newly created cabinet post that will keep him outside of Quito.
Lula fired his defense minister following the recent political pressure related to the aviation safety issue. A former Supreme Court official was named the new head of civilian aviation.
Argentina's National Statistics Institute Chief quit after a rocky three months in office. She face protests by employees and widespread criticism in the media that she was altering the data on inflation statistics.
Andrés Peñate, the head of Colombia's the main intelligence service, resigned, claiming personal economic reasons (on the cool side, he's now going to work for a beer company). Peñate took over during a pretty difficult time in October 2005 as the previous DAS head Jorge Noguera was forced out during a corruption scandal involving paramilitary infiltration.
Finally, the outgoing defense minister in Venezuela gave quite the farewell speech, actually taking political shots at the president for his security and economic policies. Nothing like burning your bridges on the way out.
33 comments:
Finally, the outgoing defense minister in Venezuela gave quite the farewell speech, actually taking political shots at the president for his security and economic policies.
Well, Baduel is just plain wrong, on two fronts. Venezuela does have wealth to distribute. Latin America is the most inequitable region of the world, meaning that to suggest that it shouldn't engage in redistributive measures is not only retrograde but also a bad policy prescription.
Secondly, as most of Latin America knows, the only major military threat to the region is the U.S. military. Even the Brazilian military's simulated war games are aimed at defending the country against a U.S. invasion.
Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, if you really seek to deter the United States from invading your country, you train for non-conventional (i.e. guerrilla) warfare. Everybody knows that the U.S. military would roll over Venezuela's conventional forces in a matter of days. Thus, the logical strategy is to prepare for guerrilla-style warfare, which obviously creates real problems for U.S. forces.
The one criticism of the Chavez government that does resonate in my mind is the criticism of their choice of weaponry. I don't think they should be investing much in fighter planes if the objective is a guerrilla strategy. For deterrence purposes, they should be investing more in things like Sagger Missiles, which fit very nicely with a guerrilla-style strategy of deterrence.
I think the key question is whether there is still cohesion within the military ranks in favor of Chavez. This is a very significant crack in that cohesion, regardless of whether we think Baduel is or isn't correct in his assessment of the situation.
Even the Brazilian military's simulated war games are aimed at defending the country against a U.S. invasion.
It would be nice to see some back up for that statement. I have two cousins by marriage who are graduates of Agulhas Negras and told me that most of their training has involved maneouvers in Amazonas to keep the Colombian conflict from spilling over their border as well as general concerns about border porousness in the north.
Given the fact that their career-making assignments have been in such locations as Benjamin Constant, Boa Vista, Imperatriz, Macapá and Tefé, it hardly seems like training against a US invasion.
Justin, and Chavez is fixing the inequality?
"A survey conducted by the Central Bank of Venezuela (BCV) in Venezuelan households as of 2005 found slight deterioration of income distribution, compared with 2000."
You see Justin Chavez is like Bush you create fear in the population of an invasion or terrorist threat to control the population an curtail civil liberties.
"Even the Brazilian military's simulated war games are aimed at defending the country against a U.S. invasion."
ok? every country simulates different scenarios. I'm sure the US govt. simulates an invasion by the U.K. does it mean they are going to invade.
I think the key question is whether there is still cohesion within the military ranks in favor of Chavez. This is a very significant crack in that cohesion, regardless of whether we think Baduel is or isn't correct in his assessment of the situation.
Please. That's just wishful thinking on the part of those who would like to see Chavez deposed. If there's anything Chavez has control of, it's the military. That's been true ever since disloyal officers exposed themselves during the coup and were purged thereafter.
It would be nice to see some back up for that statement.
I recall reading around the time of Lula's first presidential victory that the Brazilian military's war plans were principally geared toward a hypothetical conflict with the United States. I agree that some corroboration of that point would be in order, so I'll poke around to see if I can find the original article.
In any case, you could be right that such contingency plans are not as central to Brazilian military doctrine as the article implied.
Regardless, though, it is imminently clear that the only major military threat to Latin America --and particularly to a country like Venezuela-- comes from the United States. That's borne out in recent Latin American history. The only real military invasions that have occurred in the last half century in Latin America have been by the United States. They include the Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 1982, Panama in 1989 and Haiti in 2004. That's not to mention U.S. proxy wars in Central America in the 1980s.
Thus, Venezuela has every reason to develop a policy of military deterrence.
"A survey conducted by the Central Bank of Venezuela (BCV) in Venezuelan households as of 2005 found slight deterioration of income distribution, compared with 2000."
That's possible, but you leave out all the relevant causal factors at work. From 2000 through the end of 2003, Venezuela underwent a very turbulent economic period caused principally by the business-led opposition's campaign of capital flight and economic sabotage. Economic turbulence tends to exacerbate inequality.
Once the Venezuelan government was able to take control of the oil sector in 2003, the economic situation stabilized. Economic inequality has been markedly reduced since that time.
They are comparing 2000 with 2005, not 2002 or 2003. So both 2000 and 2005 could be considered failry stable years. But what makes this sad is that in 2000 oil was around 20/barrel and 2005 around 50 (if memory serves me right).
Capital flight is caused more by Chavez and his rhetoric than by the opposition, sorry you can't bring yourself to accept that.
They are comparing 2000 with 2005, not 2002 or 2003.
Increases in inequality are cumulative. If inequality increases over the period 2000 to 2003, that's going to affect the level of inequality that exists in 2005. This ain't rocket science, fella.
Boz, at least we know that Justin isn't the only one defending Patino.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/mediagenerated-scandal_b_57993.html
Yeah, Weisbrot pretty much makes Boz look like the idiot that he is. Boz's baseless accusations against Patino were some of the most shamelessly unethical garbage I've ever seen on this blog.
So why was Patino replaced, Justin?
a very turbulent economic period caused principally by the business-led opposition's campaign of capital flight and economic sabotage. Economic turbulence tends to exacerbate inequality.
As a American (albeit a traitorous one), surely you're familiar with the saying "money talks, bullshit walks", Justin?
As well as Aesop's Fable of The Goose That Laid The Golden Egg?
Indeed, money does talk and bullshit does walk, Frank. Have you seen the latest figures, smart guy?
Since the bottom of Venezuela's economic downturn in the first quarter of 2003, "Venezuela's real GDP has grown by 76 percent." "In real (inflation-adjusted) terms, Venezuelan social spending per person has increased by 170 percent during the period 1998-2006. But this does not include the state oil company PDVSA’s social spending, which was 7.3 percent of GDP in 2006. With this included, social spending was at least 314 percent more in 2006 than in 1998 (in terms of real social spending per person). This has brought about significant gains for the poor in health care, subsidized food, and access to education..." Venezuela's official poverty rate, which measures only cash income and does not include such advances as increased access to health care and education, "has dropped by 31 percent from 1998 to the end of 2006 – from 43.9 percent of households to 30.6 percent. Measured unemployment has dropped from 15 percent in June 1999 to 8.3 percent in June 2007..."
I guess it's time for you to start walkin', Frank.
Justin, don't you realize you sort of just contradicted yourself in relation to the deterioration of income distribution in Venezuela.
You see government officiels have just benefitied more than the poor, where is the socialism in that?
I forget some are just more equal than other a total orwellian state.
The only real military invasions that have occurred in the last half century in Latin America have been by the United States.
Not true. El Salvador invaded Honduras in 1969. Peru Invaded Ecuador over a land dispute in 1995. These were both more than just border incursions.
Not true. El Salvador invaded Honduras in 1969. Peru Invaded Ecuador over a land dispute in 1995. These were both more than just border incursions.
Ah, yes, the soccer war and the Peru-Ecuador debacle. (Just so you know, I was living in Quito when that last conflict went down.) Neither debacle is in any way comparable to U.S. invasions of the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama or even Haiti.
Let's just put it this way. In the last half century, no Latin American country has projected its military power in such a way to topple another country's government or stop a new government from coming to power. Only the United States does that.
The simple point is that the primary security threat to countries like Venezuela is the United States.
The simple point is that the primary security threat to countries like Venezuela is the United States.
The vast majority of analysts would disagree with that. The primary security threat to Venezuela and surrounding nations is from trans-national gangs and illicit trafficking cartels. Considering Venezuela has among the highest levels of gun violence in the world, the Chavez government is making a big strategic security mistake in defining a US attack as its main security threat.
Neither debacle is in any way comparable to U.S. invasions of the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama or even Haiti.
What's an acceptable measure of comparisons, Justin? How about casualties? I'll give you Panama, the DR andperhaps Haiti, but Grenada and the Futbol War don't compare. 2,000 Honduran civilians were killed in that war. Grenada doesn't even compare.
Moreover, the Futbol War had the even worse result of strengthening the Salvadoran military on the cusp of the 1970's, just in time to set the stage for them politically at the start of the civil war.
What's an acceptable measure of comparisons, Justin?
Well, as I already explained, one acceptable measure of comparison is whether an invasion or proxy war has the effect of overthrowing a country's government (or precluding one from coming to power).
By that measure, the United States is far and away the greatest security threat to a country like Venezuela.
And if you include proxy wars, the United States' record in terms of lives taken is in a different league altogether from the Soccer War. In Central America alone, we're talking hundreds of thousands killed in the 1980s (30,000 in Nicaragua, 75,000 in El Salvador, well over 100,000 in Guatemala). That's not to mention the effects of the violent aftermath of the U.S.-orchestrated overthrow of Guatemala's Arbenz in '54.
Still, as I pointed out, your comparison does not hold water regarding Grenada.
And if you include proxy wars
And what nation(s) were the other party(s) of these proxy wars, Justin?
Still, as I pointed out, your comparison does not hold water regarding Grenada.
Well, if the measure is lives taken, it's true that the soccer war was more bloody than the Grenada invasion.
But my point is not that every U.S. invasion has been more bloddy than the two isolated cases of international conflict in Latin America that you mention. The central point is that, if the historical record is any guide, the state that constitutes the greatest security threat to a country like Venezuela is the United States. That's not to say that Venezuela doesn't face other security threats, such as crime, as Boz mentions. It's to say that, at the level of inter-state relations, the United States constitutes the greatest security threat to a country like Venezuela.
As far as I can tell, you haven't contested that point.
So what other nations were involved in the "proxy wars" you mentioned, Justin?
Or do proxy wars involve only the USA and no other nations?
So what other nations were involved in the "proxy wars" you mentioned, Justin?
Well, I know the answer you're looking for, Frank. That El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua were the beachheads of Soviet communism, right?
Wrong.
If you go back and study the Central America wars, you'll find that Cuban involvement was so ridiculously piddly in comparison (to that of the United States) that it hardly even merits mention.
If those weren't really "proxy wars", then what were the "proxy wars" of which you wrote in the previous comment, justin?
It was you who used the term, not I.
If those weren't really "proxy wars", then what were the "proxy wars" of which you wrote in the previous comment, justin?
Uh, Frank, the Central America wars were most clearly proxy wars (i.e. U.S. wars by proxy). I've been clear about that all along. You're the one who puts the term proxy wars in quotes, not me.
Um, Justin - the term "proxy war" implies that TWO (or more outside powers) are involved in a local conflict. If you say the USA was involved in a "proxy war" in a given region, you are implying that it was engaged in indirect warfare against at least one other power not from that region.
Um, Frank, "proxy war" has no such intrinsic meaning. It simply means war by proxy. In other words, the United States massively funded indigenous military forces (in El Salvador and Guatemala) and former Somoza National Guardsmen (in Nicaragua) to do a lot of horrible things to the people of Central America, all under the deceptive rubric of "anti-communism."
While I don't necessarily regard Wikipedia to be the ultimate, unchallengeable authority for whatever issue, Wiki happens to agree with my definition of "Proxy War", Justin.
Wikipedia can define the term however it pleases, but words still have meaning. A "proxy war" is simply war by proxy.
Ah, you must have gotten that from the same dictionary from which you got your definition of "freedom of speech", Justin.
Post a Comment