The enemy of the world

Over the weekend the United States mounted an unprovoked attack on Venezuela, killing a hundred people, and kidnapping its president. Since then, they have threatened further attacks, as well as similar action against Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Iran and Greenland. All of which is illegal under international law, but I think it's pretty clear by now that the US doesn't give a shit about that, or anything other than naked force. What we are looking at here is a rogue empire, using force or threats of force to extort territory, resources, or even just money from the rest of the world. And the world - and in particular the status quo coalition of countries who want peace and quiet - needs to wake up and start treating it as such.

How can the rest of the world respond to such a state? We already know part of the solution, because the US has done it to those it has deemed "rogue" before: comprehensive trade and financial sanctions. Unfortunately, this is difficult when the US is the center of so much, but personal sanctions against regime members and their supporters are eminently possible, and likely to have an impact. The US has done this to ICC judges and officials in an effort to intimidate them into dropping cases against Israel and US troops in Afghanistan; but we can do the same to them. And it will hurt. Trump's a billionaire, he has money and investments all over the world. Ditto Musk, Bezos, Thiel, and the rest of his fascist cabal. We can take it from them. They will scream like Russian oligarchs if they can't access the money they've stashed in their foreign tax havens, or holiday in their usual places. And that in turn means internal pressure on the regime.

Longer term, its pretty clear that the US can no longer be trusted as a responsible member of the international community. Even if the current regime is overthrown and things return to "normal", it might happen again. Better therefore to reduce our dependence on them as much as possible. If we want a peaceful, stable world where we can just get on with our lives without fear of random attack, that world can no longer include the US.

New Fisk

We’ve seen the west’s approach to Venezuela before – in Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, need I go on?

Hugo Chavez is dead

Hugo Chavez is dead. No, I'm not going to shed any tears for him. While his goal of bringing Venezuela back under the control of its people rather than a corrupt, US-serving elite was laudable, his methods were not. He was dangerously authoritarian, who sought to amend Venezuela's constitution to his own advantage, circumvent the elected legislature and subvert the judiciary. Venezuelans deserve better leaders than this - and hopefully now that Chavez is gone, they'll get one.

Venezuela votes

Venezuelans went to the polls today in presidential elections, and seem to have re-elected incumbent president Hugo Chávez for a 4th term. Chavez is not my cup of tea - he is far too authoritarian - but he seems to have won fairly and squarely in a tight contest. Which is pretty much all that can be said about it.

Meanwhile, the elections did offer some hope for Venezuelan democracy. Turnout was 80% - significantly higher than last election (and higher than New Zealand - see what happens when people have something to vote for?). The opposition united behind a single candidate, and recognised that in order to win they had to promise to continue most of Chavez's policies. Which suggests that they might eventually become electable and provide real democratic competition rather than letting Chavez win by default. No matter what you think of the political positions of the various parties, democracy wins when politicians have to fight hard for votes.

No judicial independence in Venezuela

María Lourdes Afiuni is a Venezuelan judge. Back in 2009, she granted bail to a banker accused of evading currency controls. It was an ordinary legal decision, and a straight application of the law - he had been in jail for three years without trial, which exceeded the 2-year statutory limit, so he was bailed. Unfortunately, Hugo Chavez didn't like it:

Chávez, who had taken a close interest in the case, was furious. He went on TV the day after the release and said Afiuni was a "bandit" who took a bribe. "This judge should get the maximum penalty … 30 years in prison! That judge has to pay for what she has done."

He told the head of the supreme court that the case should be treated with "firmness". Afiuni was charged with corruption and abuse of power. In May prosecutors said they had found no evidence of illicit payments but accused the judge of "spiritual corruption". There is no trial date.

Afiuni has now been in jail for a year for making a lawful decision the Venezuelan President didn't like. And assuming she ever gets a trial, the presiding judge will be under no illusions that they could suffer the same fate if they do not find her guilty. And so the law is perverted from what is on the statute book to whatever Chavez decrees it to be, and guilt and innocence are decided not by the evidence, but by the president's whim.

Voting until they get it right

Last year, voters in Venezuela narrowly rejected a constitutional referendum which would have (among other things) repealed term-limits for the Presidency, allowing Hugo Chavez to stand for re-election indefinitely. Now, he wants to try again. Obviously, the people gave the wrong answer, and they'll just have to keep voting until they get it right...

Democracy wins in Venezuela

Hugo Chavez's constitutional referendum has failed, 51-49. So, no presidency-for-life for Chavez; he'll have to reconcile himself to passing on the reins of power, according to the existing constitution.

As for the other reforms, while there's a lot there I agree with, a constitutional referendum is not the place for them. Rather, they should be debated and enacted by the legislature. Chavez has an overwhelming majority there (thanks in no small part to the opposition boycotting the last elections - a stupid, counterproductive tactic), and half the reforms were added to the list by the legislature in the first place, so its not as if he won't be able to get them through. But he'll have to do it constitutionally, according to the normal legislative process, rather than being able to change the world in an instant. And while that may be slower, it will also give the reforms he does manage to enact far more democratic legitimacy and durability than the referendum would have.

Democracy may win in Venezuela

Venezuela will go to the polls this weekend in a constitutional referendum. While the referendum will amend large parts of Venezuela's constitution, the primary aim is to extend the Presidnetial term and repeal the existing two-ternm limit, allowing President Hugo Chavez to run for further terms rather than having to retire at the end of 2012. No matter what you think of Chavez's policies, this sort of self-interested constitutional tinkering is deeply undemocratic and constitutionally dangerous, and something no democrat should endorse. While no constitution is carved in stone (and neither ought they to be), changes of this nature need to be done for some reason other than prolonging your own time in power.

The good news is that according to recent polling, the referendum may fail:

A survey for Datanalisis, a polling company, said 49% of likely voters would vote no and 39% would vote yes. A tracking poll by the opposition-linked Hinterlaces pollster predicted a technical tie.

The bad news is that Venezuelan polls are notoriously unreliable, given that they tend to be performed by partisan agencies and avoid poling the poor. But there's at least some hope that democracy may win in Venezuela, and it may avoid further sliding into authoritarianism.

Update: And OTOH, it looks like the CIA is up to its usual dirty tricks again. It would be nice if the "exporter of democracy" actually lived by its rhetoric and let the people of other countries make their own decisions, rather than seeking to covertly influence or even overturn them [Hat tip: Dawg's Blog].

Venezuela's Enabling Act

One of the key steps on the road to Germany becoming a dictatorship under the Nazis was the passage of the Enabling Act in 1933. This allowed the Nazi government to bypass the Reichstag and effectively legislate by decree. Unfortunately now its happening again, this time in Venezuela. Venezuela's National Assembly is in the final stages of passing a law allowing President Hugo Chavez to legislate by decree on a wide range of issues, including the energy sector, the economy and defence. It's perfectly legal and constitutional, and not uncommon in Venezuela's political history - the National Assembly has passed similar laws for three previous presidents, as well as Chavez himself in 2000 - but that doesn't make it right. Scrutiny by the legislature is a vital part of the democratic process, and it should be strengthened, not eliminated.

Chavez claims this enabling act is necessary to allow him to push through a reform program and bring Venezuela closer to his vision of socialism. But no matter what you think of the desirability of that goal, this is the wrong way to do it. If Chavez has a majority to pass this law, then he clearly has a majority to pass his reform program. It may take longer, but it will also have far more democratic legitimacy than one passed by decree ever will.

Chavez wins in Venezuela

Venezuelans went to the polls yesterday, and with 80% of the vote counted, it looks as if incumbent Hugo Chavez has an unassailable lead. It will be interesting to see how the opposition take this - whether they will accept the results of democracy (assuming the international observers judge the elections to be "free and fair" - and so far they have reported no major problems), or whether they will once again attempt to overthrow the elected government by extra-constitutional means and restore the oligarchy.

I don't like Chavez, but he is at least elected by an overwhelming majority, and that should be respected. You don't encourage democracy by supporting coups - but then, I suspect that "encouraging democracy" is the furtherest thing from many of his opponent's minds.

This brings Latin America's year of elections to a close. As for the result, South America has turned a gratifying shade of red:

(Map stolen from BBC)

The left won in seven of the twelve countries holding elections, including every country south of Colombia. The right won in four, entirely in Central America (I'm not sure which category to count Haiti in). The next latin American elections will be late next year, in Argentina in October, and Guatemala in November. Hopefully they'll be as successful as this round.

Democracy in danger in Venezuela

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, currently facing re-election this year, has said that he is thinking of amending the constitution to remove the current two-term limit - allowing him to potentially run for a third term in 2012. And so the popularly-elected president threatens to turn into the "president-for-life" which has plagued so many nations for the past half-century...

No constitution is carved in stone, but seeking an amendment specifically to prolong your term in office is not how the game is played. A constitution is not something to be tinkered with by those in power for their own electoral advantage. If Chavez had any respect for democracy, he would abandon this idea, and accept the fact that one day he will not be in power. Until he does that, democracy in Venezuela must be considered to be in danger.

Harbouring terrorists

Following the September 11th attacks, President Bush promised to "pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism". Then he invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taleban regime for providing a safe haven for Osama bin Laden. Now, the US is harbouring a terrorist.

In 1976, Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban-born Venezuelan, bombed a Cuban Airlines jet, killing 73 people. He was arrested in Venezuela, but escaped before being convicted. In the 90's he reportedly carried out a series of bombing attacks on Havana tourist spots. Five years ago, he was arrested in Panama on charges of attempting to kill the visting Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. He was convicted of a lesser charge, then pardoned, leading to a messy diplomatic incident between Panama and Cuba. Mr Carriles has recently entered the US illegally and has now applied for political asylum. The US denies they are harbouring him - but given that their own records show that he is a former CIA asset, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

Calls for international cooperation in the "war on terror" are predicated on the idea that terrorists aren't just the enemies of America, but of civilisation. If the US wants this to be anything more than empty rhetoric, its path is clear: it must find Carriles and extradite him to Venezuela to face justice. Otherwise they won't just stand exposed as hypocrites; they'll also be undermining their own ability to fight terrorists around the globe.