Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega statements supporting the Gaddafi dictatorship in Libya are shocking.

[Better Believe It]

These are the views of a radical socialist who belongs to one political grouping within the international socialist movement. I think his criticism of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega regarding their position supporting the Libyan dictatorship is fully justified and warrants serious consideration by all progressives and socialists. BBI


Latin America and the Arab revolution: the bankruptcy of Chavism?
Ataulfo Riera
March, 2011

The attitude of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez concerning the events in Libya is particularly shocking. In a manner that is less pronounced in the case of the first and pretty consistent in the case of the second, they imply that the revolt of the Libyan people is the result of manipulation, of an imperialist plot aimed at overthrowing an enemy regime. Curiously, this “thesis” does not take up the official version of the Libyan regime itself, according to which it is on the contrary Al-Qaeda which is behind the “riots”! However, far from all these delirious conspiracy theories, there is nothing “singular” or “particular” about the revolution in Libya, no foreign plot directed by the CIA or Bin Laden; on the contrary, it is an integral part of the process of the Arab revolution which is breaking out throughout the region. Furthermore, this is not happening by chance, since the dictatorial Libyan regime is precisely geographically wedged between the Tunisian revolution and the Egyptian revolution.

.... according to this purely “campist” conception (“the enemies of my enemies are my friends”), on February 25 President Hugo Chavez has just, like Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, given his “support to the Libyan government”, at the moment when it is massacring its people with heavy weapons. Admittedly, there is no doubt that imperialism is lying in wait and hopes to take advantage of the slightest opportunity. Admittedly, we have to denounce the double morality of imperialism, which condemns civilian victims in Libya, but not in Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine. But that does not at all justify support for a bloody tyrant, who is precisely giving imperialism a wonderful opportunity to regain its balance and who, in spite of his verbal outpourings about the so-called “green revolution", is at the head of a system of exploitation and a corrupt regime which is part and parcel of the imperialist network for plundering of the area and its resources.

In Venezuela, revolutionary organizations such as Marea Socialista have taken a clear decision in favour of the Libyan people and against the dictator Gaddafi. We can only hope that the Venezuelan and Cuban workers will be more capable of understanding what is at stake than their leaders are. But, even if he comes to his senses and corrects his position, there is no doubt that the catastrophic declarations of Chavez will immediately and lastingly ruin the immense prestige which he has up to now enjoyed among the Arab masses. This popularity came from his declared opposition to the war and the occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, as well as Israel’s aggression against Lebanon in 2006. It reached its culminating point in January 2009, when he decided to expel the Israeli ambassador part of the embassy staff to protest against the massacre perpetrated by the Zionist state against the population of Gaza, thus marking his “unqualified solidarity with the heroic Palestinian people”. What is most serious is that, in the person of Chavez, it is the prestige of an alternative that is identified as progressive and seeking to build the “socialism of the twenty-first century” which is in danger of being deeply discredited in the Arab world.

This attitude constitutes a godsend for the reactionary and imperialist forces who, at present disorientated by the scale of what is happening, are trying at all costs to take the situation in hand, to control or to stop the Arab revolution. Moreover, by lining up shamefully alongside the Libyan tyrant, the Chavist leadership is shooting itself in the foot by offering ammunition to its own adversaries and detractors, who constantly make unfounded accusations about its “dictatorial” nature.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1999

This article was first published in French on the website of the LCR_SAP, Belgian section of the Fourth International : www.lcr-lagauche.be

Ataulfo Riera is member of the national leadership of the LCR-SAP (Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire-Socialistische Arbeiderspartij), Belgian section of the Fourth International.

[sasha031]

1. self delete

[provis99]

2. you really think a fanatical Trotskyite rag is a credible source?

they are opposed to Chavez and Ortega because they see them as REACTIONARY CAPITALISTS. What a laughable bunch of clowns.

[rpannier]

4. Did you read the article or are you simply blasting the publication outright? nt

[provis99]

8. you might as well put up a posting by the Heritage Foundation.

They both have equal credibility.

[rpannier]

12. I'll take that as a "No, you haven't read the article."

[joshcryer]

18. That's really nonsense. Did you even click on "Other recent articles" for Venezuela and Cuba?

They appear to be supportive of those regimes wholeheartedly.

Of course, Venezuela and Cuba are intrinsically state capitalist, but that is hardly a Fourth International critique, I believe you're confusing them for someone else. Perhaps the Situationist International, which is totally unrelated to the Fourth International.

[Better Believe It]

21. So this "socialist rag" hates dictators and thinks Chavez, Ortega and Chavez are capitalists??!!

Really?

Can you back up that weird claim with some hard facts rather than sectarian "super radical" sounding bombast?

I sure hope you don't follow up that outburst with a post suggesting that Joseph Stalin was some great humanitarian socialist leader who fought against the pro-capitalist Trotsky who was a tool of Nazis and secret agent representing the most right-wing world capitalists.

:)

That "debate" ended decades ago. The left opposition to the Stalin dictatorship won it. Stalin was full of crapola, sort of like the great "anti-imperialist" Gaddaffy Duck.

:)

[rpannier]

3. It's a good article

Thanks much for posting it

[emilyg]

5. kick

[JVS]

6. Here's a clue. If you're part of the "USA policy hopes to see/initiate regime change on me" club...

You are never eager to have another member of the club depart and put you higher on the list.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

9. Awww shit. I can't even begin to fathom how flamey the thread would become if some start...

insisting that the stories of heinous atrocities by Qadaffi are a fabrication. There is not enough popcorn in the world.

[joshcryer]

16. Coming from sources that claim Al Jazeera is US propaganda, yeah, easily dismissed.

...no one takes it seriously.

[Starry Messenger]

10. One can be personally dismayed but still see the historical perspective.

I also got upset, but let's be real: without a powerhouse like the USSR behind some of the remaining socialist countries, allies are few, far, and kind of iffy. Libya is under a massive world resource that capitalist countries would love to rape and exploit. I have read Fidel's statement, not Chavez', but the so-called "support" was pretty lukewarm, while the major concern seemed to be that NATO get an upper hand on the oil fields.

[blindpig]

24. Is true.

And it is looking as though Fidel's prediction of US/NATO intervention is becoming more and more likely.

Somewhere there's a want ad for 'willing stooge'.

[digitaln3rd]

11. Wait, you're SURPRISED Chavez is coddling up to dictators?

That's ALL he does - dictators love to be with their own kind, it seems.,

[ReggieVeggie]

13. not a dictator

read up on it sometime

[EFerrari]

14. Chavez and Ortega's position are not the same or even similar.

Ortega seems to be supporting Gaddafi, Chavez is not. Chavez is as always against US interference. He is for negotiation over military intervention. He has said he doesn't support or agree with what Gaddafi is doing.

That doesn't translate into support no matter how it's parsed.

[joshcryer]

17. He said he was unconvinced and refused to denounce Gaddafi.

He is leaving room to denounce him in the future in the event mass graves are found, etc. And of course he'll blame the foreign media for his lapse of judgment, because the media cannot be trusted, and so on.

[ReggieVeggie]

15. this tacit support of Gadhafi is troubling

Hugo needs to keep his actions on the up and up

[Better Believe It]

23. There is "vigorous debate" within the pro-Chavez camp in Venezuela over the regime's ties to Libya.

From Al Jazeera article:

Gregory Wilpert, co-founder of the Venezuela Analysis website, said there had been a "vigorous debate" within the pro-Chavez camp in Venezuela over the regime's ties to Libya.

"One segment is defending Gaddafi as a fellow revolutionary and another camp is condemning him and is urging the government to do so too," said Wilpert.

"Opponents of Chavez are of course trying to take maximum advantage of Chavez’s ties to Gaddafi by displaying this as proof that Chavez himself is an autocrat."

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/03/201134121327738678.html#



Chavez, left, pictured on a visit to Tripoli in 2010, has called Gaddafi "one of the greatest leaders of this century"



Some see a contradiction between Chavez's "21st-century socialism" and Venezuela's partnerships with countries such as Iran

[Modern_Matthew]

19. I will make a point to educate myself on Chavez and Venezuela's policies. nt

[TheWraith]

20. Jeez, talk about bending over backward to give Chavez a pass.

And nattering about the evil imperialist running dog lackeys waiting under every bed to take advantage of, oh I don't know, the fall of a murderous dictatorship? :eyes:

[Better Believe It]

22. Is this a response to the lead article or the post by "provis99"?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

25. I am disappointed in them both.

They are the wrong side on this one. :(