Tuesday, September 27, 2005

The Real Diehl - Competing With Chavez

Jackson Diehl has a must read piece in today's WaPost. He talks about Chavez buying friends in Latin America and appealing to the populist anti-American sentiment that has never really gone away. He also mentions our friends Presidents Toledo and Uribe. Both of them head governments that have successfully nurtured growth. True Toledo is reviled but Uribe according to a recent poll is admired at home and abroad (albeit among the elites). Diehl mentions their prescription for beating Chavez and I will add something else be a geo-green or even a neo-con. Here's Diehl:
That's why when Uribe and Toledo did speak about Venezuela, to their contacts in Congress and the Bush administration, the message was a simple one: Stop talking about Chavez, and start competing with him. Chavez-bashing, whether by Pat Robertson or Donald Rumsfeld, only sends his poll numbers soaring; meanwhile, say the Latin presidents, hard-pressed leaders are wondering if Washington has anything that matches Chavez's largesse. The opportunities to compete are readily available. There is, for example, an Andean free-trade agreement with the United States that the two presidents would like to wrap up by the end of October.
Their pitch would be more convincing if they were willing to stand up against Chavez's breach of democratic norms and interference in other countries, both violations of regional charters. But they also have a point: The Bush administration would have a lot more impact if it behaved as if the United States, rather than Venezuela, was the hemisphere's economic leader.

2 Comments:

Blogger leftside said...

Sorry I am hijacking your blog, but I see we share many of the same interests, if not exactly the same takes. I wrote a letter to the editor on this Diehl piece. HIs basic conclusion about the US doing nothing positive in Latin Americ is true, but his invective vs. Chavez is complete BS.

Dear Washington Post,

One can tell from Jackson Diehl's mastery of minute details (such as Chavez support for a Brazillian Samba School) that he is not just another misinformed US journalist spouting off because he doesn't know better. Therefore, one can only concude that his blatent misrepresentation and suppression of the facts concerning Venezuela represents a bygone era of Cold War politics that should have no use in the 21st Century and no place at the Washington Post.

Diehl's piece goes out of its way to highlight the record of economic growth and poverty redution under socialist Chavez, compared to free-marketeers Toledro and Uribe in Peru and Colombia. Yet he left out the most important bits of fact that (not-coincidentlly) undermine his entire argument. For example, he stresses that poverty has increased 25% in Venezuela, without mentioning a word about why or providing any bit of useful context. Diehl certinly knows the poverty increase from 2002-2003 was a direct result of the devastating economic stike called by the country's owners in media, industry and oil (not the workers), which caused the economy to lose 25% of its worth (imagine a Great Depression caused for the reason of toppling a President). Not important?

Diehl should also know that the poverty stats he cited are old and don't factor in the fact that the Venezuelan economy has been the BEST PERFORMING in Latin America since the 03.... increasing 17% last year and 8% so far this year. We do not have poverty numbers that reflect the drastically changed conditions. He goes out of his way to mention Peru and Colombia's "impressive" growth, despite Colombia's 4% GDP growth being below the regional average for 2004 and Peru at 5.5%, is still far below Venezuela's.

Diehl also neglects to mention the numerous steps the Venezuelan government has been doing to improve the living conditions of those living on $2 a day. With Chavez, these people are now able to buy quality food in their neighborhood and low prices, or receive meals for free if they can not afford that. With Chavez helath care is now free and available to all and illiteracy has been virtually wiped out. Schools, housing, roads, etc. and everything else that matter are finally being built in poor areas. But I can see how those facts get in the way of Diehl's assertions that Chavez is really bad for the poor who elect him in record numbers time after time. More inconvenient stats...

There is no mention of Washington's knowledge of and support for a military-business coup in his lectures about Chavez's anti-democratic leanings or perhaps providing context to why Chavez supposedly "self-declared" the US an enemy (despite it being the other way around). Nothing. He says poverty increased while oil revenue has been at record levels, but surely he knows oil only recently reached these levels, after the stats he cites were compiled. Doesn't Diehl remember after 9/11 when barrells were selling for $18, or is he intentionally deceiving the Post's readers again?

He chooses to label Chavez's tour through the South Bronx, meeting with non-profit leaders and Dominican mothers as "flambouyant." Interesting choice of words. He chooses to put negative words about Chavez in Toledo's and Uribe's mouth that they took every effort to avoid. Interesting jounalistic tactic. He calls Toledo's Peru a success, when polls show more than 80% disapprove of him. Very interesting incongruities, don't you think?

Jackson Diehl needs to stop representing the situation in Venezuela if he can not bother to act like a journalist. The question in the future will not only be whether Diehl ignores inconvenient facts, or whether the Post chooses to endorse this.

Regards,

Matthew Glesne,
Los Angeles

1:35 PM  
Blogger theCardinal said...

I have to work a little right now so I can't respond in full. What I can say is that hijackings are not only welcomed, but encouraged. Thanks for your comments.

1:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home