|
On April 10 2019 23:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2019 23:28 Archeon wrote:I don't think it's entirely fair to hold someone responsible for changing his position from "some time ago", I'd argue it's a good thing when people are able to. JimmyC isn't a politician running on those issues. To boot most of the articles linked in this threat are from him and he talked first hand to people affected, it'd be weird if he wasn't more sure of his opinion. Also he's clearly frustrated and hence his wording might have been a bit more extreme than normally. Cut him some slack  (Not that I disagree that finding the truth isn't easy here, especially not for people without access to first hand sources.) I don't think he has changed his opinion. His posting on Venezuela has been pretty consistent from the start, I just don't think he was quite honest with us (or himself) at that particular time. But, like, the main point is, there's clarity here. It's good when things are clearer, and that's one of the effects GH has on discourse, we get to the heart of things. GH is putting a lot more trust in the other side of the narrative than I do, or at least he's projecting more trust in the other side of the narrative than I am willing to, but that also means he gets more of a reaction.
FWIW I have a pretty good idea of why this is. I don't think it's malicious or anything, it's just a proximity referential experience thing.
The experience of a marginalized (in my case Black person in the US) is hard to imagine and easy to avoid visceral interactions with.
Being Black in the US isn't equivalent to being Black in Brazil or Venezuela or elsewhere but it is a window into the experience. It allows me to more readily relate and recognize similar patterns and various narratives that predate any recent headlines.
It's basically for the same reasons you would more readily accept an argument about the benefits of (some local tradition) that would seem superstitious, unsupported by fact or counterproductive to outsiders, but actually has some more nuanced impact on the greater social experience of it's participants.
EDIT: An example that comes to mind is police violence in the US. It took more than 20 years after Rodney King before a plurality of white Americans accepted there was something seriously wrong with racialized policing. You still find people suggesting it's a fabrication of marginalized people and doesn't match the data/stories they've seen.
|
|
|
Back to topic:
How realistic would you rate it that we get a diplomatic conference where diplomats make a deal? Like in Syria, but this time somewhat successful? What would a solution look like that the communist states and the capitalist states could agree on?
|
The question of whether this is socialism or not is fairly unimportant outside of the west's political debates about socialism, which is not really the issue here.
When there are two conflicting narratives about a situation, talking to the people who are directly involved isn't the most helpful. They are going to subscribe to one of the narratives, just like you and GH do. You can also go on the Grayzone Project and see interviews with Venezuelans in Venezuela that say the opposite, and that has the same worth. They are directly involved so they will be more informed, but my issue with this situation is precisely the informations we get; it's harder to find out what information is worth than we are used to.
You're not sure how the narrative about race playing a part in the venezuelan conversation started? I find that hard to believe. There are pretty clear reasons for why that started, and they aren't that hard to seek out.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a bad post Jimmi. I'm not sure how you want me to answer it. I guess I'm going to point out all the bad in there, but I'm not sure that will help?
On April 11 2019 01:31 JimmiC wrote:
I don't know which ones you will believe and which ones you think are bought and paid for by the evil US machine.
Unfair characterization of the argument that there is a media bias when it comes to how Venezuela is reported, which causes the information we get to be less trustworthy than it would usually be.
On April 11 2019 01:31 JimmiC wrote:
if you think the Dark skinned ones pain is more relevant make sure you talk to them.
Horrible characterization of the argument that there is a racial component to the venezuelian situation.
On April 11 2019 01:31 JimmiC wrote:
When you hear their pain and their stories I think you will become as emotionally invested as I am, and I have never said I am not.
Weaponization of personal suffering to demand support for your position.
On April 11 2019 01:31 JimmiC wrote:
they listen to videos made by college age people in their dorm rooms full of theories treated like facts.
Unfair characterization of my position about the other narrative and of the people who push the other narrative.
On April 11 2019 01:31 JimmiC wrote:
If these don't work for you let me know what news source you do trust and I'll find their article on it.
None. That's almost the entirety of the point...?
On April 11 2019 01:31 JimmiC wrote:
WAKE UP, this is not about ideologies.It is about Maduro being a sociopathic dictator!
Attempt to pass an ideological position as non-ideological.
|
|
|
On April 11 2019 01:18 Archeon wrote:
Back to topic:
How realistic would you rate it that we get a diplomatic conference where diplomats make a deal? Like in Syria, but this time somewhat successful? What would a solution look like that the communist states and the capitalist states could agree on?
imo the US blew up the diplomatic process by backing Guaido not participating in the election/talks. There was a blog where I've made my argument a bit more extensively (and unacceptably so, I apologize for that) but I don't want to do it all over again.
In that vain, basically Guaido and the US have taken the position talks are unacceptable so long as Maduro is president and Maduro has taken the position that he's not stepping down.
Considering Maduro stepping down is essentially an embarrassing death sentence, it's the least likely outcome imo. As of now the US and Guaido thus far are holding their position and have turned to strangling Venezuela economically hoping they can make the situation bad enough that Maduro's military leaders have to turn on him or fear their own men turning on them to get the strangulation to stop.
Maduro is holding the position that the loyalty of his people combined with the hatred of US imperialism (juxtaposed to Guaido's embrace of US empire) among a host of other factors will keep Guaido and the US from taking power.
Re Strangulation strategy there's a decent write up from McClatchyDC
A majority of Venezuelans now live in poverty. More than 3 million Venezuelans have fled their homes in search of food, medicine and work. The country’s gross domestic product has shrunk almost in half from where it was five years ago. Inflation reached 1 million percent last year.
History shows that sanctions alone are not necessarily the most effective way to force regime change, said Robert S. Litwak, a former director for nonproliferation for the National Security Council, who is now a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
“If one looks at the record, one can’t find a case were economic sanctions on their own produced a change of regime,” Litwak said. “Look, Cuba has been sanctioned for 60 years. We’ve had the most rigorous sanctions. People are driving cars from the 1950s and they’ve circumvented sanctions. But it hasn’t collapsed the regime.”
Litwak notes the United States heavily sanctioned Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Iran, but in none was able to achieve the maximalist goal of regime change.
Those realities have sunk in as Maduro has remained standing after absorbing four devastating blows: Guaidó recognized by the United States as interim president, oil sanctions, Guaidó’s promise that hundreds of tons of aid stuck on the border would be delivered and strangling banking restrictions.
“I talked recently, a week or so ago, to four or five Latin American advisors, and they’re all very pessimistic,” said Michael Shifter, who as president of the Inter-American Dialogue has deep ties with many leaders across Latin America. “It got me depressed. And I’m not exactly Mr. Optimism.”
John Feeley, who served as ambassador of Panama, urged international partners to keep up the pressure. “This is a 20-year disaster in the making and while expectations may have been outpaced, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, ‘let’s not go wobbly,’” he said.
Feeley said it was wrong to think that Maduro was going to go away quickly.
“I know for a fact that the people who work on this daily at State anyway didn’t think he was going to go away easy,” Feeley said. “I think you might have had a little bit of unrealistic expectations coming out of the White House and the fact that he’s there means that he’s there, but look at other transitions from dictators. They rarely happen overnight.”
www.mcclatchydc.com
|
On April 11 2019 01:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 01:18 Archeon wrote:
Back to topic:
How realistic would you rate it that we get a diplomatic conference where diplomats make a deal? Like in Syria, but this time somewhat successful? What would a solution look like that the communist states and the capitalist states could agree on? The problem is that Venezuela isn't socialist. If it was so many people wouldn't be getting rich. It is now a narco state run by drug lords that Maduro ignores their corruption and the corruption of the military as long as they support him and he is allowed to continue his grifting. Also, Maduro has said he will not discuss the possibility of new elections which means there is no solution possible, because no matter what he is unwilling to give up any power or even let the people decide. This is not capitalism vs Socialism. Hell if you look up the various opposition parties in Venezuela including Guardio's they are not that right wing. You would somehow need to find a arbitrator that not only both sides would agree too. And some how give that arbitrator the power to enforce the ruling. But as Maduro tightens the reigns on his control and brings in Military hardware and personnel from other countries that seems highly unlikely. I would hope for some deal where Maduro could take all the money he has gotten free and clear and just live somewhere else and give the country back to its people. Sadly I don't think the Russian's or the Chinese would be ok with this because of the deals he has made with them require him to remain in power to see them through. No leader that actually cared about the people would make those deals and think they were fair for the people.
I don't really care about capitalism vs socialism in this context, I don't think a discussion about socialism would lead to anything meaningful here. From what I know I agree that rampant corruption is one of the main problems.
I was mainly talking about the states supporting one side which I'd sum up as the western capitalist states (USA, EU, Brazil) vs the other "communist" states of Cuba, China, Russia. Since this is basically a cold war scenario we might as well treat it as such.
I don't think anything Maduro says has any relevance the moment the communist states drop him. That being said no side has any interest in free elections. I think the minimum line needs to be getting supplies into the country and get a more progressive president. The minimum line for the communist states is probably keeping Maduro's party in power.
I think the main question boils down to "who do both sides find acceptable?". A person too close to Maduro would likely not solve the problem and be unacceptable for the USA, while Guardio would definitely be unacceptable for China, Russia and Cuba. So the question would be: Is there anyone more or less neutral with some political weight?
@GH that strangulation article is interesting and makes sense. From an inhuman standpoint Venezuela either collapses or continues to stay in economic irrelevance, both of which are winning scenarios for the USA (and loosing scenarios for the Venezuelan populace).
|
|
|
|
|
@GH that strangulation article is interesting and makes sense. From an inhuman standpoint Venezuela either collapses or continues to stay in economic irrelevance, both of which are winning scenarios for the USA (and loosing scenarios for the Venezuelan populace).
I agree and as Jimmi points out benefits our ally Saudi Arabia.
As the situation deteriorates it'll become even more difficult to identify the affiliations between gangs, fascists, and narco's coming across the borders from US allied Brazil and Columbia and as the situation get's more desperate it becomes more palatable to accept whoever the US demands rather than keep fighting for an internal diplomatic solution supplemented by international observers and aid.
Considering the role the US and it's European allies play in the Venezuela situation my position is that the US should step away completely other than to let Guaido come to the US if he wants so he doesn't have to fear for his life from the moms that jumped his caravan in that video earlier.
On April 11 2019 02:19 JimmiC wrote:
Maybe NK is a better example since I think it is more globally accepted that he is evil. Should we remove all economic sanctions and just let him do as he pleases and hope that the economic benefit given to the country from the relief trickles down to the people? He does claim to be a socialist and the economic sanctions have not created a regime change.
To this point Maduro is at a distinct disadvantage to situations like NK and Cuba because of their geographic isolation. Not that it stopped the Bay of Pigs and such.
|
On April 11 2019 02:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 02:02 Archeon wrote:
I don't really care about capitalism vs socialism in this context, I don't think a discussion about socialism would lead to anything meaningful here. From what I know I agree that rampant corruption is one of the main problems (disfunctional economy is another one).
I was mainly talking about the states supporting one side which I'd sum up as the western capitalist states (USA, EU, Brazil) vs the other "communist" states of Cuba, China, Russia. Since this is basically a cold war scenario we might as well treat it as such.
I don't think anything Maduro says has any relevance the moment the communist states drop him. That being said no side has any interest in free elections. I think the minimum line needs to be getting supplies into the country and get a more progressive president. The minimum line for the communist states is probably keeping Maduro's party in power.
I think the main question boils down to "who do both sides find acceptable?". A person too close to Maduro would likely not solve the problem and be unacceptable for the USA, while Guardio would definitely be unacceptable for China, Russia and Cuba. So the question would be: Is there anyone more or less neutral with some political weight? I don't think a person like that currently exists. The reason Guardio popped out of no where is every political opponent of Maduro is either in Jail for some crime, exiled or dead. The "other side" would have loved to have used someone who the people actually knew and liked rather than Guardio but all those people are gone. It would be a disturbing thing but maybe you could bring Russia, and China the the table and be like, what deals did Maduro make with you and how can we pay you back with a different leader that takes better care of the infrastructure and roots out the corruption. But that leaves out the Venezuelan people so it seems wrong. I have question completely hypothetical. But lets say that Maduro or whoever, is what I say, a complete sociopath dictator only interested in helping himself (by participating in the hypothetical I won't think you think this, it is not some trap). How should the international community go about helping the people free themselves from the dictator? Military intervention has shown to be the worst option so lets take that off the table. Is economic sanctions the way to go? Is there a better way? I just don't see a good peaceful way to overthrow a dictator once he has removed the election as a possible way to replace him? Am I missing an option?edit: to your edit, I'm not sure if that is a win for the US because they make a TON of money off refining the Venezuelan oil, it all happens in the US. That is why until January of this year I believe but it may have been as early as Oct, the US never sanctioned Venezuelan Oil. Venezuela being down probably most helps countries like Saudi Arabia who can easily up their oil production without it impacting prices now. It will also help who ever gets what ever Oil Venezuela does make because their markets will be so small that whoever buys it will be able to at huge discounts.
I don't think you are missing anything. The least bloody way is to make the military of the country replace the dictator, like what happened in Egypt.
You can achieve that through sanctions, infiltration and civil war/uprising, but none of this is safe and sound, we see that in Syria. It'd be nice if the military would drop Maduro and put a politician of the opposition or a general in charge, but atm that's an unlikely scenario. Ideally you'd get some people from the military to the deal table, but none of them is gonna be crazy enough to openly do that until Maduro is all but disempowered.
The safe and sound scenario is military intervention combined with uprising, which is bloody but has the highest chance of success. We have seen how problematic that can be in Libya and Iraq, but both nations are problematic to begin with and far away. The uprising gives the intervention and following government some legitimacy. The real problem is that if China and Russia support Venezuela that intervention is gonna be Vietnam all over again. I also don't think Trump wants to go there, it doesn't fit with his agenda and if he wanted to he would have long ago.
Economic sanctions have some success rate in getting dictators to cooperate to some degree. Examples would be Iran's nuclear deal or NK's willingness to talk about their nuclear program. I still think there needs to be a solution the backing states can agree on before that's a scenario that's applicable to Venezuela.
Another possibility is to remove the dictator through assassination, but that is honestly the worst one with all outcomes being bad unless you control everyone but the dictator.
In a generalized situation letting them do their thing until they become a serious threat is still the best solution for the people. Most people won't be affected too much, many of them can flee if the situation gets desperate. You can try to mix positive and negative incentives like the EU tried with Erdogan, but for most dictators that's a way of giving power up or loose face. Any intervention is unlikely to create a stable system and likely to cost more lives than the dictators normally would.
Imo if we develop plans in that direction then it should be about developing plans to support refugees in surrounding countries. Something like a UN-fund for refugees with the blue helmets developing and patrolling minor cities close to the border. If we turn fleeing the country from a life-threatening no-hope gamble into a situation with a serious positive outlook the dictator would rule over nothing pretty quickly.
But getting the UN to do anything is pretty much a pipedream. Add to that that there are ongoing conflicts in 14 African countries alone and chances for global support programs are grim at best.
|
NK is a funny example re: sanctions. South Korea was also an 'evil dictatorship' back in the 60s-70s, but eventually 'graduated' into a reasonably normal country. Would that have happened if instead of cooperating and investing into SK, we'd have put them behind a wall of sanctions and isolation? My guess is no.
Also if you look at Vietnam, another 'evil' communist regime; they weren't nearly as isolated as NK had been in the aftermath of Sino-Soviet split & the end of Cold War, and while today's Vietnam isn't exactly a shining beacon of liberties and prosperity, it is for sure doing better than North Korea. Would this be the case had they been put behind a wall of sanctions and isolation? Again, my guess is no.
|
Yeah sanctions are about either keeping the nation weak or getting something from the dictator. They are not about developing the country 
|
|
|
There are simple solutions when it comes to situations like Venezuela. Any country that becomes directly involved in whatever political conflict will have to deal with the political baggage that got to country to where it is right now. And it will be more complex than a simple change of leadership at the top. People look back to Germany and Japan post WW2 as some sort of model, but forget that both of those nations unconditionally surrendered and gave up their sovereignty for quite some time. And that was after a prolonged conflict. None of those facts are true in Venezuela. All the parties involved are seeking assistance from foreign powers to bolster their claim, so there is no clean, simple path forward.
The best thing the US could do is provide aid to the surrounding countries to help them deal with the people fleeing Venezuela for whatever reason and try to counteract any instability created by the conflict. It isn’t great, but there isn’t much else the US can do without military action.
|
On April 11 2019 03:34 Plansix wrote:
There are simple solutions when it comes to situations like Venezuela. Any country that becomes directly involved in whatever political conflict will have to deal with the political baggage that got to country to where it is right now. And it will be more complex than a simple change of leadership at the top. People look back to Germany and Japan post WW2 as some sort of model, but forget that both of those nations unconditionally surrendered and gave up their sovereignty for quite some time. And that was after a prolonged conflict. None of those facts are true in Venezuela. All the parties involved are seeking assistance from foreign powers to bolster their claim, so there is no clean, simple path forward.
The best thing the US could do is provide aid to the surrounding countries to help them deal with the people fleeing Venezuela for whatever reason and try to counteract any instability created by the conflict. It isn’t great, but there isn’t much else the US can do without military action.
Considering this takes Trump winding back I'm afraid (but hopeful this isn't the case) we may be too far in already. Doubly troubled with Abrams at the helm and willing to do whatever it takes and Trump mostly oblivious about the actual situation.
|
I still think that they could try to strike a deal with China, Russia and Cuba, but yeah, success is not a very realistic scenario. Then again it's not like China, Russia and Cuba profit from the current situation either, they just want to keep Venezuela as a state that's politically aligned with them.
If Trump could get them to exchange Maduro for a slightly more progressive less corrupt guy who rebuilds the infrastructure and lets supplies in he could celebrate it as a success and they could keep Venezuela relevant.
In a perfect world they'd do a Marshal plan together, but yeah flying cows are more probable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
