Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro has urged his country’s leadership not to be disturbed by his illness or his eventual death.
In his second online article in two days, Mr Castro again praised new US President Barack Obama.
But he added that he did not expect to be following world events by the end of Mr Obama’s first term in four years.
There has been much speculation on the health of the 82-year-old, who had not written a column for five weeks.
Fidel Castro’s second essay on www.cubadebate.cu in two days came after his brother, President Raul Castro, denied rumours that his health was worsening.
Mr Castro had not written any columns since 15 December, after averaging nine a month in 2024.
Ok, after no news (and a five week silence in terms of print) we get, in rapid succession, 1) a public declaration of how well he is doing (yet sans pictures), 2) denials from the highest levels of government that his health it worsening, and 3) musings from his own (allegedly, at least) pen about his death.1 He must either be in a coma or is otherwise at death’s door. I would speculate that he is already dead, but since Argentine President Fernandez de Kirchner says he saw him within the week, this seems unlikely. I could see her exaggerating how well he was doing out of since of solidarity (or perhaps just politeness), but I wouldn’t think she would lie about whether he was living or not.
Sphere: Related Content
Not to make too light of the situation, but since this all has a bit of drama and theater to it, why not: it occurs to me that he could appropriate Spock’s dying speech from Star Trek II with only one minor variation: “Don’t grieve, Comrades, it is logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.” [↩]
BBC NEWS | Americas | Cuba’s Fidel Castro ‘doing well’
Speculation that the health of former Cuban President Fidel Castro has worsened has been dismissed by the visiting Argentine president.
President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said Mr Castro, 82, seemed healthy, after she had an hour of talks with him in Havana.
Meanwhile, Cuban President Raul Castro said his older brother was “exercising, thinking a lot, reading a lot”.
All of which may well be true, but I continue to be puzzled by his utter lack of a public appearance for over two years. There is something that isn’t being shared-especially when assurances of his wellbeing are accompanies with reports such as:
No pictures of the talks were immediately released.
It is as if there is something about Fidel’s condition that the Cuban government believed would have a negative impact on the population. However, why that would be the case given that the transition to Raúl has gone so well is beyond me.
Right. The pictures of Fidel reading a daily newspaper-presumably meant to dispel claims that old pictures were being shown-mysteriously stopped appearing some time ago.
And if he could not even be shown on TV from a hospital bed at the 50-year celebrations of the revolution, then he must be in bad shape.
In fact, there is an image from that celebration that speaks volumes about the state of the leadership. I saw a photo of Raul and several colleagues of comparable age. Raul looked like he was about to fall asleep. I wanted to yell: Hey, wake up and celebrate, Raul!
Comment by MSS — Thursday, January 22, 2024 @ 12:42 pm
I wonder if he’s already embalmed.
Comment by Barry — Thursday, January 22, 2024 @ 2:19 pm
[...] I would speculate that he is already dead, but since Argentine President Fernandez de Kirchner says he saw him within the week, this seems unlikely. I could see her exaggerating how well he was doing out of [...]
The New York Times is set to receive a $250m (£180m) investment from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim to help the paper finance its business.
[...]
In return, Mr Slim’s stake in the paper will be increased, making him the second largest shareholder.
Mr Slim is the world’s second richest man, according to Forbes magazine.
Besides simply being interesting, I have no particular comment to make except to note that phrase “Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim” sounds far more like something out of pulp novel than reality.
We have not yet hit the third week of the New Year, or even the first minute of the new administration, and yet we have a nominee for Most Ridiculous Blog Post about the Obama Administration of the Year1 and it comes from Stop the ACLU, and is entitled Could Obama Be Planning a Chavez?. The piece starts with the subtitle “Will Obama, with a Reid Pelosi led Congress, with a radical judicial system pull a Hugo Chavez?” and is really a reposting of a comment by someone named Marion ValentineÍÍ who is apparently stuck in the worst of the Cold War, as he is fearful that the US is poised to be taken over by communists. Specifically in the comment in question he states:
pray that I am wrong, but from everything I have researched, I believe Obama, with a Reid Pelosi led Congress, with a radical judicial system will pull a Hugo Chavez.
I assume that by “pull a Chavez” he means ditching the current constitution, replacing it with one of his own devising, and then further altering it to allow for indefinite reelection. It is possible that he simply means the latter, however (i.e., just reelection).
It should be notes that no evidence is provided to support that assertion (despite all the “research”), but instead he simply launches forth in a description of recent Chávez speech.
I fully recognize that I am engaging into a foray into fringe areas of our politics, but decided to comment upon the post because Stop the ACLU is a fairly widely-read blog and because I suspect that such types of claims are likely to be made in the coming years. Further, this is such a wrong assertion on so many levels, that I feel compelled to make, at least, a few key points.
First, as a general observation, anyone who thinks that an American president (any president, not just Obama) can “pull a Chavez” doesn’t understand what happened in Venezuela and has no understanding of American politics and institutions. Indeed, my guess is that they really have no idea what Chávez did, or did not, do.
Second, some specifics:
1. Chávez is not a doctrinaire communist. Indeed, despite some of his rhetoric, I wouldn’t even call him a communist at all. There is much of his rhetoric and his policies that are socialistic, but he actually lacks ideological coherence and is far more of a populist who is able to mix socialist rhetoric and oil revenues into political power. His opposition to the US is far more about a combination of rhetorical convenience, nationalism and resentment over the Bush administration’s support of the 2024 attempted coup against him. He is fairly characterized as a “leftist” but only in a very general sense.
2. Chávez is not the bogeyman that he is painted to be. Yes, he says a lot of mean things about the US, and yes he does oppose some US interests in Latin America (although such a statement presupposes the US has coherent policies in the region to start with, which may presume facts not in evidence). At a minimum, the American Right’s concern/fascination with Chávez is overblown, if not fully miscplaced.
3. Communism is not a threat to the United States. The Cold War is over, and has been for some time now. Few countries even claim communism these days, and those that do are hardly hardcore in their dedication to Marxism. There is no domestic nor international conspiracy to secretly bring communism to our shores.
4. The idea that some troika of radicalism in the Congress, the White House and the Courts could result in the replacement of the constitution or, at least, the alteration thereof is absurd. First, there is no evidence of that type (or, really, any type) of radicalism in the actors in question. Second, there is absolutely no route by which the constitution could either by replaced or changed in regards to reelection of the president via those actors save from basically a coup d’etat.
5. Chávez came to power in the context of the disintegration of the a political order that had prevailed in Venezuela for roughly four decades. The notion that even with our current economic problems we face the utter collapse of the party system making way for the replacement of institutional infrastructure is absurd on its face.
6. Just so we are clear: the constitution can only be altered through a specific, and arduous, process. Further, there is no popular support for such changes (and it is not even clear, btw, that Chávez has the support he needs to achieve permanent reelection).
7. One ought to give some thought to the institutional stability that the US has had over the last two and a quarter centuries. The basics have survived foreign invasion, the Civil War, two World Wars and the Great Depression. I somehow think that they will survive Pelosi, Reid and Obama in office.
In short: outside of the realm of science fiction, the kinds of changes that took place in Venezuela cannot happen in the United States. We are currently in the middle of a wholly normal transition of power and the only variable in play here is that some people don’t like the winner. Beyond that, there is nothing to suggest that things will be anything other than a normal presidency (even given the extraordinary policy challenges). Indeed, the empirical evidence provided by the transition to date is that the Obama administration will be fairly pragmatic and practical and will govern close to the center. There certainly has been no evidence of radicalism.
Sphere: Related Content
Correction: This post was from October 2024-a fact I overlooked. Indeed, I am not even sure how I found it at this point. [↩]
I fully recognize that I am engaging into a foray into fringe areas of our politics, but decided to comment upon the post because Stop the ACLU is a fairly widely-read blog
I’ve never heard of the blog, “Stop the ACLU,” but with that title how could they NOT be a fringe group?
Furthermore, since the ACLU is explicitly concerned with protecting individual liberties, wouldn’t they WELCOME a collectivist, Chavez-style system?
Comment by Ratoe — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 3:38 pm
We have not yet hit the third week of the New Year, or even the first minute of the new administration, and yet we have a nominee for Most Ridiculous Blog Post about the Obama Administration of the Year
FYI: I just looked at the post and it was dated Oct. 28, 2024.
Comment by Ratoe — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 3:55 pm
They are ranked 18th in the TTLB Ecosystem (which, granted, isn’t as useful a metric as it once was) and they have decent traffic (certainly traffic I would like to have ;).
But yes, the title says a lot.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 3:59 pm
You’re right about the date-I am not even sure now how I found the post now that I think about it-but I guess that it can’t win the award for 2024…
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 4:01 pm
Chávez is not a doctrinaire communist.
Agreed. The Economist once described him as “more Mussolini than Marx,” which I think remains a great description.
Comment by boz — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 5:30 pm
Via Reuters: Venezuela’s Chavez says Obama has stench of Bush
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday Barack Obama had the “stench” of his predecessor as U.S. president and was at risk of being killed if he tries to change the American “empire.”
[...]
“I hope I am wrong, but I believe Obama brings the same stench, to not say another word,” Chavez said at a political rally on a historic Venezuelan battlefield.
“If Obama as president of the United States does not obey the orders of the empire, they will kill him, like they killed Kennedy, like they killed Martin Luther King, or Lincoln, who freed the blacks and paid with his life.”
One of the pillars of Chávez’s politics is opposition to the Empire1 which ends up meaning, in practical terms, the US. Anyone who thought, especially in the midst of economic troubles in Venezuela2 and in advance of his attempt to gain unfettered reelection, that he would make nice with Obama was misguided at best. Chávez’s brand of politics needs an enemy, and the US fits that role (even if it is ok to keep selling oil to said enemy). And, really, the odds are that an Obama administration will treat with Venezuela in ways not unlike that of the Bush administration (although I would expect the rhetoric to be toned down a bit).
Of course, Chávez is giving Obama a personal out (and also providing himself (and Fidel Castro) with an out for the positive things he has said about Obama), by saying Obama is under the control of the Empire.
Sphere: Related Content
I wonder if he has actually read Hardt and Negri? [↩]
My electrician is from Venezuela and his mother is still living in that country. When I asked him what he thought of Hugo Chavez, he said, “Oh, he has to go. People are starving and there is no freedom at all.” He is saving his money so that he can bring his mother here. Chavez is, for intents and purposes, just as crazy a the Bob’s Big Boy statue who is currently running North Korea.
Comment by JohnRJ08 — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 1:02 pm
Would you care to explain why Obama would continue with Bush’s stupid policy? I can’t think of any reason to support such an assumption. Because the smartest course of action would be to attempt honest diplomacy with all of our “enemies” and then wait to be rejected by them. This then denies them much of their strength by putting the onus of the rift on them, and thus denying them their ability to demagogue against us. This, in turn, would allow Obama to take the high ground and put America on a better moral footing than we’ve ever been on. And this would make Obama look better and improve his standings both domestically and internationally.
On the other hand, following in Bush’s (and his predecessors’) failed footsteps would entirely undermine Obama by allowing people to say that he’s just like Bush, while denying Obama the ability to retain his image as an agent of change. That’s not to say that Chavez, Iran, North Korea, or Castro are going to give-in and deal with us fairly (though it’s certainly more likely), but merely that it would give us the upperhand and make things much more difficult for them.
Now, would you care to explain why Obama would make the egregious mistake you assume he’ll make? He’s been pretty damn savvy about this stuff so far, and many of the moves that his doubters on the left attacked him for have proven to be correct. So far, he’s manipulated things politically with far better skills than anyone could have predicted and I can’t imagine why he’d make the mistake you think he’ll make. No offense, but I’ve found this constant assertion by many on the left that Obama is just a continuation of the status quo to be quite annoying. Sure, it’s possible. But there’s zero evidence to support such a conclusion and much evidence to suggest that he’s smarter than any of these people give him credit for being.
Comment by Doctor Biobrain — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 3:58 pm
The place to start is: what is it that you think is our policy at the moment vis-a-vis Venezuela? There really isn’t much of one.
Second, my macro-level assumption is that Obama will, like the Bush admin, largely ignore Latin America. This is not a radical assumption if one looks at the norm of US-Latin American relations pretty much since LatAm independence. The likelihood is that there may be a few tweaks in the policy, but on balance the attention of the Obama admin will be on the Middle East, Central Asia and the financial crisis with LatAm being an afterthought.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 4:06 pm
I think that there is, btw, a chance in a shift on Cuba. I hope that this is the case, but I shan’t hold my breath.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 4:06 pm
Chavez must be a druggy himself. Why would we want to invade a 3d country? He is bring the good people from his country down and they do not deserve it. He is acting from his behind, because he does not have any brain.
Comment by Russ H — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 5:07 pm
Excuse my typing. I should have reviewed it first. Chavez makes me so mad. Are we still buying gas from that idiot? I would say embargo the country but that hurts the decent people there. Chavez, get a life and let your people live. Why don”t you join are speaker Pelosi and are so called Republican whip guy and go out and get your life and leave the government to individuals that can run it.
Comment by Russ H — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 5:15 pm
Empire1 which ends up meaning, in practical terms, the US. I wonder if he has actually read Hardt and Negri? [↩]
Of course, Hardt and Negri weren’t the first to talk about Empire! But, yeah, H&N seem to have a bit more complex notion of the term than Hugo. It wouldn’t surprise me, however, to see Negri show up on one of Chavez’ radio programmes!
Comment by Ratoe — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 5:38 pm
I’ll be damned-I don’t know if this is true or not, but a google search of “negri chavez” resulted in a hit to this article in the marxist, Monthly Review: http://monthlyreview.org/0907maher.html
Footnote 7 says: “See also Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution, trans. C. Boudin (New York: Monthly Review, 2024), 41, where Chávez recalls reading Negri while in prison following the failed 1992 coup.”
By the time Empire came out, he might not have had the time.
Here is the link to Chavez’s google books search on “Negri”: http://is.gd/gnXC
Comment by Ratoe — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 5:44 pm
I really couldn’t say exactly why, but some time back it struck me that the way that Hugo uses the term “Empire” sounded like a simplified version of H&N.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 6:20 pm
Dr. Taylor - If you say that we don’t have much of a policy with Venezuela, then what’s the problem? Surely your complaint couldn’t be that Obama will continue to ignore Latin America, is it? Besides, the Bush Admin has been demonizing Chavez in much the same way he’s done with us; and even encouraged a coup against him a few years back. And this is the game conservatives have been playing with American foreign policy since WWII; using foreign “enemies” for domestic politics purposes; which helps them politically but hurts America internationally. Particularly as our “enemies” continue to use that to their own advantage; and thus, strengthening themselves to our detriment.
And you write that Obama will tone down the rhetoric, but again, if it’s enough that we’re not demonizing him, then this represents a definite shift in policy. Same with Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Our idiotic policy towards our “enemies” only strengthens them, so the smart thing to do would be to do the opposite. Again, it’s only domestic politics that say we should do otherwise and those politics only help Republicans. The only smart course of action for Obama is to engage with these countries and stop playing the silly games. That’s the whole reason why Republicans continually bash Dems for suggesting any other course of action, as this would thoroughly undermine their entire foreign policy game and make them lose even more elections. If Obama doesn’t do this, he’s a bigger fool than he’s shown himself to be. This isn’t about “empire” as Chavez and many of the folks at Washington Monthly were saying. This is about elections and giving the Republicans a scary enemy to rally their base against. And even the ones really interested in empire are mental midgets who somehow imagine that the world is a giant Risk board. The idea that these dopes will assassinate anyone is laughable. No, America would be much more powerful by engaging diplomatically with our “enemies” than by demonizing them.
I should add that I misread what you wrote at Washington Monthly, which is why I came here. Somehow I thought you said that Obama would need to demonize Chavez, when you were actually writing about what Chavez was going to do. I’m not sure how I goofed that up, so perhaps much of my original comment was off-base and you’re not one of those “Obama is the same as Bush” people. But I’d still like to know why you think Obama will copy Bush’s policy and what you think that is.
Comment by Doctor Biobrain — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 7:59 pm
Doctor Biobrain,
Really all I am commenting on here is Chavez, not so much Obama.
In re: policy towards Ven, I think it would be helpful to do less demonizing of Chavez by DC-although I do not foresee a great deal of constructive engagement with him. I do expect that LatAm in general will be a backburner issue for Obama.
S
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 8:15 pm
I think that Hugo Chavez has made it fairly clear over the last several years that he’s about as stable and trustworthy as that Bob’s Big Boy look alike who’s running North Korea. I’ve met Venezuelan ex-patriots who are convinced that Chavez is either mentally deficient or heavily into drugs, or both. How does a U.S. president engage a South American dictator who is no more predictable than a rattlesnake? I don’t think all of the information we have on Chavez is purely demonization. He reveals himself all the time in his rambling public orations, and his belligerence toward the United States has never been a state secret in Venezuela. Surely, this is a guy who requires no demonizing at all. He’s done a fine job of that himself. If Hitler were alive today, he would certainly be living in luxury in that country. That said, I don’t think demonizing is Obama’s style. The guy is probably a great poker player. Bush, on the other hand, couldn’t maintain a poker-face if his life depended on it, and Chavez played him like a fiddle.
Comment by JohnRJ08 — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 8:48 pm
Oh come on, Doctor. You’re stalling. You said “an Obama administration will treat with Venezuela in ways not unlike that of the Bush administration,” yet you refuse to state what that means. Is it that the Empire Mongers have gotten to you and made you remain silent? Type three asterisks in response if that’s the case. Just kidding. Like I said, I originally just misread your comments and see that you weren’t saying what I thought you were saying.
But all the same, I do think even your more mild line is incorrect. For as much as the Bush Admin didn’t have much of a policy towards Chavez, that’s just because they became so distracted putting out all their other fires that they had to retreat from their strong anti-Chavez stance; which included their dangerous pro-coup policy a few years back. But they never retracted it and all Obama will need to do is to make friendly overtures towards Chavez and this will be a definite improvement for us. That’s what he’s done by reaching out to Republicans and I fail to see why this won’t work for him internationally. Sure, Chavez is just as unlikely to respond positively to this as the Republicans have been, but it will help put a damper on the effectiveness of their rhetoric; which is a big reason why he’s doing it. It’s not about getting his enemies to like him, but instead to pull their platform out from under them. I don’t see why Obama wouldn’t do this with Chavez too.
In regards to Latin America being on the backburner, I don’t see why that’d be necessary. Obama seems like a multi-tasking kind of guy and as long as he can hire competent people to do the main part of the work, there really is no need for any backburners at all. Particularly as Latin America doesn’t really need as much work as some other places, and the main thing needed is just an open channel of dialogue and an end to the idiotic “Chavez is evil crap” that only empowers him. That’s one of the odd things about Republicans that, for as much as they LOVE engaging in endless games of reverse psychology and political ju-jitsu against their domestic opponents, their foreign policy is always of the straight-forward “I’ll punch you in the nose” variety that are sure to backfire. But like I said, these policies are only meant for domestic victories; not international ones. And the fact that the Bushies thought they could use these policies to lead to international victories that would ensure domestic victories just shows what complete dopes they were. That’s just not how this was supposed to work.
And for Obama’s Latin American policy, the first thing that is needed is an overall improvement in our standing among the people there. And for as much as Chavez is realizing he needs to demonize Obama, I don’t think it’ll work. So much of America’s strength is just by us being good guys that other countries can believe in. So even if Latin American policy is put on the back-burners, the improvement in America’s reputation worldwide will do much good. One of the sad ironies of the hardliners is that their insistence on a strong foreign policy only weakens us, as their model of foreign relations has been dead for a long time. Obama seems to know this as well as anyone.
Comment by Doctor Biobrain — Monday, January 19, 2024 @ 10:47 am
I think that the Obama administration will largely ignore, and not directly engage, Chavez. I think that the US will continue to buy oil from Venezuela. I think that the Obama administration will continue to be publicly concerned about possible Venezuelan aid to the FARC and to what it perceives as insufficient seriousness about the drug trade. The Obama admin will be concerned about Venezuelan overtures to the Russians and Iranians. In short, not that much different than the Bush admin, but will less intense rhetoric. Most of this will not amount to much of anything, by the way. The change in rhetoric is not unimportant, btw, as you note.
Put another way: while I expect the rhetoric to cool, the bottom line is that that is very little for the US to gain by actively engaging Venezuela at the moment, especially given all the other things on Obama’s plate. As such, very little will really change.
Yes, the Obama admin means a restart, of sorts, to US-Latin American relations. However, this is not a new story, and usually ends up the same: with not a lot really being done in the region.
I would recommend Peter Smith’s Talons of the Eagle or Henry Raymont’s Troubled Neighbors: The Story of US-Latin American Relations from FDR to the Present to perhaps see where I am coming from. The short version: new presidents come to power, and there is hope that the new pres will be better for LA/more engaged with LA. In the end, they aren’t. And, in the end, the power of the US and its long-term history in LA overshadows personality/intentions of the US pre.
And Chavez will be able to demonize Obama, although granted not as easily as Bush, because at the end of the day, the US is still the hegemon in the hemisphere and the leader of the hegemon is easy to demonize.
(My guess is that Greg Weeks’ new book would work as well, but I haven’t read it as yet.)
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, January 19, 2024 @ 11:24 am
Via CNN: Sunday vote in El Salvador may hint at coming presidential pick
At stake Sunday are 84 seats in the national Legislative Assembly and 262 municipal posts. Arena holds 34 of the Legislative Assembly seats and the FMLN has 32. Three other parties share the remaining 18.
Though recent polls show many FMLN legislative candidates leading Arena hopefuls, Berkman estimates the FMLN will fall short of the 43 seats the party would need to control congress.
But the FMLN could win enough support and momentum to carry its candidate to the presidency in March.
I am not sure as to the empirical existence of “momentum” from one election to the next, more likely significant support in one contest portents well for the next, however.
I don’t pay as much attention to the case as I once did, but it is a fascinating case wherein a guerrilla group (the aforementioned FMLN) was able to more from being a belligerent in a civil war to being a political party in a functional democracy (after the peace accords in 1992 after 12 years+ of fighting).
Some will, no doubt, register concern over a left-leaning party potentially winning the presidency, especially many wring their hands about a leftward “wave” in the region.
However, foreign Assistant Secretary of State for inter-american affairs during the Bush 41 administration gets it exactly right:
He sees two types of leftist governments in Latin America: “institutional” governments like Brazil’s that “have made peace with the free market” while still championing social programs and populist, more-radical governments like Venezuela’s.
“We shouldn’t exaggerate like it’s some tide sweeping the region, because it’s not,” he said.
Aronson, who was one of Washington’s top officials dealing with Latin America when the civil war ended in 1992, said he would interpret an FMLN victory in March as “the ultimate fruition of the peace accords we backed.”
“It’s not a bad thing that out parties become the in party,” he said. “That’s how democracy is supposed to work.”
I am not sure as to the empirical existence of “momentum” from one election to the next
How about Shugart, APSR, 1995? Or the literature on elections on federal systems (especially Germany and India)?
Lots of empirical evidence of “momentum” in elections in close proximity. But as I write about today, there is a deeper story behind these elections being today instead of in March.
Comment by MSS — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 5:26 pm
That;s what I get for not doing a lit review before a blog post!
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, January 18, 2024 @ 6:09 pm
Via the LAT: Chavez will try again to end term limits
Despite the prospect of economic hard times as oil revenue plunges, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is preparing to go before voters with a plea that they’ve rejected once before: End term limits that block him from staying in power indefinitely.
The National Electoral Commission is expected this week to set a Feb. 15 date for a referendum seeking approval of a measure that would allow Chavez and all other elected officials to run for reelection an unlimited number of times.
Interesting, the story notes that current polling shows 55% of respondents in opposition to the move. However, as the story also notes, Chávez may be running out time to get such a change in place, as the collapse in oil prices and a looming recession will take a toll on his power:
“Chavez sees himself as the eternal comandante but if he loses this, he’ll be gone in four years,” said Ricardo Sucre, a political scientist at Central University of Venezuela. “He’s in a hurry because he doesn’t want to bet on an uncertain future.”
I think that the assessment is pretty much on target. Just look at the numbers:
If they remain at today’s levels, the government will see revenue from crude export sales fall by more than half this year compared with 2024, a devastating scenario for a country that relies on oil for 92% of exports and 60% of the government budget.
Venezuela collected an average price of $87 a barrel last year, but current prices for the “basket” of mostly heavy Venezuelan crude oil have fallen to less than $30. Chavez had ridden the oil price bonanza to expand public spending by 26% last year.
Despite a lot of flowery rhetoric that is often taken too seriously by many American observers. the bottom line is that Chávez’s power base is not founded on a coherent ideology, but is rather fueled by populist rhetoric and lots of petrodollars to spend. Or, at least, that was the case until the price of oil plunged.
Chávez tried to get his term extended a year ago last December, and the referendum failed. The measure was part of a broad package of reforms, while this attempt would appear to be an à la carte selection for the voters to accept or reject.
Any thoughts on succession? Seems unlikely he will retire to write his memoirs. An arrangement like like Putin’s or Lee Kwan Yew’s seems more likely.
Comment by walt moffett — Wednesday, January 14, 2024 @ 9:24 am
[...] Anyone who thought, especially in the midst of economic troubles in Venezuela2 and in advance of his attempt to gain unfettered reelection, that he would make nice with Obama was misguided at best. Chávez’s brand of politics needs [...]
Via the Miami Herald: Internet use booming in Latin America
A recent marketing study of 10 Latin American nations and Puerto Rico projected the regional residential base of Internet users would reach 160 million in five years, up from more than 100 million now.
[...]
The recent expansion of Internet users in Latin America has been dramatic. In 2024, for example, Colombia added 5.4 million Internet users, or about 12 percent of its population of 45 million, according to a Morgan Stanley report. This represented an 80 percent increase in the number of Colombia’s Internet users that year.
The same report said that Brazil added 7.4 million Internet users in 2024 (17 percent growth); Mexico more than 2.2 million (an 11 percent increase) and Venezuela 1.58 million (38 percent growth).
In contrast, the United States added 9.8 million net Internet users that year, for an increase of 5 percent.
I honestly have nothing useful to add to this news, I simply found it interesting
Mr Fujimori is accused of authorising the killing of 25 people in two massacres. He denies the charges.
[...]
His defence lawyers maintain he was kept in the dark about clandestine killings by a death squad known as La Colina, and never approved of the counter-insurgency methods.
[...]
It is alleged La Colina was under the direct command of the Peruvian president.
In 1991, the death squad raided a barbecue in a poor suburb of Lima known as Barrios Altos and killed 15 people.
The following year, they kidnapped nine students and a professor.
They were taken away from the campus and summarily executed. Their remains were later found in an unmarked grave.
Mr Fujimori is also charged with ordering the illegal detention and interrogation of a prominent journalist, Gustavo Gorriti, and businessman Samuel Dyer, in 1992.
Fujimori was president of Peru from 1990-2000, which included the illegal dissolution of the Congress in 1992 and the re-writing of the constitution to enhance his powers.
He also faces separate charges on corruption and wiretapping.
Sphere: Related Content
Filed under: Latin America | Comments/Trackbacks (0) |
Right. The pictures of Fidel reading a daily newspaper-presumably meant to dispel claims that old pictures were being shown-mysteriously stopped appearing some time ago.
And if he could not even be shown on TV from a hospital bed at the 50-year celebrations of the revolution, then he must be in bad shape.
In fact, there is an image from that celebration that speaks volumes about the state of the leadership. I saw a photo of Raul and several colleagues of comparable age. Raul looked like he was about to fall asleep. I wanted to yell: Hey, wake up and celebrate, Raul!
Comment by MSS — Thursday, January 22, 2024 @ 12:42 pm
I wonder if he’s already embalmed.
Comment by Barry — Thursday, January 22, 2024 @ 2:19 pm
[...] I would speculate that he is already dead, but since Argentine President Fernandez de Kirchner says he saw him within the week, this seems unlikely. I could see her exaggerating how well he was doing out of [...]
Pingback by PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Fidel: Not Dead Yet (but…) — Friday, January 23, 2024 @ 6:38 am