A Picture Tells A Thousand Words
By David Peterson at Sep 24, 2006 |
|
Apologies for hogging so much of the top of this webpage. (Really.) But as my title suggests, one good left-leaning instance of "fortuitous product placement" deserves another. And because the air in the States still smells of sulfur, four days since Venezuela's President delivered his country's annual remarks before the General Assembly to help inaugurate the UN's New Year, and five since the Secretary-General and the American President delivered theirs, I couldn't resist the temptation.
Madame President, excellencies, heads of state, heads of government, high representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you.
First of all, I would like to invite you very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it -- Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals. Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books: Hegemony or Survival. Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States. It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet, the hegemonic pretentious of American empire. Our placing of risk, the very survival of the human species, we continue to warn about this danger, and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads.
I had considered reading from this book, but for the sake of time, I should just leave it as a recommendation. It reads easily, it's a very good book. I'm sure, Madame, you are familiar with it. It's appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German.
I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States because our because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil -- the devil himself is right in the house.
And the devil came here yesterday. (Laughter.) Yesterday the devil came here, right here. (Laughter.) Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today....
Waking up the morning after Hugo Chavez' UN address, the captive Americans could have been forgiven for thinking that Chavez's rocker needed a little oil.
Hot-off-the-presses, Thursday morning's New York Times reported that Chavez "brandished a copy of Noam Chomsky's 'Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance' and recommended it to members of the General Assembly to read. Later," the Times added one fateful sentence, Chavez "told a news conference that one of his greatest regrets was not getting to meet Mr. Chomsky before he died." ("Iran Who? Venezuela Takes the Lead in a Battle of Anti-U.S. Sound Bites," Helene Cooper, September 21.)
Later on Thursday, CNN's Lou Dobbs repeated the Times's line that "President Chavez at a press conference said one of his greatest regrets was he did not have a chance to meet Chomsky before his death." (Though Dobbs added with a touch of charm that, on the contrary, "We are happy to report to you tonight Chavez was exaggerating his demise. Noam Chomsky is very much alive and very much active in his both literary and political efforts." (Lou Dobbs Tonight, Transcript 092101CN.V19, September 21.))
Among FOX News's "All Stars," the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes stated that his "favorite thing" about Chavez's speech was that, "after waving around Noam Chomsky's book," Chavez said "he's sorry he didn't meet Chomsky before he died." (Transcript 092102cb.254, September 21.)
The next morning, the New York Times's Mark Santora repeated Helene Cooper's line from the previous morning. "At a news conference after his spirited address to the United Nations on Wednesday," Santora wrote, "President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela expressed one regret: not having met that icon of the American left, the linguist Noam Chomsky, before his death." ("A Scholar Is Alive, Actually, And Hungry for Debate," September 22.) The Los Angeles Times echoed this. "[T]he Venezuelan president," it reported, "mentioned his regret at never having met Chomsky before he died." ("Chomsky Book Sales Skyrocket," Chris Lee, September 23.) As did The Independent (London): "Mr Chavez embarrassed himself later at his press conference, expressing regret that he hadn't met Mr Chomsky before his death." ("How the UN meeting turned into a festival of anti-Americanism," David Usborne, September 23.)
As late as Sunday, September 24, the Baltimore Sun was still reporting that "Chavez told reporters that one of his greatest regrets was not getting to meet Chomsky before he died." ("Chavez's speech at U.N. spikes sales for Chomsky," September 24.)
For the record: I've checked these repeated allegations to the effect that Venezuela's Crazy Commander-in-Chief (or "Crazy Foreigner II," as the Washington Post's weekly "Zeitgeist Checklist" called him--"Crazy Foreigner I" having been reserved for the President of Iran, whose September 19 address to the UN General Assembly was very good, very important, and therefore very crazy according to the standards of the captive American mind) is so lacking in credibility that he doesn't know whether fellow ZNet blogger Noam Chomsky ranks among the living or the dead, and probably never read Hegemony or Survival, either.
And I am happy to report not only that Noam Chomsky does in fact still rank among the living. But also that Hugo Chavez never stated, suggested, or implied anything to the contrary.
Apparently what happened was this. On Wednesday, September 20, ABC News in the States broadcast a Special Report anchored by a fellow named Ryan Owens. (See at bottom, where I'll reproduce a transcript of this program in its entirety.) The program aired some time following Hugo Chavez's address before the General Assembly, and documented his meeting with reporters in New York City. As conveyed to ABC TV's audience via the voice of a translator, at one juncture during this news conference, a question was posed to Chavez, and Chavez answered as follows:
Reading this transcription of Chavez's remarks (through the translator's voice, let us not forget), I believe that we should conclude either (a) that the transcription is flawed or (b) that both the translation and the transcription are flawed.Reporter (through a translator): You made a call to fight imperialism. How can this be achieved? How can a new world order be created, especially for (inaudible) about countries are concerned, which is subject to economic and political pressures? And secondly, we have seen, in the time we have been here, [a] campaign on the media against you. It is said that you are the enemy of North America.
President Hugo Chavez (through a translator): Well, this is part of the imperialist strategy to confuse people, to confuse people. The first enemy of the people of the United States is the government of the United States. It is the main enemy the people of the United States have. They are manipulated, deceived, their freedoms are restricted through their Patriot Act. They are sent to die in Iraq for no reason. The people of the United States are being deceived. My God, how they are being deceived. This is a noble work, hard working people. It is the people of Abraham Lincoln. The people fought for the independence of this nation. The people of great men and women, Martin Luther King, great sports figures, such as Muhammad Ali, Cassius Clay, great ball players. Well, some of them have been punished for Pete Rouse, who was such a star and so many others.
I even have relatives here. I have a nephew here in the United States. He's my brother, Nacho's son. He got married here and he had a son. He lives in Ohio. I've never been able to visit them. But I have relatives here. This is the strategy of the empire. To present us as the enemy to justify any aggression by deceiving the world. Only the world is waking up. The Havana Summit shows it. The Havana summit. Fidel Castro has been presented by an enemy, as an enemy of the United States for 40 years. However, 118 countries of the world has chosen Fidel Castro by overwhelming acclamation as the president of the Non-Aligned. So they won't achieve that. I think people are waking up. And the heir of the empire is coming to an end.
You asked how to achieve the, overthrow the, of imperialism. The political work of Chomsky, which has been very important for many decades. I am an avid reader of Noam Chomsky. An American professor who died some time ago. I wanted to meet that man, but he was aged. He was 90 years old. John Kenneth Galbraith, I have been reading him since I was child, and so Noam Chomsky. They are, these are great intellectuals of the United States. The people of the United States should read what they have written, much more than they do instead of watching 'Superman" and 'Batman and Robin" movies that delve people's and young people's minds. Drugs in this consumer society that does away with human values, with intelligence. So much damage has been done to the people of the United States. There are ways. But the plan is moving along. And imperialism will fall this century.
Zeroing-in on the final paragraph, what Chavez himself intended to say, in my opinion, was something like this:
My editorial insertion--There also was--is crucial to rescuing Chavez's intentions from ABC-TV's translation and transcription. Notice that Chavez was referring to two different American professors: Noam Chomsky and John Kenneth Galbraith. On April 29 of this year, John Kenneth Galbraith died at the age of 97. Non-controversally, I might add. Unless we recognize, therefore, that in between the sentence “I am an avid reader of Noam Chomsky,” and the sentence “An American professor who died some time ago,” Chavez himself intended a referential break that distinguished between Chomsky and Galbraith, we will conflate Chavez' remarks about Chomsky with Chavez' remarks about Galbraith.You asked how to achieve the, overthrow the, of imperialism. The political work of Chomsky, which has been very important for many decades. I am an avid reader of Noam Chomsky. [There also was] An American professor who died some time ago. I wanted to meet that man, but he was aged. He was 90 years old. John Kenneth Galbraith, I have been reading him since I was child, and so Noam Chomsky. They are, these are great intellectuals of the United States…..
Look at it like this. We could just as easily re-draft the punctuation and paragraphing used for ABC's transcription in a style so as to make it clear whom Chavez was referring to, and in which of his two otherwise conjoined statements. For example, where this transcription uses period-marks, we could replace them with some commas instead. Also, we could insert a paragraph break after the third sentence. Thus a transcription more expressive of Chavez's intended referents might read:
Clearly, the referent for "An American professor who died some time ago" was intended by Chavez to be John Kenneth Galbraith—not Noam Chomsky. But the fact remains that Chavez's actual statement was picked up and circulated in a badly distorted manner. Which suggests an eagerness to discredit Chavez. To discredit his address before the General Assembly. And to discredit his advocacy for the book Hegemony or Survival in ways that smack of something more than an honest error.You asked how to achieve the, overthrow the, of imperialism. The political work of Chomsky, which has been very important for many decades. I am an avid reader of Noam Chomsky.
An American professor who died some time ago[,] I wanted to meet that man[,] but he was aged[,] he was 90 years old[,] John Kenneth Galbraith[,] I have been reading him since I was child[,] and so Noam Chomsky. They are, these are great intellectuals of the United States…..
Were Chavez to have recommended to the world's peoples (beginning above all with the captive Americans--because the "threat is in their own house," and the "devil is right at home") that they read Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival, and were it then to prove that Chavez himself was not aware whether the book's author was dead or alive, this would have been a very poor showing for Chavez, and everything at this moment associated with him.
But the fact of the matter is that, having advocated to a global audience Chomsky's 2003 book Hegemony or Survival, Chavez knew what he was talking about, and Chavez did not believe that Chomsky was deceased.
Instead, Chavez' remarks as translated over ABC television in the States were badly misrepresented.
But the error was not Hugo Chavez'.
"President Chavez' Speech to the 16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement," Havana, Cuba, September 15, 2006
"Rise Up Against the Empire," Hugo Chavez, UN General Assembly Address, September 20, 2006 (as posted to the CounterPunch website)
Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, Noam Chomsky, 2nd Ed. (Owl Books, 2004)
American Empire Project (Homepage)
"Struggle to Confront Three Global Challenges" (SG/SM/10643), Kofi Annan, September 19, 2006
"President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly," White House Office of the Press Secretary, September 19, 2006
"Text of President's Speech at 61st UN General Assembly Meeting," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, UN General Assembly Address, September 19, 2006 (as posted to the FARS News Agency website)"Motoko Rich and the New York Times Should be Ashamed," Paul Street, ZNet, September 23, 2006
"A Picture Tells A Thousand Words," ZNet, September 24, 2006
Editors' Note
An article on Sept. 21 about criticism of President Bush at the United Nations by President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran reported that Mr. Chavez praised a book by Noam Chomsky, the linguist and social critic. It reported that later, at a news conference, Mr. Chavez said that he regretted not having met Mr. Chomsky before he died. The article noted that in fact, Mr. Chomsky is alive. The assertion that Mr. Chavez had made this misstatement was repeated in a Times interview with Mr. Chomsky the next day.
In fact, what Mr. Chavez said was, “I am an avid reader of Noam Chomsky, as I am of an American professor who died some time ago.” Two sentences later Mr. Chavez named John Kenneth Galbraith, the Harvard economist who died last April, calling both him and Mr. Chomsky great intellectual figures.
Mr. Chavez was speaking in Spanish at the news conference, but the simultaneous English translation by the United Nations left out the reference to Mr. Galbraith and made it sound as if the man who died was Mr. Chomsky.
Readers pointed out the error in e-mails to The Times soon after the first article was published. Reporters reviewed the recordings of the news conference in English and Spanish, but not carefully enough to detect the discrepancy, until after the Venezuelan government complained publicly on Wednesday.
Editors and reporters should have been more thorough earlier in checking the accuracy of the simultaneous translation.The Times welcomes comments and suggestions, or complaints about errors that warrant correction. Messages on news coverage can be e-mailed to nytnews@nytimes.com or left toll-free at 1-888-NYT-NEWS (1-888-698-6397).
Comments on editorials may be e-mailed to letters@nytimes.com or faxed to (212) 556-3622.
Readers dissatisfied with a response or concerned about the paper's journalistic integrity may reach the public editor, Byron Calame, at public@nytimes.com or (212) 556-7652.
FYA ("For your archives"): Am reproducing here a copy of Hugo Chavez's September 20 address before the UN General Assembly, as well as the transcript from "ABC News Now/Special Report," Anchor Ryan Owens, September 20, 2006 (12:47 PM EST).
Federal News ServiceSeptember 20, 2006 Wednesday
HEADLINE: REMARKS BY HUGO CHAVEZ, PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA, AT THE 61ST UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
LOCATION: UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
(Note: President Chavez's remarks are made through an interpreter.)
PRESIDENT CHAVEZ: Madame President, excellencies, heads of state, heads of government, high representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you.
First of all, I would like to invite you very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it -- Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals. Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books: "Hegemony or Survival." "Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States." It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet, the hegemonic pretentious of American empire. Our placing of risk, the very survival of the human species, we continue to warn about this danger, and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads.
I had considered reading from this book, but for the sake of time, I should just leave it as a recommendation. It reads easily, it's a very good book. I'm sure, Madame, you are familiar with it. It's appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German.
I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States because our because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil -- the devil himself is right in the house.
And the devil came here yesterday. (Laughter.) Yesterday the devil came here, right here. (Laughter.) Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today.
This table that I am now standing in front of, yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world, truly as the owner of the world. I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States.
As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcok movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."
As Chomsky says here clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its hegemonistic system of domination, and we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.
The world tyrant's statement -- cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything -- they say they want to impose a democratic model, but that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and I would say a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons. What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it, or others who are at the root of democracy. What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs and --
The president of the United States yesterday said to us right here in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom." Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother, he looks at your color and he says, oh, there's an extremist.
Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.
The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists; it's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over, and people are standing up. I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those of us who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect for the sovereignty of nations. Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.
The president then -- and this he said himself -- he said I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East to tell them that my country wants peace. That's true. If we walk in the streets of The Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city -- San Antonio, San Francisco -- and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want -- does it want peace -- they'll say yes. But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace; it wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.
It wants peace, but what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon, Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last hundred years in Latin America and in the world, and now threatening Venezuela, new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?
He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie, shamefacedly. The bombs in Beruit, with millimetric precision, this is crossfire? He's thinking of a Western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire. This is an imperialist fire, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear we're suffering because we see the homes destroyed.
The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples, to the peoples of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with me because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran, and he addressed all these peoples directly. And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?
And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed peoples think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home!" I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.
And that is why, Madame President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall, as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed fully, fully confirmed. I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system.
Let's accept -- let's be honest: the U.N. system born after the Second World War collapsed. It's worthless. Oh yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents and listen to good speeches like Evo's yesterday or President Lula's. Yes, it's good for that, and there are a lot of speeches and we've heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile. But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world.
And that is why Venezuela once again proposes here today, 20 September, that we reestablish the United Nations. Last year, Madame, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume these responsibility, our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss these.
The first is expansion, and Lula talked about this yesterday right here, the Security Council, both as regards permanent and non- permanent categories. New developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That's step one.
Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts. Transparent debates, transparent decision-making.
Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something everyone's calling for -- of the antidemocratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions in the Security Council.
Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis with impunity to destroy Lebanon, right in front of all of us as we stood there watching. A resolution in the council was prevented.
Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role, the powers of the secretary-general of the United Nations. Yesterday the secretary-general practically gave us a speech of farewell, and he recognized that over the last 10 years things have just gotten more complicated -- hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.
Madame, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations as members of it that we are and lending it our voice, our thinking. Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system, to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces in the planet. This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar's home has sought a non-permanent seat on the Security Council. Let's see. Well, there has been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.
The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists. And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there's no need to announce things.
But since the imperium has attacked openly, this strengthened the convictions of many countries and their support strengthens us. Mercosur as a bloc has expressed its support. Our brothers in Mercosur -- Venezuela with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur -- and many other Latin American countries -- CARICOM, Bolivia -- have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League -- the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers. The African Union, almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela, and countries such as Russia or China, and many others.
I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.
Over and above all of this Madame President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said hopelessly optimistic because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning. As Silvio Rodriguez says, "the era is giving birth to a heart." There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently, and this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?
What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceania. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.
We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.
Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened. The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere. President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.
And I would just add one thing. Those who perpetrated this crime are free, and that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves -- they were CIA killers, terrorists. And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a "Cubana de Aviacion" airliner.
And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent, who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then-government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government. And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards; it protects terrorism when it wants to. And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence, and we are one of the peoples who are fighting for peace.
Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people. During the coup they kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was true. And so I'm here today. But these people who led that coup are here today in this country, protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.
We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there, happily. And there you see another era born. The summit of the 15, the summit of the Non-Aligned adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it. But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent manner. More than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched once again the group of the Non-Aligned with a new momentum. And is there anything I could ask all of you here -- my companions, my brothers and sisters -- it is to please lend your goodwill, to lend momentum to the Non-Aligned Movement for the birth of the new era to prevent hegemony and to prevent further advances of imperialism.
And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the Non-Aligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently if, unfortunately -- they thought, oh, Fidel was going to die, but they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues and he's now presiding the Non-Aligned.
So, my dear colleagues, Madame President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.
With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now closing my file. I'm taking the book with me. And don't forget, I'm recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.
We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully, in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren, a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations. But the renewed -- a renewed United Nations.
And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else, maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.
You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in the locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend of the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the devil.
It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all. May God bless us all. Good day to you. (Applause.)ABC News Now
SHOW: ABC NEWS NOW SPECIAL REPORT #5 12:47 PM EST
September 20, 2006 Wednesday
HEADLINE: ABC NEWS NOW/SPECIAL REPORT
ANCHORS: RYAN OWENS
(Voiceover) I'm Ryan Owens in New York. You're looking at the President of Venezuela, a man who some fairly remarkable comments earlier at the UN, calling President Bush the devil. He is now having a news conference. So we, of course, wanted to let you listen in on what else Mister Chavez, President Chavez might have to say today. Let's listen.
SPEAKER (MALE)
President Chavez was elected to the presidency of his country in December 1998 and took office in February of 1999. President Chavez is accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicholas Maduro and the Venezuelan representative of the United Nations, Francisco Arias Cardenas. Mister President will have opening remarks and then he will take your questions. Thank you very much. Mister President, you have the floor.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) ...which is such an important day and I am at your disposal, so as not waste time. Let's go directly to the topic.
SPEAKER ( MALE)
The first question will go to the representative of the UN Correspondent Association. Sir, you have the floor.
REPORTER (MALE)
Mister president, on behalf of the United Nations Correspondent Association allow me to welcome you at this occasion. My first question to you is that in your speech today, you have said, you talked about those four points that you made about reforming the United Nations. Those four points that you made, other leaders have also made similar points. What is it that you have, any plan that you have to implement those reforms given the fact that United States has its way or most of the things away here? So can you implement those reforms?
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) I believe that at this point in time given the degree of deterioration of the United Nations syste m , I believe that given the degree of deterioration, we cannot speak of a reform any longer, but rather of a re-foundation. What started happening here in 1945 after World War II has collapsed. There is no way to save it. There is no room for reform. That is my opinion at least. This is a mortal disease. I believe that the system was created for a certain era, but the era is sober. It was designed for bipolar air, the Soviet Union collapsed, the United Stated empire is on the way down and it will be finished in the near future for the good of all mankind.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) And I hope that we will never have to face another empire. That is why I believe we need to re-found the system, the international system. I don't know whether it should be called the United Nations again or not. Now, regarding the plan, we have some ideas. There are four proposals in order to elaborate a plan. But w e know (inaudible) mean to elaborate the whole plan for the United Nations.
GRAPHICS: U.N. SYSTEM SHOULD REFORMED
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) We hope that the United Nations, we hope that the Secretary General and the secretariat, we hope that our friend, Kofi Annan could create a committee. This would be the first starting point, a committee of heads of state, of world leaders in order to have a diagnosis, a revision, and a plan, something which I consider fundamental, and then later on be able to make proposals to the General Assembly. But if we have a dictatorship, if we still face the international dictatorship that exists, this proposal would not be feasible because it would be enough to have one hand with a veto go up to stop the whole reform.
GRAPHICS: "U.N. HAS A MORTAL DISEASE"
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) So it would be a matter of a re-foundation or a revolution. Let new actors emerge and a new international system emerge in order to guarantee the respect for peace, of sovereignty of the peoples, of self-determination, and so that we can see the emergence of a new international system, what Simon Bolivar used to call the 'balance or equilibrium of the universe," that cannot be imposed through war. There is no possibility of having a balance or an equilibrium through war. That is what gives way to imbalances, violence, bloodshed and terror. We need to retake the path of brotherhood and peace. Those would be our modest contributions. Thank you.
REPORTER (MALE)
(Through translator) Mister President, I have two questions in case Venezuela is elected to the Security Council this year, what would be the agenda that you would follow as a member state?
GRAPHICS: NO EQUILIBRIUM POSSIBLE THROUGH WAR
REPORTER (MALE)
(Through translat or) What would be the real impact that it would have on the Security Council agenda, given the fact that it has a vote, but not a veto and my second question, very briefly, you have said that you do not recognize the president, the new president of Mexico and the government of Mexico have told you that they will not let you in if that is your objective, if you will only go if the other person takes office.
SPEAKER (MALE)
Someone's cell phone is working.
SPEAKER (MALE)
(Speaking in foreign language)
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
Very good.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) We have said that our aspirations for the Security Council are well founded. An independent voice that would represent not only Venezuela, but also the peoples of the third world, the peoples that meet there in Havana a few days ago, the No n-A ligned, the G77, the G15, the G20, Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, Oceania, that is to say even the poor peoples of the first world because there are many poor people in the United States. You know that what has been going in the United States has been poverty in these last few years especially.
GRAPHICS: PEOPLE OF THE THIRD WORLD NEED A NEW VOICE
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) So, yes, we have only one vote and we no veto. But we have a voice. Voice, one vote and a lot of voice and many voices. And we will speak again and again and again about our troops. And you know what, Christ was a great preacher of the word. And the word, when it is based on the truth, tends to multiply itself because it is the truth, because it has a good base, it has a good fertilizer. We will always be with the truth and even though the battle has been hard and the days ahead of us will not be e asy because the North American empire, the imperialism of the White House is enormous. It has great power. There has been threats.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) You know that there are some countries that are very poor and depend on the World Bank giving them some contribution and the Monetary Fund as well. They have been threatened with taking away the contribution of the World Bank and the Monetary Fund as well. I have proof of it, but there is dignity in the world. There is dignity. Threats of different type of withdrawing military assistance or different types of assistance given to different countries. But anyway, in this struggle of David against Goliath, we are David and Goliath will fall down.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) It has been written with the help of God and the conscience of the governments, t he m ajority of the governments of the world. Now, Mexico, Mexico, our dear country, are you Mexican? What part of Mexico are you from? The Federal District, Mexico. We are now evaluating things. First, my foreign minister here to my right, our ambassador in the United Nations, Francisco, our minister told us and real, I believe it was, that we are evaluating the situation.
GRAPHICS: THIS IS THE BATTLE OF DAVID VS GOLIATH
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) We believe that in Mexico, there is a situation that needs to be studied in depth. But time will tell. Time will tell the evolution of the situation. In Mexico, we are worried and concerned about Mexico. There are millions of people in the streets. And there's a leader out in the streets that says he does not recognize the situation. It is not small groups. It is not a few television channels like in Venezuela. You will see what will happen i n Ven ezuela on December 4th. We will win the elections by knockout, but there are some groups there that will say in Channel 2 and gallop soon in different television channels, there will be small groups there that say there was a fraud, just as in the case of the referendum.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) There was a knockout and they came out saying there was a fraud. But these are small groups, not so in Mexico. I have seen the images of millions of people and a leader that is there out in the streets. I think that the situation is a matter of concern. So we're evaluating the situation. We're taking our time to do so. We, that is our right and nobody can push us such as Mexico, which is also sovereign and we respect it's sovereignty. The fact that I may go to the social office of Lopez Obrador, I was surprised when I arrived there this morning, the Foreign Minister informed me of it. I have no t fore seen traveling to Mexico right now.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) But I love Mexico from the time I was a child and I looked at the movies of (inaudible) and I'm also a Villista, a Zapatista. I would have loved to be a soldier of Pancho Villa and the soldiers that followed him and the horse saying, 'Viva Mexico" and invaded the United States. The only one that has dared to invade the United States was Lord of the (inaudible), Francisco Villa would have liked to be a soldier of Emiliano Zapanta or General Lazaro Cardenas, the great nationalist. I feel I'm a Mexican, you know, I feel as if I had been born in Mexico. But for the time being, I have not foreseen to go to Mexico. I wish the best to Mexico. We love Mexico and it is part of our America. Thank you.
MARGARET PRESCOTT (PACIFICA RADIO)
Miss Margaret Prescott with Pacifica Radio, KPFK.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
Hi. How are you?
MARGARET PRESCOTT (PACIFICA RADIO)
I am well. How are you? First of all, on behalf of Pacifica, KPFK, the management has asked me to say that those of us on the West Coast who are feeling very deprived, you come only to the East Coast, and we would like to have you on the West Coast as well. And I've been asked to convey that to you. So we look forward to a trip from you.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) Take me there then. Take me there.
MARGARET PRESCOTT (PACIFICA RADIO)
Yes. My question. President Chavez, the recognition of women's enormous contribution to the economy and to the revolution in the form of unwaged caring work is one of the most acclaimed achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution that you lead. You often speak of women's unparallel passio n fo r the revolution and how women have been central to the creation of a caring economy through cooperatives and more. Some of the oil revenue has gone into financial help for the poorest housewives, mostly single mothers, equivalent to 80% of the minimum wage and into the Mission Madres del Barrio. Should not these measures be long term rather than short term as they are at present and be called a wage to socially recognize the work and the worker, so that wherever women are in the world, we can aspire to that and fight for that?
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) We know how important the issue of women and the role of women in today's world are. I am among those who always say that until women, and especially women who have a conscience, because women suffer more than men from poverty, injustice. Somebody said that poverty has a woman's face. Power is machista by its, even Catholicism is machista. I n ever thought when I was helping the priest officiate mass, I was only an acolyte and the priest threw me out of the church because I was too rebellious. But I never believe that God took a woman from Adam's ribs. That had to be a lie. We came from the womb of a woman. The, it's the other way around. And Catholicism is machista. We need to restore balance in the world and women have to have a greater weight in political, economic issues, education, science, technology.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) That is why the Bolivarian revolution put the finger on the wound in the 1999 constitution. And a number of revolutionary policies are underway you mentioned some of them. Several days ago, we marked the fifth anniversary of women's, of the Women's Bank which has a network of hundreds of thousands of women users throughout the country. And women's movements and organizations, literacy campaigns, hig her education, et cetera, 60%, 70% of them are women. They're national volunteers in the community councils and the community banks. The neighborhood health committees or labor committees, land committees, most of them are made up of women. That is why women are gaining importance in the revolution. They are becoming major players. And as they're headed for the state and the government, I will always support women's movement to seek balance in Venezuela and thus, contribute to the balance of the world.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) You spoke about the mission of neighborhood mothers. That is a first stage. We are recognizing the work of housewives. You ask a woman, 'Do you work?" 'No. I'm a housewife." 'What do you mean?" You worked. I remember that my grandmother who raised me worked so hard to raise me in poverty. And we are signing 80% of minimum wages to them. We have a 150,000 and two weeks fro m now, 50,000 more women will join these friends of those who are receiving 80% of the minimum wage. The minimum wage in Venezuela is almost $230 dollars. Eighty-percent is $184. In many countries of the world, the minimum is not even $100. In Venezuela, it is over $200. We have restored the standard of living. Extreme poverty, we have achieved almost all of the millennium development goals five, six years.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) We have reduced extreme poverty by more than 50%. It was 21% when the revolution came and it is now 10%. And we will go down to zero. Overall poverty was more than 50% and we were close to 30%, overall poverty gauged by the level of revenues. Drinking water, we have a 90%, the MDG has been achieved. Venezuela was declared a land free of illiteracy thanks to revolutionary Cuba last year. The Millennium Development Goal has been achieved. But we were starting to bri ng our people to the highest possible standard of living. Thank you very much. (Inaudible) by all means.
REPORTER (MALE)
My name is Tamam al-Barazi from Al-Watan Arabi Magazine. You supported once Saddam Hussein and now you support Iran and Syria. That's a bad omen and you visited recently Assad. Did he ask you, ask your help to liberate Golan Heights which had been occupied for 29 years? And what do you think about the Pope mentioning about Islam?
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) Where are you from?
REPORTER (MALE)
From Syria.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) From Damascus?
REPORTER (MALE)
Yes.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) Beautiful Damascus. I love Damascus.
REPORTER (MALE)
Thank you.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) I was fortunate to be in Damascus finally, a month ago with my brother President Assad. We were to the Catholic convents where the Kaysar, where the Christians hid 2,000 years ago after My Lord was crucified, our Lord Jesus. And he showed me from the palace, from atop the hill, how it was built by, which was built with landmark from the Golan great President Assad. He said, 'Hugo, there is a lake there beyond the Golan Heights and Christ used to preach there and Paul, the great warrior of Jesus lived from there. As you know, he was born in Damascus. We went to (inaudible) John the Baptist. Go there sometime. We, the real Christians find inspiration there for our fight for equality, freedom, peace. Christ said it my brothers. Let us be converts. As long as there is no justice, there won't be no peace in the world." And that is written. It has been even mat hematically proved.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) Aristotle proved this mathematically. If there is no justice, there is no peace. We should not be like Superman, 'Let's go fight for justice." No. Superman is a falsehood or the (inaudible) man who says he is fighting for justice and what he does is fight for more injustice through Satan, the lord of sulfur, says let us fight for justice but he fight for injustice. You said that I supported Saddam Hussein. I always live up to my responsibility. I went to Baghdad once and I went to speak to Saddam. What did I tell Saddam? The same when I went to Riyadh to speak to my deceased friend, may he rest in peace, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. And I went to Algier as well, in Algeria. I spoke to Bouteflika as well, and Qaddafi in Tripoli and Obasanjo in Nigeria. And in Indonesia, in Jakarta, to that president who had a problem with is eyesight, Mister Wahid wh o was the president of Indonesia then. This was 2000. The prices of oil, no, this was in 1999, the prices of oil was $7.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) We were giving our oil away and the Venezuelan governments in the past were partly to blame because of the excess production. Because they were following the mandates of the White House imperialism so that the oil would be cheap and our countries didn't have money even to pay salaries and wages so the first international trip I took was to open to all opportunities have opened. I spoke to Khatami of Theran and all the members of OPEC to call a meeting of presidents. This was a historic meeting in Characa. For 25 years, meeting of presidents of OPEC had not been, had not taken place. We spoke privately then publicly. We wrote a document with, develop a minimum level of connection with (inaudible) and in 2000 we regain $20 per barrel. That was my bas ic purpose.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) People are still talking about my trip to Baghdad and that I supported Saddam Hussein. No, I'm not finished yet, and yes, I support Syria as well. I support Syria. I support Iran. We have said this and we ratify here in this room and we support the causes of the peoples of the world. I'm not yet finished, (inaudible) my brother. The position of Venezuela is the same as that of the Non-Aligned movement. I wish you could read the historic document that was adopted in Havana when we named Fidel the president of the Non-Aligned. Everything is set out clearly. All the countries supported are giving support to Syria, to Lebanon, they demand that the imperialist troops should withdraw from Iraq. Support, we support Iran, which has proved it entitled to have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and not just Iran but any other countries.
PRESIDENT HUGO < SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) Who can take away those rights? Those are our positions, which are very clear and very firm. The Pope's position, we saw with concern the reaction that there was. I think that the Vatican should, should clarify this matter much better and, because there are still questions in the minds of our Muslim brothers and we Christians have to be brethren with the Muslims especially because we cannot say something that can be misinterpreted and add fuel to the fire that already exists in what some have called the war civilization. In Damascus, Islam and Christianity co-exist, and we have too have to co-exist in this world and learn to respect each other. Nobody can say that Muslims are extremists, that they're terrorists. There are terrorists here in the United States who are protected by the US government and they're not Muslims. Many are well protected. The one who blew up the Cuban aircraft t hat, 20 years ago, set off a bomb and he's being protected here. His name is (inaudible) and we have to find co-existing among diversities and not confrontation.
NATALIA CRUZ (UNIVISION)
(Through translator) President Chavez, my name is Natalia Cruz from UNIVISION. You were talking about poverty that has a rate of 37.9% in Venezuela. You give oil away in the community of Harlem in New York. You did that last year as well. Why give away Venezuelan oil and not sell it and use those profits to help reduce poverty in your own country? And my second question is, why use pejorative terms against the President of the United States? Maybe it's not possible to expect good relations with the United States someday with Venezuela?
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) Natalia Cruz.
TRANSLATOR (FEMALE)
'I am Columbian," says Natalia. 'I am fr om B aranquilla."
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) Oh, I've been in Baranquilla and Carta Hena. Do you know that coast? You must go there it's wonderful. Columbia, the bayonato those dances. You spoke about several things. Poverty. Here, I have the official figures of, for Venezuela. Poverty. Extreme poverty used to be 21% in 1998 when we took office. The last measurement is 10.6%. We have reduced it by 50%. And overall poverty was 49% almost 50%. And we had gone down to 33.9%. Although, like I said, we accept the traditional procedure, mechanism. This is just the result of measuring the income of one family.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA) (CONTINUED)
(Through translator) It is an incomplete measurements, at least in the case of Venezuela. Why? Because in Venezuela, in recent years, we had built, for instance, a national public health syste m which cares for 55 million persons with medical service at your doorstep 24-hours a day and there are diagnostic centers now with tomography, all the equipment necessary for a full diagnosis, EKGs, electrode polygrams. The state of the art CAT scans that allow doctors to navigate inside the brain and look at arteries in real-time and open up the brain and see it on the computer monitor. We were installing these centers throughout Venezuela and people can get medical assistance there and receive free drugs. How much does an upper class in Venezuela spend for a doctor's visit or for childbirth? A lot.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) But the lower middle class pay nothing and that's not even considered. But we accept those measurements. We have reduced poverty by 50% approximately. And this has been among other things, thanks to the recovery of our oil revenues. Thanks to the recovery of the p rices of oil which has been an uphill struggle. Thanks to the recovery of the oil industry, which was managed by Venezuelans who's brilliance had been watched and have received orders from the White House. This caused bloodshed. I was at the risk of my life. One dawn, I had guns pointed at me and they were trying to shoot me, but my good Lord protected me.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) We have been able to do this. There were men and women who died during the coup d'etat, supported and financed by Washington, and terrorism that has been unleashed in this. You said they were giving away our oil. Three days ago in Havana, and I wish to be back there from here because I have left when - President Leonel Fernandez said this, I think a question. He was asked a question or he said this in a speech. He set forward courageously in front of what you mentioned. This is something terrible, which is typical of a o ligarchy of selfishness. Chavez is giving away oil and the people of Venezuela are walling in poverty. We're not giving away our oil. President Fernandez see that clearly in Cuba.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) We are simply making exchanges. In Cuba, for as soon as today, everyday we send Cuba almost 90,000 barrels of oil, which has allowed Cuba to improve its economy. There are no more blackouts in Havana. The life of Cubans has improved in recent years, but so has ours. Cuba has paid us with 20,000 doctors. How much would it cost any country to bring an army of 20,000 doctors to live with the poor, in the poor neighborhoods and work 24 hours a day? How much would that cost from Monday to Monday, seven days a week with the equipment Fidel Castro sends us everything, including the equipment. And that is worth a lot more than the oil we are se nding h im. We send oil to our friend, Nestor Krishner and he sends us pregnant cows who produce, that produce 30,000 quarts of milk a day.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) We are paid with (inaudible) or cows and with software, because they are software experts as well. In United States, we started a program of donation. We also make donations. Why not? Will somebody criticize us because we make donations for the poor? And the United Nations? What about them? One of the speeches in the United Nations said, let there be donors for the poorest of the poor. Venezuela is poor but we are real Christians and we are humans, and we share. We break our bread. I was taught when I was a child to break our, share my bread with others. We were five, but we shared.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) We have set out to give donation s to the poor. Now, winter is coming. Last year, we helped two hundred, 180,000 poor families here in the United States. And where do those donations come from? From the profits that are given to us by the United States. We have seven major refineries here in the United States. We used to have eight and we recently sold one of them. They refine 2 million barrels of oil a day. We are earning money with that. Last year, we earned, our company here, which is 100% Venezuelan, has 14,000 gas stations. This is CITGO. It's a Venezuelan company.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) When you fill your gas tank, try to see if it's CITGO gas because that gas comes from Venezuela. With this hundreds of millions of dollars, we set aside a percentage for the poor of the United States, which are very numerous in poor areas such as the Bronx, Harlem, in Chicago, in Boston. And this year, we are ready because winter is coming to, we are ready to double our program of world donations. This is a Christian gesture and it makes us feel well because in one way or another, we are helping the needy.
REPORTER (FEMALE)
(Through translator) You made a call to fight imperialism. How can this be achieved? How can a new world order be created, especially for (inaudible) about countries are concerned, which is subject to economic and political pressures? And secondly, we have seen, in the time we have been here, campaign on the media against you. It is said that you are the enemy of North America.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) Well, this is part of the imperialist strategy to confuse people, to confuse people. The first enemy of the people of the United States is the government of the United States. It is the main enemy the people of the United States have. They are manipulated, deceived, their freedoms are re stricted through their Patriot Act. They are sent to die in Iraq for no reason. The people of the United States are being deceived. My God, how they are being deceived. This is a noble work, hard working people. It is the people of Abraham Lincoln. The people fought for the independence of this nation. The people of great men and women, Martin Luther King, great sports figures, such as Muhammad Ali, Cassius Clay, great ball players. Well, some of them have been punished for Pete Rouse, who was such a star and so many others.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) I even have relatives here. I have a nephew here in the United States. He's my brother, Nacho's son. He got married here and he had a son. He lives in Ohio. I've never been able to visit them. But I have relatives here. This is the strategy of the empire. To present us as the enemy to justify any aggression by deceiving the world. Only the world is wakin g up. The Havana Summit shows it. The Havana summit. Fidel Castro has been presented by an enemy, as an enemy of the United States for 40 years. However, 118 countries of the world has chosen Fidel Castro by overwhelming acclamation as the president of the Non-Aligned. So they won't achieve that. I think people are waking up. And the heir of the empire is coming to an end.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) You asked how to achieve the, overthrow the, of imperialism. The political work of Chomsky, which has been very important for many decades. I am an avid reader of Noam Chomsky. An American professor who died some time ago. I wanted to meet that man, but he was aged. He was 90 years old. John Kenneth Galbraith, I have been reading him since I was child, and so Noam Chomsky. They are, these are great intellectuals of the United States. The peop le of the United States should read what they have written, much more than they do instead of watching 'Superman" and 'Batman and Robin" movies that delve people's and young people's minds. Drugs in this consumer society that does away with human values, with intelligence. So much damage has been done to the people of the United States. There are ways. But the plan is moving along. And imperialism will fall this century.
REPORTER (MALE)
(Through translator) President Chavez, my name is Matthew Lee from Inner City Press. My question from New York, from the Bronx, where you have sent that oil, my question...
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) Excuse me, what tremendous homeruns are being made from the Bronx. Candy, you're from the Bronx.
REPORTER (MALE)
(Through translator) My question is about Africa and Darfur, which is a hum an rights issue here at the United Nations. Kofi Annan said that this is the most important issue about which has, something has to be done. The president of Sudan was here yesterday, and he said that imperialism wants to send United Nations staff to Darfur. So what, my question is, what do you think should be done in the case of Darfur? And in Venezuela, were a member of the Security Council, would you send to, would you vote to send United Nations' staff there or not?
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) I wouldn't like to be seen like the president of the United States is seen, wanting to be the owner of the world. In this case, I would rather have Africa, the African Union, we have an excellent relationship with them. Soon we will receive the visit of the secretary general of the African Union. And this would be a good opportunity to hear what Africa thinks about this. Venezuela has been accepted as an obser ver. The African Union, we are observers not players in Africa. But we will always be willing to cooperate and find solutions to specific and general problems, such as Darfur. I would rather consider the problem more carefully and not give you a rash opinion. I would rather know what Africa thinks before I tell you what I think. Recent, we have a commitment toward Africa.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) We went to Angola, Benin, Mali. We have been invited to Zimbabwe. We have been invited to Congo. We have been invited to Nigeria. In addition to the good relations Venezuela has always had with Africa, limited to OPEC, which does not produce a lot of oil. Of course, we have good relationship with the north of Africa. (inaudible), we are a republic. We have good relations with Morocco. And now we are seeing to Western Africa, Gambia, Mali, Benin. And South Africa, we met there with Presiden t Thabo Mb eki. We will go to South Africa soon. We are (inaudible) two oil agreements. We are planning on it (inaudible) ending. Western part of Africa. These countries are very wealthy but they are still victims of the colonial model of the multinationals who come and steal war materials.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA) (CONTINUED)
(Through translator) How can it be that if the country has oil? They take away the oil, and then sell the gas back to the country. My goodness. That is the colonial model. And we are willing to help with our oil industry for the development of these countries, for the development of oil processing, which is our strongest suit after the morals of the revolution and our people. Oil in the (inaudible) is as strongest (inaudible). Thank you.
REPORTER (FEMALE)
(Through translator) Mister President, I'm from Venezuela.
TRANSLATOR (FEMALE)
She's from one of the televis ion channel s I mentioned.
REPORTER (FEMALE)
(Through translator) Considering that a vote by countries in the Security Council of the UN is not perceivable, although there are some which have expressed their positions against your government. What could the consequences be? It is said that you're gonna apply oil diplomacy and give away, or so, oil at prices lower than the market prices.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) You have a great several questions there. The vote is not made known, is not made known publicly. It is secret. Some of them tell their person, others don't. There are several that have said what their votes are like. Many have pronounced their support to your government, because my government is your government as well. My government is that of all the people of Venezuela, even if not everybody likes it, and some would like leave it, they will not be able to. Like the C hannel 4, wh ich you work. That is one of the channels that supported the coup d'etat. It is a channel of the oligarchy.
REPORTER (FEMALE)
(Through translator) Do you have any proof of that, Mister President? Do you have any proof of that?
TRANSLATOR (FEMALE)
'I'm not going to open a discussion with you here," says President Chavez.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ (VENEZUELA)
(Through translator) That's one of the channels of the oligarchy. The owners of the channel where she works belong to the very wealthy people that did not pay taxes. Now, they have to pay taxes and they're getting angry. They tried to infiltrate the government, to take it from the inside. But now, we have an independent government in Venezuela. They participated in the coup d'etat. They were...
RYAN OWENS (ABC NEWS)
(Voiceover) You have been listening to the always outsp oken presiden t of the country of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez who, earlier today, at the UN General Assembly, called President Bush the devil. We have more live coverage for you here on ABC News Now. Here are the very latest headlines making news today.…………




re: thaznk you for your comments by asil ( 2006-10-24 01:29.)
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 27, 2006 20:52 PM
Reply this comment
Thank you for your
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 23, 2006 21:29 PM
Thank you for your comments, David. It's always a pleasure to read your blogs, by the way. Of course, I completely agree with you. When did the victim suddenly become the oppressor and the faceless terrorist? Why is the onus always on the victim to refrain from violence? It's almost as if the world sympathizes with us as long as we suffer in silence, but the moment we take up arms to fight back in the only way we can (whether in the form of suicide bombers, resistance militias etc), we become demonized? When, in fact, the truth is there would never have been suicide bombers or Hamas, or Hezbolla or Al-Qaeda if diplomacy wasn't trampled on by the powers that be. Palestinians, contrary to public opinion, don't want their children to aspire to be suicide bombers, but what other choice is there? If the Western powers would level the playing field, make it an equal fair fight, and supply the Palestinians with state of the art weaponry (as it is supplying Israel), there would never have been such a thing as suicide bombers. Suicide bombers are just engaging in different military tactics, it's simply another method of war, albeit less sophisticated. The difference between them and convential soldiers is that they are more desparate. To me the real terrorists are the soldiers who serve in occupying armies and drop bombs from the safety of their fighter jets and fire missiles indiscriminately against civilians from the comfort of their command centers. All of this is done according to the unspoken racist Western assumption that an American life is worth more than an Arab life, a Western life is worth more than a Muslim life. This, by no means, is applicable only to American politics. I see it even here in Canada, with the government's sanctimonious ravings about the need for continued military intervention in Afghanistan, and the equally repulsive media valorizing and heroizing Canadian soldiers who have died in Afghanistan. Everyday, in the news, I read about yet another Canadian soldier who has died in Afghanistan, but nothing about the thousands of Afghans who have died because of the less than humanitarian "peace-keeping" intervention of the Canadian military. Plus, of course, the outright refusal of the Harper administration (another in a long series of faithful slaves of U.S imperialism and hegemony) to issue a formal apology to Maher Arar who was imprisoned and tortured based on false information supplied by the Canadian authorities. When will Harper realize that he is fighting a losing battle in Afghanistan? Even the Americans couldn't go it alone, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, hence the Harper administration's decision to lengthen the Canadian mission in Afghanistan (as per orders from the masters, of course). This government has to realize that Canadians will leave Afghanistan. They will either leave like decent human beings or they will leave in body bags...but they will leave!! Like you said, There Is No Alternative (TINA). I wonder what Margaret Thatcher would think of this reverse application of the famous phrase that she coined in the 1980s in relation to the neo-liberla agenda that was to ravage the Third World in the coming years. Globalization is, indeed, a double-edged sword!!! Anyways, my point is that in their mad crusade to eliminate Islam, Islam is growing ever stronger and more virulent. As a moderate muslim, I am disgusted by what I feel is the West's disregard for non-Western life. Living for 9 years in Canada has not made me more apathatic, rather the continued crimes of the West in the Middle East has made me angrier. Everyday, I feel more frustrated, more helpless, and my only refuge is my religion. And I see that everywhere around me. That is the wonder, that as the West tries to demonize Islam, more and more moderate Muslims become radicalized out of frustration, they go back to their religion, they hold on to it more tenaciously. This "new Middle East" that they've created has become an entity that they no longer have any control over. How many must die before they realize that they can no longer go on killing our people with impunity? That the suffering that they visit upon our nations will be doled out to them in equal measure. It's human nature, and as Ward Churchill has eloquently put it, "There is justice in such symmetry."
Reply this comment
Reply to Asil
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 21, 2006 10:57 AM
Asil:
Speaking for myself, I am non-violent to the core, while recognizing that a right of self-defense inheres in all people. (Perhaps all living things.) On the other hand, those who live by the sword shouldn't be surprised when their historical victims rise up and expect them to do the dying by the sword. (For a change.) Those Americans, British, and "Westerners" of all strips who do not like this prospect have two elementary options ahead of them: To beat their swords into ploughshares--historically, the one option they've always rejected. Or to go on dying by the swords of others--causing who-knows-how-many deaths along the way. There is no alternative.
As for the general thrust of your comments (esp. 2006-09-27 01:25 and 2006-10-03 20:56), permit me to post in its entirety an English-translation via BBC Worldwide Monitoring of a commentary published on October 17 by the London-based daily, Al-Quds al-Arabi. (The BBC's translation is dated Oct. 18.)
To quote its closing paragraph:
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
BBC Monitoring Middle East
To be a Muslim in Britain is an accusation. One must always be ready to defend oneself and to prove, by furnishing evidence, that one is not a terrorist and that there is no extremist among the members of your family, and if such an extremist exists then one must contact the British intelligence service to inform on him, or hand him over to the nearest police station. The Muslim's image in the West has come to be confined to an extremist brandishing his sword and wearing an explosive belt around his waist, and looking for victims to blow up not because they have done anything wrong or for any fundamental reason, but just killing for the sake of killing, like the slogans raised by the critics of the 1970s, art for the sake of art, or laughing for the sake of laughing. You are suspected by the neighbours if your wife or daughter is veiled, or if a veiled lady or relative visits you. That state of neurosis reaches its peak if the relative, wife or daughter is fully veiled. You become a potential suspect in a terrorist operation or the hijacking of an aircraft if you are departing from Heathrow or any other airport in Britain, especially if you are bearded or if you are carrying behind your back a sack similar to that carried by the London underground bombers. Last week I was invited to deliver a lecture at the famous Trinity College in Dublin, the capital of Eire. It was entitled "US policy in the Arab region and its role in escalating extremism". It was an internal flight, yet the security measures were very stringent, not because of the Irish factor, for the Irish have been moved from the list of terrorists to the list of peaceful people and the Muslims have replaced them in that category, and have become the target and the threat. They ordered me to take off my shoes and belt. They searched my briefcase very thoroughly and confiscated anything fluid in it, including the shaving cream and the toothpaste and the nail clippers. When I passed through the electronic metal detector the employee asked me to step aside, and he searched me physically. When I protested that the electronic detector did not whistle and was absolutely silent he said these are security measures and I have to obey. I stood aside to ascertain whether the measures were being applied to everyone, but that was not the case at all. I noticed that those who were being subjected to such treatment have Middle Eastern features or hail from the Indian subcontinent. In other words, they could be Muslim. As for those with fair skins and blue eyes, they walked through unobstructed. I am not bearded and I do not carry a sack on my back. I have passed the adolescent stage decades ago and yet I had to be searched. The only feature that reveals my identity is my moustache, which looks like the moustache of President Saddam Husayn's guard when the latter was master of Iraq before it was invaded and destroyed. Hardly a week passes without Muslims being the subject of main headlines in the newspapers and on television news bulletins. It is an organized psychological terrorist campaign in which various apparatuses are involved, beginning with the prime minister, extending to the leader of the opposition, and reaching right-wing mass newspapers that exude rancour, malice and racism. After British Prime Minister Tony Blair laid the responsibility for the terrorism of 7 July 2005 on the Muslim community because it is not fighting extremism and is not cooperating with the police to purge its ranks of terrorists, his government is now - as revealed by the respected British newspaper The Guardian yesterday - asking university lecturers and staff in various parts of the country to spy on Muslim students with Asian and Middle Eastern features, who are suspected of being Islamic extremists who support terrorism. Jack Straw, the former British foreign secretary, began to ring the bells of this campaign when he strongly attacked the full veil [Arabic: al-niqab] and said it prevents the assimilation of the Muslim community in British society. He added that he asks fully veiled women in his electoral district to take off their veil if they want to talk to him, because it is not possible to talk effectively with someone without seeing the facial expressions of the person opposite. We do not know how 5,000 women - the total number of veiled women in Britain - can obstruct the assimilation of a community that numbers 2.5m people in this country. Why should strangers or unbelievers talk to them when those women do not talk even to other Muslims except in cases of extreme emergency? The attack on Islam and Muslims in Britain is a fashion and a topical issue in all political and media quarters in Britain. [It is part of] tendentious campaigns that aim to demonize Muslims, and label them with terrorism, so that they become an ostracized community that poses a threat to the security and stability of the country. Such campaigns are being launched within the framework of the policy of intimidation which the Blair government is pursuing in order to cover up its foreign policy and its failed and disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its turning Britain into a minor stooge that is subservient to President Bush's administration. The Muslim community has become a scapegoat in order to deflect attention from that failure. It is not a coincidence that such a campaign should escalate with the publication by the respected British medical journal The Lancet of a study by Johns Hopkins University in the United States - and not Sanaa university or Amman university - confirming the death of 655,000 Iraqis as a result of the US-British war on Iraq. It is also not a coincidence that most of the media should be preoccupied with discussing the case of a fully veiled school teacher who was fired from her job because she refused to take off her veil at a time when the British army's chief of the general staff, Maj Gen [Sir Richard] Dannatt, has affirmed the failure of the war in Iraq to bring about democracy and stability and said that the presence of the British forces has turned into a source of tension and violence, and demanded their quick withdrawal. It is the same result that was reached and submitted in a report to Congress by 16 US intelligence services two weeks ago. It is Britain's unjust and rancorous foreign policy that is threatening Britain's security, and not a bunch of veiled women. It is the suspicion directed at the Muslim community and the continued media pressure on it and labelling its sons with the charge of terrorism that serve the interests of extremism and its organizations, impede assimilation and create Muslim ghettoes in Britain. Girls are allowed to walk semi-naked in the streets, and pull down their trousers down as low as possible so as to reveal their panties, but it is not allowed for a tiny minority of Muslim women to cover their faces, and at the same time they talk about personal liberties and interfere to liberate women in Arab and Muslim countries. The real terrorist is not he who grows his beard or worships in his living room or talks about the injustices suffered by his co-religionists, but it is he who kills hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, and refuses to acknowledge that it is such a war of extermination which is the cause of extremism and frustration in Muslim community quarters.October 18, 2006
UK government making Muslims scapegoat to cover Iraq failure
Reply this comment
All I can say is go read a
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 19, 2006 18:14 PM
All I can say is go read a more reliable source than NYT like Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchill, then come and talk to me about the benevolence of the West!!!!
Reply this comment
Response to Asil (et al)
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 08, 2006 00:19 AM
Reply this comment
"Corrections"
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 06, 2006 14:39 PM
Reply this comment
Thank you for your "enlightening"
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 04, 2006 17:48 PM
Reply this comment
Thank you for your
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 03, 2006 20:56 PM
Thank you for your "enlightening" if slightly misinformed comments...First off, about my comments being representative of how insane and violence-prompting Z is, I'd like to say that nothing that I or anyone else here says can even begin to approach the insanity, violence and profanity of what the U.S government is doing in the Third World today!!! Seondly, about Western and U.S-led input of life-saving technology that led to a drop in infant mortality rate: what do you imagine the infant mortality rate in Iraq was during ten years of U.S-led sanctions and aerial bombings?? or in any of the U.S killing fields such as Palestine, Vietnam, Latin America etc.etc. The list goes on forever. So much for life-saving technology or Western humanitarianism, for that matter.
You stated the Muslim world was violent...as opposed to Europe which has always been the epitome of peace and stability??!! Two world wars were fought in Europe, as well as countless other wars before that, political and religious (sanctioned by the peace-loving Church) were being fought between supposedly modern, civilized nation-states. I'm not even counting the endless colonialist wars of conquest that the West has waged against the non-Western world. Also, the one destabilizing factor in the Middle East is the monster that is Israel and now of course, the American occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq and probably Iran in the future. Is it any wonder that the Muslim world is deeply violent?
As for the Middle East extracting more slaves than the Western Hemisphere...let's not go crazy here. There were slave trades all over the world, in the Middle East, in Africa, in Europe. But even the Middle Eastern slave trade could not possibly have extracted more slaves and had as much of a destructive impact on Africa as the North American slave trade...for two reasons: the Middle Eastern slave trade took place over several centuries, at the time the African population was not very high, it was more distributed over vast regions, where as the Trans- Atlantic slave trade focused on the capture of young, able-bodied men, from certain regions of Africa, over a period of only 300 years or so. The Arab slave trade was different in that slaves could buy or win their freedom, or marry into a higher class. Plus with the spread of Islam various restrictions were imposed on slavery, for example, if you beat or mistreat your slve he or she maybe released, in essence slaves had the same rights as labourers, they had to be treated well, clothed, fed, and were given a chance to purchase their freedom. There are too many points which I will not discuss for lack of time and space, but Islam essentially enabled slaves in one generation to become rulers or at least have the same equal rights as other citizens in the next generation. I'd like to challenge anyone who can point to a similar example in Noth American slavery. Furthermore, there are black Arabs in the Muslim world. It does not take a genious to figure out that they are probably the descendants of African slaves. However, these Arabs are neither oppressed living in ghettoes or imprisoned like the majority of African-Americans in the U.S. On the contrary, they possess wealth and rights equal to those of other Arabs. More importatnly, they do not look back in anger at their history of enslavement like the African-Americans do. If Islam really is a scourge that was spread by the sword making the Muslim world more violent, the wonder is why more Muslims (whether descendants of slaves or slave traders) are not bemoaning their own history. Furthermore, if the Middle East slave trade extracted more slaves from Africa, there would be more black Arabs than there are African-Americans, but there isn't.
As for your question: Would you really like to see an objective comparison between how the US deals with foreigners and foreign countries versus how Muslim countries do?, well I won't even dignify that one with a response. Except to say that I think it's ludicrous to ask a question like that seeing as how the entire world has witnessed how the U.S deals with foreigners (illegal immigrants!!!) and especially foreign countries....with violence and subjugation....
So no matter how many excerpts you quote from the excellent and unbiased reporting of the prestigious NYT, it will not change the fact that the United States along with its wild dog Israel are the biggest terrorist states in the world and therefore, a threat to global stability...not Hizbulla, Hamas, or dare I say it, the ever elusive Al-Qaeda who look like boy scouts in comparison. The devil calls us Islamo Fascists...But then again hypocrisy, arrogance and collective amnesia has always been the order of the day in the West!!!!
Reply this comment
REReply to Cyrano (2006-09-27 16:00) and Keir (2006-10-02 08:57)
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 03, 2006 19:26 PM
Reply this comment
Reply to Cyrano (2006-09-27 16:00) and Keir (2006-10-02 08:57)
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 03, 2006 09:35 AM
Cyrano and Keir:
A great passage from the Venezuelan President's address before the General Assembly was this (see Venezuelanalysis.com, Sept. 20):
On the heels of the 14th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Havana the previous week, no less.
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Reply this comment
The white vs the dark Skin factor
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 03, 2006 09:03 AM
Reply this comment
differing perspective
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 02, 2006 23:29 PM
Reply this comment
take your time and (think and) write clearly
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 02, 2006 23:19 PM
Reply this comment
Woah. Wait. I missed this
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 02, 2006 04:57 AM
Reply this comment
depends on what you call fair
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 02, 2006 01:07 AM
Well, I don't know cyrano.
As far as I'm concerned, acts are as important as the big picture or impression you have of the actor. The fact that israelis, americans and others bomb or otherwise disrupt and influence media "contrary to national interest" does not mean such acts are justified. Quite the reverse. Whoever does it is worthy of suspicion and reproach.
Granted, the media in Venezuela has mostly been pretty anti-Chavez. I don't see how setting up sweeping discretionary restrictions on the media is going to stamp out anti-Chavez sentiment in the country. On the contrary it's likely to galvanize it. That means that the ante has to be upped, and it gets ugly fast.
Far be it from me to judge though. What I truly know about the world could fit into a thimble with room to spare, and Venezuela is a long way away. Chavez has improved the lives of an ever-increasing number of people in the South. He's done what a long line of Washington consensus stooges could never do. My eyebrows are nevertheless raised. A leader is just a man... not a "good" man or a "bad" man, but an ambivalent creature capable of many things. It is risky to allow them to decide for the rest of us what is "preposterous."Reply this comment
re dark skinned chavez
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 01, 2006 21:47 PM
Reply this comment
Reply to David Sketchley (2006-09-27 10:55)
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 01, 2006 19:57 PM
David Sketchley:
The paragraph you've quoted from Reuters ("Venezuela's Chavez continues anti-Bush harangue," September 21)--
--is absolutely beautiful. What it shows us is that even after the Times had reported accurately what Chavez himself was saying about this matter, the Times's own reporters still went ahead with the mis- (or dis- or mal-) informed gag about how Chavez deep-down is so stupid and so illiterate, he only feigned to praise Hegemony or Survival while not even knowing whether its author was living or dead. (See ("Iran Who? Venezuela Takes the Lead in a Battle of Anti-U.S. Sound Bites," Helene Cooper, September 21; and A Scholar Is Alive, Actually, And Hungry for Debate," Mark Santora, September 22.)
Makes me wonder whom the Americans' Newspaper of Record likes the least: Chavez or Chomsky? After all these years, it very well may be a toss-up.
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Reply this comment
Re Ted Cristopher Who ?
By Kissenger, Clark at Oct 01, 2006 16:13 PM
Reply this comment
classic Z content
By Tchrist7, Tedc at Sep 29, 2006 16:37 PM
Reply this comment
no, far from reality
By Tchrist7, Tedc at Sep 29, 2006 14:31 PM
Reply this comment
Rudy
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 28, 2006 13:22 PM
Reply this comment
I was just giving my
By Chococat1908, Panther at Sep 28, 2006 12:32 PM
I was just giving my interpretation...not trying to misquote anyone
Reply this comment
chavez and the devil..
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 27, 2006 23:29 PM
Reply this comment
Chavez and the Devil
By Chococat1908, Panther at Sep 27, 2006 17:05 PM
Reply this comment
re : dark skinned post
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 27, 2006 12:00 PM
Reply this comment
Thanks.
By Sketchley, David at Sep 27, 2006 11:59 AM
Thanks for the reply. Yep, same person!
Just to say that the request for a transcript in Spanish was for the interview not the UN speech. As I live in Spain and am fluent in Spanish I would prefer to see the original Spanish rather than something already translated (and perhaps mistranslated).
The same method is being used here as was used in the 'wiped off the map' phrase by the Iranian President. As a result of mistranslated Farsi, US government propaganda that Iran wants to destroy Israel is now official history, albeit false.
I am in correspondence with the Philadelphia Enquirer at the moment. I asked them to alter their article. So far they have refused. What are the chances of getting a copy of the original ABC footage?
Thanks and best wishes
Reply this comment
Reply to David Sketchley (2006-09-27 11:05)
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 27, 2006 11:35 AM
David Sketchley:
I recognize your name from the Media Lens website, and thank you for using your real name here.
I'd be happy to email you a copy of the same transcript that I used for Chavez's September 20 address before the UN General Assembly. My source for the English-translation and transcript of Chavez's speech was the Federal News Service in the States, and I'd be happy to email you a copy. ( Unfortunately, I myself retrieved it from the Nexis database, and don't have a weblink for it. But you can contact me at davidepet@comcast.net .)
Sorry that I don't have the Spanish-language (i.e., Chavez's original) version of it, though. One will become available via the UN's own website--sooner or later. Though it doesn't appear that anything has been archived there just yet.
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Reply this comment
Reply to Asil et al. (2006-09-27 01:25)
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 27, 2006 11:15 AM
Friends:
The International Center for Prison Studies (King's College, University of London) maintains something that it calls a World Prison Brief.
Once there, you can check on a country-by-country basis whatever are the best-available statistics for prison systems around the world.
According to the numbers the ICPS currently provides for Iran (March 20, 2005--with some emendations), the National Prisons Organization of Iran was reporting in November 2005 that Iran's prisons system then held a total of 142,851 people behind bars (including all categories of incarceration, pre-trial detention, and the like). "[B]based on an estimated national population of
69.4 million at November 2005 (from United Nations figures)," the ICPS reports that this translates into 206 inmates for every 100,000 people in the national population.
Now consider the following exchange between a correspondent with Voice of America (i.e., the state-run news agency in the United States) and the President of Iran, while the latter was in New York City last week (“Press Conference with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,” UN Headquarters, New York City, Federal News Service, September 21, 2006):
I will leave it up to you to quibble over the accuracy of the estimates cited by Ahmadinejad. (For example, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that there were 2,186,230 people behind bars in the States as of mid-2006, an increase of 56,482 from the previous year, and in keeping with a roughly 30-year trend in the United States that goes in one direction only--up, up, up. (See "Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005," Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, May, 2006.))
But don't you suppose that Ahmadinejad has a point? (Not that any of us needs the President of Iran to call this fact to our attention.) That his interlocutor from Voice of America might be an ideological parrot? And, most important, that in the United States of America, the real criminals or those who design the policies and draft and enact the laws, and publicize them according to some other fear- and morals-related justification, also who enforce these laws at all levels of the criminal justice system, and who profit from their enforcement--already a huge and ever-growing industry?
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Reply this comment
Question for David Peterson
By Sketchley, David at Sep 27, 2006 11:05 AM
You quote a transcript in your blog article. Please could you advise me where you got the transcript (link?) and if it is available in Spanish anywhere? I am a fluent Spanish speaker and would love to see it in original form.
Thanks
Reply this comment
Chavez-Chomsky
By Sketchley, David at Sep 27, 2006 10:55 AM
You appear to have missed out one of the most important press items.
Reuters published this on Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:31pm ET:
"The dark-skinned, mixed race leader told New Yorkers to read Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain as well as modern thinkers like Noam Chomsky and John Kenneth Galbraith, lamenting he could not meet Galbraith before he died in April at age 97."
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-09-21T213112Z_01_N21232283_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-VENEZUELA-CHAVEZ.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1
It was also featured in the NYT
Filed at 5:31 p.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-usa-venezuela-chavez.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
and the Sydney Morning Herald September 22, 2006 - 8:24AM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Chavez-continues-antiBush-rage/2006/09/22/1158431869844.html
Reply this comment
look fair to me..
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 27, 2006 07:59 AM
Reply this comment
It's true
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 27, 2006 06:44 AM
Reply this comment
I would just like to say
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 27, 2006 01:25 AM
Reply this comment
huh...
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 26, 2006 22:58 PM
Reply this comment
There are 290 million people
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 26, 2006 20:06 PM
Reply this comment
re: the constitution
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 26, 2006 19:19 PM
Reply this comment
Reply to "Anonymous" (2006-09-26 16:13)
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 26, 2006 18:34 PM
"Anonymous":
Question 1: Does the United States of America incarcerate a higher percentage of its resident population than any other "First-World" or rich country there is? (That is to say, some 2,186,230 inmates having been held behind bars as of June 30, 2005. Approx. 738 people for every 100,000 in the general population. And percentage-wise, more than any other country in the world.)If the correct answer is NO, then you may have a point. Provided, that is, that the U.S. percentage is somewhere closer to that we find produced by the criminal justice systems among the more truly just states.
Question 2: Does the U.S. criminal justice system incarcerate this high a percentage of its subject population because the U.S. resident population is this deserving of incarceration--this criminal?
If the correct answer is YES, then once again you may have a point. But since we both know (self-evidently, no less) that it the laws that create the crime, both of us also know that this beef lies with the laws, ultimately. Nor will any visits to the county court house to watch a few trials teach us otherwise.
Question 3: In posting your comment anonymously, did you choose to remain anonymous? Or did the comment-posting facility at the ZNet Blogs simply not accept your real name?
David PetersonChicago, USA
Reply this comment
Like the man, distrust the institution
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 26, 2006 17:45 PM
Although I'm a fan of Chavez and his attempts to create an anti-imperialist bulwark in South America, I have reservations. Anybody who rides atop a vast national bureaucracy, even with popular support, is going to be involved in political calculations that compromise his progressive efforts.
Now, I'm loathe to trust the Miami Herald on it's own, but in it a guy from the Organization of American States gets on his soapbox about article 147 of the Venezualan criminal code. Chavez passed it into law (assumedly to put a lid on US funded propaganda). It states,
``Any person who offends, verbally or in writing or in any other way does not respect the president of the republic or the person serving in that capacity shall be punished with a prison term of between six and 30 months, if the offense was serious, and of half that duration, if it was slight. The punishment shall be increased by one-third if the offense was made publicly.'
The full article can be found here:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/15608395.htm
If it's true, it rankles me. I don't care who you are; if you pass a law that says I can't "offend" you, you'll find my middle finger intinctively extended. It doesn't help him or his cause.
Reply this comment
David, do you really think
By Brothernumbertwo, Rudy at Sep 26, 2006 16:13 PM
David, do you really think the U.S. has the most injust criminal justice system in the world? Where else is one presummed innocent until proven otherwise? Where else is the burden of proof on the accuser and not the accussed? Where else is a defendant given an attorney if he cannot afford one? Where else is there a limit on how long someone can be held before being charged with a crime? Where else cannot someone charged with a crime not be spoken to by the prosecution unless HIS attorney is present?
If your beef is with the laws, take it up with Springfield - the capital of where you live. Otherwise, go down to the county court house and watch a few trials. Your dramatics indicate that you really don't know a thing about how "the system" works.
Reply this comment
Wow Victor, you despise the
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 26, 2006 16:05 PM
Reply this comment
America - Right or Wrong
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 26, 2006 12:18 PM
Reply this comment
Reply to Democrats and Terrorism (2006-09-26 08:30)
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 26, 2006 11:00 AM
Kelvin:
After the territorial United States (where, once we rightly include both the physical and the psychological torture that the U.S. Government doles out to that staggeringly high percentage of its resident population that it incarcerates behind bars or otherwise keeps ensnared within the world's most injust "criminal justice" system, places U.S. territory in the No. One spot for torture worldwide), this torture octopus' tentacles reach some place else. And if not the basement at 10 Downing Street (the British Prime Minister being a bit too discreet for this kind of thing)--then Uzbekistan and elsewhere.
By the way, you mentioned something about "canvassing for the Democrat party." Yeah. Take a look at this howler, by Canvasser First-Class Todd Gitlin:
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Reply this comment
re: It was a good circus
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 25, 2006 23:55 PM
You are in a wrong thread, here we arent talking about pseudo islamist doing terrorism.. We are talking about Mr Chavez fight against poverty and the imperial terrorism directed at the poor.. If you pay attention you will notice that president Chavez does not send guerillas or terrorists on US soil instead he give oil to heat up the poor people of the US.. you wrote: Take for example, Islamic Revolutionary terrorists are a serious problem world-wide. Would it suprise some to know that Acts of terrorism have taken place in thirty-six (36) nations during the first six (6) months of 2006: Iraq, Pakistan, India, Algeria, Thailand, Nigeria, Philippines, Somalia, Israel, Afghanistan, Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Ingushetia, Turkey, Palestine, Syria, Kosovo, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Egypt, Yemen, Ethiopia, Chad, Kabardino-Balk., Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, UAE, France, Tajikistan, Bangladesh and Russia. The terrorism problem is not limited to the Middle East. It is a global problem.
Most ( I say 95) of the arabs insurgency is being caused by years of american subversive imperialism, most of this insurgency is an insurgency against poverty. if therrorism is a global problem its because the US has been a global problem. Let's agree with that.
Also true the UN has become a circus mainly because for too long it has been abused by monkey US evil presidents that lies each and every time they open their mouths Follow this LINK roxyamerica, you turned Iraq into a MASS GRAVE of innocent IRAQIS for fabricated reasons, don't come to tell me "arabs have a false sens of grievances"..Reply this comment
Chomsky didn't support the
By Resru, Melvin at Sep 25, 2006 20:38 PM
Chomsky didn't support the US democrats, he probably didn't even vote for them considering the fact that he lives in a state that the Dems win anyway. The only thing he said was that if you live in a swingstate it would be wise to vote for the Democrats instead of voting for Bush (which you do if don't vote Democrat). Because their are small differences between the parties that might actually make a difference to some poorer people, imo they are also better for science. If you are a white middle class man or women those small differences might not affect you, but imo opinion it aint that good to say to the less fortunate and say: I don't care about you that's why I (indirectly) vote Bush. All of this only matters in a swingstate in a red or blue state one can vote whatever one wants.
Reply this comment
Chavez and Chomsky
By Khoo, Heiko at Sep 25, 2006 17:03 PM
Reply this comment
It was a good circus
By Roxielynn, Roxieamerica at Sep 24, 2006 21:13 PM
P. T. Barnum would have loved to have been the ticket seller for the UN this week. It was a circus in the best tradition, an excellent show that was not only entertaining, but contained some suprises. P. T. Barnum would have been proud.
In an effort to correct foreign policy errors, the United States citizens should keep in mind that this is an awesome nation, built on excellent ideas. The problems we face are a result of foreign policy decisions made in the recent past, and distant past. If those on left wish to be critical, they should bring forward better options.
Take for example, Islamic Revolutionary terrorists are a serious problem world-wide. Would it suprise some to know that Acts of terrorism have taken place in thirty-six (36) nations during the first six (6) months of 2006: Iraq, Pakistan, India, Algeria, Thailand, Nigeria, Philippines, Somalia, Israel, Afghanistan, Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Ingushetia, Turkey, Palestine, Syria, Kosovo, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Egypt, Yemen, Ethiopia, Chad, Kabardino-Balk., Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, UAE, France, Tajikistan, Bangladesh and Russia. The terrorism problem is not limited to the Middle East. It is a global problem.
These problems are not caused by Iraq. These problems are caused by a growing movement of Islamic Revolutionaries that has evolved from a regional threat to a global threat.
Those on the left, those in my party, must seriously address national security issues. They must have a clear responsible plan. They must recognize the real dangers, and have a plan to deal with those dangers. The left, my party, has stuck its head in sand too long when it comes to defense. It is time for democrats to show they are both strong on defense, and wise on defense. Bring me the wise man from the left, and I'll show you someone who can be elected President. Bring me someone from the left with head in sand and I'll show you another failed attempt to take back the White House.
Reply this comment
This is beauty
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 24, 2006 20:20 PM
Reply this comment