International News Thread

[Heartofice]

There are a number of people who tend to blame sanctions for the mess of the economy in Venezuela. Ex London Mayor Ken Livingston recently got caught in hot water when confronted on the issue when it turned out that it hadn't really had the effect he was claiming.
 

 

[Spockydog]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

There are a number of people who tend to blame sanctions for the mess of the economy in Venezuela. Ex London Mayor Ken Livingston recently got caught in hot water when confronted on the issue when it turned out that it hadn't really had the effect he was claiming.
 

 

Would you mind giving us a precis re the bolded? Nobody needs to listen to eighteen minutes of that numpty.

[Heartofice]

Just now, Spockydog said:

Would you mind giving us a precis re the bolded? Nobody needs to listen to eighteen minutes of that numpty.

Just watch the first 5 minutes or so, goes on a bit after that. Basically Ken said that US sanctions are what wrecked the economy, O'Neil comes back saying the sanctions were targeted at high profile individuals in Venezuela. Ken basically then mumbles something about not being an expert on the country despite him apparently doing the rounds talking on the issue.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Two interesting news stories:

Pakistan has returned the downed pilot to India, and are looking to calm the current tensions.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to be indicted on corruption charges five weeks before their next election.

 

[Spockydog]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Just watch the first 5 minutes or so, goes on a bit after that. Basically Ken said that US sanctions are what wrecked the economy, O'Neil comes back saying the sanctions were targeted at high profile individuals in Venezuela.

That was indeed the case, until 2017 when Trump imposed fresh sanctions which basically crippled their oil industry's ability to make money. 

This after, allegedly, saying this: 

Quote

Then Trump brought up Venezuela: "That’s the country we should be going to war with,” Trump said, according to McCabe’s recounting. “They have all that oil and they’re right on our back door.” McCabe expanded on this during a Tuesday night interview with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: “The president’s remarks to the room were along the lines of ‘I don’t understand why we’re not looking at Venezuela. Why are we not at war with Venezuela?’”

 

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

That was indeed the case, until 2017 when Trump imposed fresh sanctions which basically crippled their oil industry's ability to make money. 

He also, allegedly, said this: 

 

Yes, but the economy had already tanked before the sanctions. Thats where Livingston got flustered. Watch the video, its good.

[Spockydog]

23 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Yes, but the economy had already tanked before the sanctions. Thats where Livingston got flustered. Watch the video, its good.

I stopped watching shortly after Andrew Neil said that sanctions were not imposed until this week. Assuming this was filmed recently, that's factually incorrect. Venezuela's oil production fell off a cliff in 2017, a direct result of a fresh wave of US sanctions. It should be noted that Trump imposed these sanctions after allegedly asking his goons why the US wasn't at war with Venezuela.

I wish Ken had stood his ground. Andrew Neil is not a stupid man. I'm pretty sure he knows the truth. Why on earth might he be lying?

 

[Spockydog]

On 3/1/2019 at 3:26 PM, DMC said:

Explain then please to my poor stupid and unenlightened self.  The US are the architects of Maduro's farce of an election?  Of him winning election in 2013 after Chavez died?

Yes. This began the moment Chavez was elected, when the US began their attempts to overthrow him.

Chavez wasn't perfect, but he was a damn sight better than anything the Venezuelan people had seen before. But the US couldn't just sit by and watch as a socialist country became the richest, most successful nation in Latin America, whilst redistributing vast swathes of US Oil profits back to the Venezuelan people. Oh no. And so today, like the Taliban and Isis and every other unintended US foreign policy clusterfucking blowback, the situation facing the Venezuelan people is a direct result of imperialistic American meddling.

You can stick your head up your arse as much as you like. If you really want to know the truth, try reading some stuff about this that wasn't written by fucking Americans.

 

 

[Conflicting Thought]

Hmm, in my view the usa never did like chavez and tehy did try to overtrhow his democraticaly elected goverment in 2002. And they have contributed and continue to contribute to the destabilization of venezuelan economy, politics and society.

But, Venezuela has cronic corruption at every level, and one of the worst murder and violence rates of all latin america and the world.

So venezuela was never a paradise, but US intervention (with the help of the international community, like a lot of right wing latin and south american goverments) have made it so much worse. 

[Spockydog]

33 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Hmm, in my view the usa never did like chavez and tehy did try to overtrhow his democraticaly elected goverment in 2002. And they have contributed and continue to contribute to the destabilization of venezuelan economy, politics and society.

There's an amazing documentary called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. In 2002, A young Irish film crew got Chavez to agree to a fly-on-the-wall documentary. While they were shooting, the CIA's plans came to fruition. A coup was launched and Chavez was kidnapped. Of course, it turned out to be a complete clusterfuck.

Incredibly, Chavez's captors try to get him to sign a contract transferring ownership of Venezuelan oil back to US corporations. 

Even though this film has won shitloads of awards and critical acclaim, you can't get it on Amazon. Or Netflix. Or Google. Or any other US platform for that matter. I wonder why.

 

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Yes. This began the moment Chavez was elected, when the US began their attempts to overthrow him.

Chavez wasn't perfect, but he was a damn sight better than anything the Venezuelan people had seen before. But the US couldn't just sit by and watch as a socialist country became the richest, most successful nation in Latin America, whilst redistributing vast swathes of US Oil profits back to the Venezuelan people.

Uh, thanks, I don't need to be educated on the recent history of Venezuelan politics.  But let's look at that history since the 2002 failed coup attempt:  Chavez ruled for 11 more years, then died, apparently of cancer, then his pice president took over, won an election, and ruled for 6 more years.  If the US planned to overthrow this regime, they failed miserably.  If they assassinated Chavez - which is still incredibly stupid to posit - they still failed miserably on the follow up.  

Since then, we've had Maduro decreeing a 2017 assembly election that was a sham by all objective accounts, then his own sham election in 2018.  How is the US responsible for this?  Because they opposed Chavez -- and rightfully opposed these two "elections?"  Riight.  Look, if you want to blame everything in Latin America on the US, that can easily be done directly in almost literally any country and indirectly in definitely literally any country.  We can go back to the Monroe Doctrine if you want.  But two wrongs don't make a right, and Maduro's mess is plainly of his own making.

6 hours ago, Spockydog said:

You can stick your head up your arse as much as you like. If you really want to know the truth, try reading some stuff about this that wasn't written by fucking Americans.

Right, cuz I couldn't supply hundreds of non-American sources noting the illegitimacy of Maduro's elections.  If you're talking more broadly, please.

[Heartofice]

9 hours ago, Spockydog said:

I stopped watching shortly after Andrew Neil said that sanctions were not imposed until this week. Assuming this was filmed recently, that's factually incorrect. Venezuela's oil production fell off a cliff in 2017, a direct result of a fresh wave of US sanctions. It should be noted that Trump imposed these sanctions after allegedly asking his goons why the US wasn't at war with Venezuela.

I wish Ken had stood his ground. Andrew Neil is not a stupid man. I'm pretty sure he knows the truth. Why on earth might he be lying?

 

Right but that’s not factually incorrect is it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the sanctions before then didn’t target the country but individuals and yet the country’s economy was on the floor and in chaos? Ken was ill informed on the issue and couldn’t stand up to him.

[Spockydog]

 

9 hours ago, DMC said:

Uh, thanks, I don't need to be educated on the recent history of Venezuelan politics.  But let's look at that history since the 2002 failed coup attempt:  Chavez ruled for 11 more years, then died, apparently of cancer, then his pice president took over, won an election, and ruled for 6 more years.  If the US planned to overthrow this regime, they failed miserably.  If they assassinated Chavez - which is still incredibly stupid to posit - they still failed miserably on the follow up.  

Since then, we've had Maduro decreeing a 2017 assembly election that was a sham by all objective accounts, then his own sham election in 2018.  How is the US responsible for this?  Because they opposed Chavez -- and rightfully opposed these two "elections?"  Riight.  Look, if you want to blame everything in Latin America on the US, that can easily be done directly in almost literally any country and indirectly in definitely literally any country.  We can go back to the Monroe Doctrine if you want.  But two wrongs don't make a right, and Maduro's mess is plainly of his own making.

I've already said, several times, that Maduro is not a good leader and there needs to be actual elections. But the US should just stay the fuck out of it and mind their own business. Instead, we've got Old Father Theocracy insisting that, much like Iraq and Afghanistan, what Venezuela needs is some good old American freedom.   

You cannot deny that the CIA has been in-country, for twenty years, fucking shit up. Both economically and politically. The US is engaging in acts that would be illegal on US soil. Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe that this is going to make Venezuela a land of milk and honey?

What we see in Venezuela today is precisely the kind of thing we've seen many times before. As much as you like to highlight the CIA's incompetence, they've somehow managed to overthrow dozens of governments, many of which were democratically elected.

If it looks like a duck, etc...

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Right but that’s not factually incorrect is it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the sanctions before then didn’t target the country but individuals and yet the country’s economy was on the floor and in chaos? Ken was ill informed on the issue and couldn’t stand up to him.

You're the one who is ill-informed, because, yes, that is factually incorrect. Extremely damaging sanctions were imposed in 2017. But here we have Andrew Neil saying, in February 2019, that there were no sanctions up until that week. That is a lie.

Read this:

What’s the Deal with Sanctions in Venezuela, and Why’s It So Hard for Media to Understand?

Quote

Last week, the US formally adopted sanctions on Venezuelan national oil company PDVSA, as well as on CITGO, its US-based distribution arm, as part of its press for regime change in Caracas. National Security Advisor John Bolton estimated the actions would affect some $7 billion in assets and would block $11 billion in revenue to the Venezuelan government over the next year. The State Department was quick to add, “These new sanctions do not target the innocent people of Venezuela…”

But of course they do. The Wall Street Journal reported:

The sanctions could create deeper gasoline shortages in Venezuela. The country’s refineries are already operating at a fraction of their capacity, crippled by a lack of spare parts and crude. Venezuela only produced a third of the 190,000 barrels of gasoline it consumed a day as of November, according to Ivan Freites, a leader of the country’s oil union.

“Immediately, it’s going to hurt the average Venezuelan,” Mr. Freites said.

From the same piece, regarding the 2017 sanctions, and subsequent collapse in oil production.

Quote

It’s not terribly difficult to find information on the impact of the 2017 sanctions. Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodríguez provided a useful analysis last year explaining just this ― and it is even in English.

Rodríguez’s basic story: the oil industry is critical to the Venezuelan government; underinvestment and the rapid decline in oil prices caused a significant drop in revenue; then, as oil prices began increasing, Trump imposed sanctions making any international financial transaction extremely difficult and potentially “toxic.” Rodríguez explains, using this graph of oil production in Venezuela and Colombia, how Venezuelan and Colombian oil production both declined at the same rate, until the Trump financial embargo was implemented in August 2017. Then, Venezuela’s oil production collapsed.

It’s not just the the media’s apparent amnesia with regard to those 2017 sanctions and their impact on the oil industry that is the problem here. In fact, the impact of those sanctions was even larger. As my colleague, Mark Weisbrot has previously explained, and as Rodríguez notes in the same article linked above, the sanctions made it virtually impossible for the Venezuela government to take the measures necessary to eliminate hyperinflation or recover from a deep depression. 

America is ruining Venezuela because it wants to steal their oil. That's it. They don't give a fuck about the Venezuelan people.

[Spockydog]

nvm

 

[Spockydog]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Ken was ill informed on the issue and couldn’t stand up to him.

I'm guessing you're not an economist. Neither am I, so it's probably best to defer to the experts for actual insight.

Trump Sanctions, Regime Change Strategy in Venezuela Can Only Cause More Violence and Suffering

Quote

The polarizing impact of the Trump regime change operation is what makes it so dangerous. Inflation is probably over 1 million percent annually, and the economy is estimated to have shrunk by a Latin American record of 50 percent over the past five years. Millions have left the country to look for work. The opposition would almost certainly have won the last presidential election if they had participated and mostly united around a single candidate. (For the record, the U.S. reportedly threatened an opposition candidate who did participate, Henri Falcón, with personal financial sanctions if he ran for president.)

Though the government’s economic policies have played a role in Venezuela’s woes, the Trump sanctions have made things considerably worse since August 2017, decimating the oil industry and worsening shortages of medicine that have killed many Venezuelans. The Trump sanctions also make it nearly impossible for the government to take the necessary measures to exit from hyperinflation and depression.

Though the U.S. media is quiet on the matter, it’s important to note that the Trump sanctions are both violently immoral — again, they kill people — and illegal. They are prohibited under the Organization of American States Charter, the United Nations Charter, and other international conventions that the U.S. is party to. The sanctions also violate U.S. law, since the U.S. president must state, absurdly, that Venezuela presents “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security” of the United States in order to impose these measures.

Venezuela cannot exit from this political crisis by one side vanquishing the other, as the proponents of regime change assume. The Vatican played a role as mediator in 2016, and Uruguay and Mexico — who have remained neutral in the political conflict — offered this week to help mediate. But the Trump team is a powerful influence on the opposition, and they have so far shown no interest in a peaceful solution.

 

 

[Rorshach]

On 3/1/2019 at 6:56 PM, polishgenius said:

Do sanctions ever actually work for regime change? I've got no numbers for this and haven't got the time right now to go looking, so I might be wrong, but their biggest effect in many cases seems to be to make regime change less likely by (1) giving the regime in question an outside enemy to focus attention away from them and (2) lessen the kind of trade-based cultural exchange and therefore pressure that, long-term, can increase the will and the opportunity to push the regime to collapse. ie, in the long term sanctions just make it easier for the regime to manipulate the people.

(it's a long held belief of my dad's, who would know, that Jimmy Carter's softening stance on the Soviet Union is a big part of the reason it eventually fell)

Back when I was a student, a professor of mine discussed this. 

According to him, sanctions tend not to lead to change of behaviour. However, the point of imposing sanctions probably wasn't to change behaviour in that particular circumstance. 

Basically, his reasoning was: before we reach the point of sanctions, there will have been talks, negotiations, offers, bluffs, threats and what have you. Sanctions is the endpoint. Now, sanctions do come with a cost for both sanctioner and sanctionee. So they are not often sought out easily. But they are needed, of sorts, in the earlier negotiations. And they need to be carried out, if only to show that you, as a negotiator, have the willingness to carry through a threat, even if it comes at a cost to yourself.

[DMC]

8 hours ago, Spockydog said:

You cannot deny that the CIA has been in-country, for twenty years, fucking shit up.

No.  The CIA doesn't really deny this anymore btw - they admit to "monitoring the situation" in basically any country of interest.  That's because that's the entire concept of any intelligence agency, hard to gather intelligence and press your interests without any presence on the ground.  But you cannot deny that they have been entirely ineffective politically as the regime has maintained power for 20 years. 

And, while you could, it'd be really stupid to assert the CIA was involved with Maduro calling the sham elections of 2017-18.  And that's the crux of the current crisis.  You haven't denied this, but you would be the gullible one if you think the call for free and fair elections is being generated by the CIA instead of the Venezuelan people.  The CIA simply does not have enough influence to control and direct the opposition at the level of them boycotting Maduro's 2018 election.

8 hours ago, Spockydog said:

As much as you like to highlight the CIA's incompetence, they've somehow managed to overthrow dozens of governments, many of which were democratically elected.

If it looks like a duck, etc...

But this is the problem.  I don't deny the CIA has toppled governments in the past - but I'm using them as a comparison, and this certainly is nothing like Mosaddegh or Allende thus far.  Am I concerned how Trump might use this crisis and what he might do?  You fucking bet.  But thus far the only actually influential thing he's done is (further) cripple the oil industry by issuing EO 13808 (and which I do oppose, btw) that was a response to the 2017 elections.  You're willfully ignoring contextual and political differences between this case and previous CIA cases and acting like they're all ducks of the same size, color, etc. when they're not.  

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

But this is the problem.  I don't deny the CIA has toppled governments in the past - but I'm using them as a comparison, and this certainly is nothing like Mosaddegh or Allende thus far.  Am I concerned how Trump might use this crisis and what he might do?  You fucking bet.  But thus far the only actually influential thing he's done is (further) cripple the oil industry by issuing EO 13808 (and which I do oppose, btw) that was a response to the 2017 elections.  You're willfully ignoring contextual and political differences between this case and previous CIA cases and acting like they're all ducks of the same size, color, etc. when they're not.  

Okay, just to be clear, are you saying that the CIA isn't currently working in conjunction with other US departments and Latin American nations in order to destabilise and overthrow the Venezuelan government with a view to installing a puppet as president and giving Venezuelan oil back to the US oil companies?

Or are you conceding that all of the above is true, but, meh, we're not very good at active measures anyway so they can't be a factor in Venezuela's dire straits?

And everyone keeps going on about what a brutal dictator Maduro is. He may be. But the US are in strategical bed with far, far worse. How many dictators do you know who would allow their political opponents to go on national tv and call them a madman and a cocksucker? This is all about oil. 

 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Okay, just to be clear, are you saying that the CIA isn't currently working in conjunction with other US departments and Latin American nations in order to destabilise and overthrow the Venezuelan government with a view to installing a puppet as president and giving Venezuelan oil back to the US oil companies?

I'm saying, once again, that while the CIA is and has certainly been working to destabilize the Venezuelan regime, the CIA is not responsible for Maduro calling two sham elections which is what precipitated this crisis.  Are you saying that's not the immediate cause of the current crisis?  Are you saying those elections were legitimate?  Are you saying the CIA somehow caused Maduro to call for those elections?

As for "installing a US puppet," uh, that's much easier said then done.  I don't know what their activities are regarding this - although I'm sure they are in contact with many if not most opposition leaders - and neither do you.  And who's the puppet exactly?  Guaido?  Please.

24 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

And everyone keeps going on about what a brutal dictator Maduro is. He may be. But the US are in strategical bed with far, far worse. How many dictators do you know who would allow their political opponents to go on national tv and call them a madman and a cocksucker? This is all about oil.

Maduro doesn't even approach the dictatorial and oppressive levels of many US allies - especially with Trump's newfound (although maybe now souring?) admiration of Un.  But that doesn't mean it's "all about oil," just like Iraq wasn't "all about oil."  That's just senseless Jeremy Scahill-esque wannabe cutting edge but really just demonstrating my understanding of IR is limited to reading a Chomsky book horseshit.  The US wants regime change in Venezuela because the current regime has been (mostly rightly) hostile against US interests and propagates such throughout Latin America.  The US wants regime change because they are concerned the current regime is too close to the US' geopolitical adversaries in Russia, China, and Iran.  It's never only "all about oil."

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm saying, once again, that while the CIA is and has certainly been working to destabilize the Venezuelan regime, the CIA is not responsible for Maduro calling two sham elections which is what precipitated this crisis.  Are you saying that's not the immediate cause of the current crisis?  Are you saying those elections were legitimate?  Are you saying the CIA somehow caused Maduro to call for those elections?

As for "installing a US puppet," uh, that's much easier said then done.  I don't know what their activities are regarding this - although I'm sure they are in contact with many if not most opposition leaders - and neither do you.  And who's the puppet exactly?  Guaido?  Please.

Maduro doesn't even approach the dictatorial and oppressive levels of many US allies - especially with Trump's newfound (although maybe now souring?) admiration of Un.  But that doesn't mean it's "all about oil," just like Iraq wasn't "all about oil."  That's just senseless Jeremy Scahill-esque wannabe cutting edge but really just demonstrating my understanding of IR is limited to reading a Chomsky book horseshit.  The US wants regime change in Venezuela because the current regime has been (mostly rightly) hostile against US interests and propagates such throughout Latin America.  The US wants regime change because they are concerned the current regime is too close to the US' geopolitical adversaries in Russia, China, and Iran.  It's never only "all about oil."

Technically, sham elections don't cause economic crises. Most of the time sham elections happen when a country is already in crises and the current regime knows that a legit election would probably boot them from office. Often how the rich countries of the world react to sham elections exacerbates economic problems in said country, because they do hard and soft shit to damage the country's economic base.

Venezuela's economic fortunes should mostly be tied to the price of oil. Even a corrupt regime can still deliver an economy with a reasonable standard of living to its people if it has a steady cashflow coming in to the country. I might be way off base here, but I think if Venezuela had been left to its own devices and simply allowed to play in the oil market as freely as everyone else the country would not be as badly off as it is right now. It might still be pretty bad relative to North America and Europe, but it would still be roughly OK.