Editor's Mail

-----Original Message-----

From: A.M. Mora y Leon [mailto:ammorayleon@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:40 AM

To: eohep@petroleumworld.com

Cc: (withheld)

Subject: Re: Alek, a Roy no le gustó :-)

 

Publius Pundit

5/9/2006

Filed under: Revolutions Americas Venezuela Journalism Humor —

DEEP DOO-DOO FOR ROY

6:00 a.m. Greenwich Main Time

City: London

Brrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggg!!!!!!!!!!!

Roy: Hullo, mate.

William: Goodamn it, don’t you hello mate me, you oleaginous punk.

Roy: Wot’s up?

William: You know what’s up, Swedish Wonder Kid. And boy you better have an explanation.

R: Hunh?

W: Cut the clowning, Roy. Haven’t you seen the London Times? We have a crisis. One week before Our Fearless Leader makes his grand debut? Do you see what’s in it?

R: No, I only read my own Web site, the font of all truth.

W: Don’t give me that, blobbo. You know very well what you read in the London Times. It’s Boyd, Alek Boyd, Agent Of The Empire, and he’s just scored the coup you were charged with scoring right under your nose in your own home territory, bucko. He’s now writing commentary for The Times of London. The Graham Greene paper.

R: And the Kim Philby paper, too, I reckon.

W: That’s where you’ve soiled yourself, failing to live up to the Philby tradition, gordo! YOU were supposed to be writing the commentary and now you have let our WORST ENEMY write it! On a few days before El Supremo is to darken the gates of London! You have allowed Boyd to take the lead. …. And for that you must pay.

R: Owww, mate, you don’t want to do that. I promise I’ll take care of it. I promise I’ll take care of it. I’ll get Buxom Julia after them at the Times, she’ll take care of it.

W: That’s what you always say, you worthless, moneysucking loser. No more Citgo chicks decorating your site for you! And no more checks from the slush fund!

R: Don’t do that. I have a masterplan for success against counterrevolutioanries. Julia will write a long, long, long letter to the Times editors. She’ll repeat all the canards we know and make up some new ones. She’ll sound harrumphing and snide. She’ll not bother with addressing Boyd’s, you know, facts. Instead, we’ll have the old slapper make up as much personal smear as she can. You know, the tabloid mentality, since this is London and they all read tabloids. That way it’s sure to get published.

Then we will put it on my Web site, so that those interested in the font of truth can read it. Tell me it’s not a plan.

W: Roy, you’re making me nauseous. And I’ve got no one but you on this. El Supremo is writhing in pain because someone put it in front of him over his breakfast frijoles. He’s got to impress Red Ken and everyone around him here Boyd is, pissing in Chavez’s Cheerios.

We have a crisis. And it’s a lot more than our slush fund that is in danger. Do you know where Bad Little Chavistas get sent, Roy? Do you know about those Havana dungeons they are preparing for us if El Supremo isn’t satisfied with us? Roy, we need to get you in reeducation camp on the double. Because you’re no match for Boyd. On the double! And to heck with your ridiculous masterplan, you oozing counterrevolutionary. You’ll pay for this. You’ll pay!

(Click.)
A.M. Mora y Leon @ 11:29 pm |

http://www.publiuspundit.com

 

Letter to The (London) Times denounces hate-Venezuela Aleksander Boyd

Published: Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Bylined to: Roy S. Carson

In an immediate broadside addressed to the editors of The Times (London), University of Bradford Centre for International Co-operation & Security, Dr. Julia Buxton writes: "I was appalled to read in your newspaper the hysterical and mendacious article 'Guess who's coming to dinner with Red Ken' by Aleksander Boyd."

The letter continues: Mr. Boyd has been linked to threats of violence against people working and writing on Venezuelan related issues for the past few years. He has also organized disruptive protest actions that have undermined public security and he has published libelous and inflammatory articles on Islam, Middle Eastern and South American politics.

It is heartening to see that through your newspaper he has found a pacific manner of channeling his grievances, but unfortunate that you have allowed your newspaper to be used in this way.

Moreover, Mr. Boyd has a particular grievance with the GLA, which is why the thrust of this article was critical of Mayor Ken Livingstone.
The article itself contains a number of factual inaccuracies and/or deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.

Paragraph 1 -- that President Chavez called Prime Minister Blair an 'ally of Hitler.'

To place this statement in context, Chavez was compared to Adolf Hitler by the US Secretary of State for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, during a visit to Paraguay. President Chavez rejected the comparison and countered that if any individual were comparable to Hitler, it would be President Bush. This discourse is indeed unfortunate, but Mr. Boyd needs to place it in context.

Paragraph 4 -- 'Once an island of stability in a region ravaged by coups d'etat and dictatorships, Venezuela under President Chávez has become the source of instability in Latin America.'

This is a complete misreading of Venezuela's contemporary politics. While the country was indeed stable during the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s, Venezuela's political system went into a well documented decline in the 1980s and this persisted throughout the 1990s. There were ongoing protests, riots and acts of civil disobedience during this period -- so profound was popular hostility to the established two-party system that President Chavez displaced in the elections of 1998.

Boyd goes on to state that 'The Chavez administration has, for instance, a cozy relationship with the FARC' and other 'narco-terrorist' groups. While the US State Department has made this claim, it has presented no evidence to substantiate it.

Similarly, during an adjournment debate on Venezuela in the House of Commons, minister Kim Howells noted that the UK also had no intelligence supporting these allegations.

Moreover, it should be noted that the FARC was permitted to maintain an unofficial embassy in Venezuela during the tenure of President Chavez' predecessors -- President Rafael Caldera and Carlos Andres Perez. This has now been closed down.

Equally, there is no evidence that Chavez has provided financial support to presidential candidates such as Ollanta Humala in Peru or Evo Morales in Bolivia. If this is ultimately proved to be true, it would raise an important debate as to the role of foreign financing of parties, candidates and political organizations.

Might I suggest that such a debate begins with an exploration of the role of the US quasi-governmental organization the National Endowment for Democracy, which has been financing anti-government groups in Venezuela since President Chavez was first elected. Moreover, the NED and other US institutions continue to channel substantial resources to centre right organizations in South America. Arguably, had the US not been engaged in such activities (and unrepresentative right of centre presidents elected because of their artificially inflated financial capacity), political tensions in many South American countries =- and anti-American sentiment =- would not have escalated to the point they have to day.

The article goes on to state that 'Senor Chavez, though democratically elected in 1998, has appointed more than 80 military officers to his Government. The most recent case is the appointment of Colonel Francisco Arias Cardenas, a comrade in the failed coup of 1992, as Venezuela's new representative to the UN.'

This ignores two important issues.

Firstly, that President Chavez did not have a pool of civilian officials to draw upon to implement his government's program. He did not trust the state institutions that he inherited (because these were heavily politicized by the outgoing regime, in line with the foundational agreements of the 1958 pact). This suspicion was reinforced by the 2002 coup attempt, the general strike of that same year and the 2003 lock out organized by managers of the oil company, PDVSA.

On Arias Cardenas -- Mr. Cardenas was a bitter critic of President Chavez and stood against him in the 2000 presidential election. That they have now been reconciled demonstrates the capacity of President Chavez for pragmatism.
Mr. Boyd provides a particularly problematic interpretation of the EU and OAS positions on election transparency in the country. As the final reports of both bodies show (the OAS report released only last week) there was no evidence of fraud in the December election -- just as the Carter Centre found no evidence of fraud in the 2004 recall referendum against President Chavez or in any of the previous election processes held since 1998.

By contrast, extensive fraud was recorded in elections during the mid-1990s and these have been documented in my own publication, 'The Failure of Political Reform in Venezuela.' There are certainly important questions to be raised about election administration in Venezuela, but fraud in favor of President Chavez is not one of those issues. It is to be noted that the organization most active in promoting claims of fraud is SUMATE, which receives financial support from the National Endowment for Democracy.

It is correct that owing to the opposition boycott of the December 2005 legislative elections, the National Assembly is controlled by the Chavistas. It is worth re-iterating the word 'boycott' -- the opposition did not participate despite the national election administration conceding a number of opposition demands, including a manual count of half of all ballots cast.

The OAS also emphasized to the opposition that the election administration was 'clean' and not positioned to conduct fraud.

Moreover, the opposition was not expected to gain more than 15% of the vote, so strategically they considered that their leverage outside the system was higher than within it - much to the detriment of institutional stability in Venezuela.

In terms of President Chavez' human rights record, while there have certainly been problems relating to impunity and abuses, three things are to be noted.

Firstly, that this has been an ongoing problem in the country since the late 1980s -- as has been documented by international human rights organizations.

Secondly, human rights abuses have been committed by elements within the security sector -- however, the police were not under the control of the Chavistas until the 2004 regional elections.

Until that point, the 400 plus municipal and regional police forces were controlled by opposition dominated regional and municipal assemblies. Moreover the army as a source of abuses, was also not fully controlled by the government until very recently (the 2002 coup attempt did lead to something of a purge).

Finally -- and unfortunately, some human rights groups have found themselves to be vulnerable to political manipulation, particularly in the US.

To end, I think it is absolutely disgraceful that any comparison can be made or published between Chavez and the suicide bombings in London of July 7.
Those of us working for the peaceful resolution of differences believe it is vitally important that the UK and the US are pro-active in engaging with President Chavez and that the international community must unite to respect election outcomes -- even when they do not serve our own ends -- and not actively destabilize democratically elected regimes.

Petroleumworld 05 02 06

 

---------------

Envíe esta noticia a un amigo

¡Su opinión es importante para nosotros!

Invitamos a todos los lectores a espresar
sus puntos de vista sobre esta noticia o artículo.

Escriba a editor@petroleumworld.com

---

Para preguntas y sugerencias, escriba a :
editor@petroleumworld.com

Para verlo mejor use IE 5.01+
Windows NT 4.0, '95, '98 y ME +/ 800x600 pixels