Chavez backs China over Nobel for jailed dissident

[Amused]

And many on the left back Chavez... Is there any more question that the left is nothing less than authoritarianism?

Chavez backs China over Nobel for jailed dissident

Published October 10, 2010
| Associated Press
CARACAS, Venezuela – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez expressed solidarity with China's government Sunday over the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a jailed Chinese dissident.

He suggested the prize should not have gone to Liu Xiaobo, who has drawn praise from Western governments as an advocate of gradual political change without any violent confrontation with Chinese leaders.

"This (Liu) is like Obama, the other peace prize," Chavez said.

The Venezuelan leader criticized last year's award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, saying the U.S. president didn't deserve the honor because his administration continues to engage in wars.

Speaking in his weekly radio and television program, Chavez scoffed at his Venezuelan political opponents who praised the giving of the peace prize to Liu.

Chavez said the opposition's support for the prize showed that "they are lackeys" of the West. "They are worse than the Yankees."

"Our greetings and solidarity go to the government of the People's Republic of China," Chavez said, adding: "Viva China! And its sovereignty, its independence and its greatness."

The Chinese government reacted angrily to the announcement of the peace prize for Liu. It said the Norwegian Nobel Committee violated its own principles by honoring a "criminal."

Chavez's government has intensified its diplomatic and trade relations with China as part of Chavez's effort to diversify sales of the country's oil. The United States, which Chavez accuses of trying to dominate the region, remains the biggest buyer of Venezuelan oil.

Venezuela is one of the largest world oil exporters and China one of the largest consumers. The Venezuelan government plans to increase its oil sales to China to 1 million barrels a day by 2012 and build three refineries in China.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Other than Steeplerot I can't say that I remember very many people seriously endorsing Chavez. That said this news doesn't surprise me in the least bit. I doubt Chavez himself takes his mantra seriously. He just sounds like a little rebellious kid.

 

[nonlnear]

I'm starting to see the wisdom in awarding Obama the Nobel. IIRC Liu Xiaobo was one of the front runners that year too according to the buzz. Maybe they were just laying the groundwork for Liu Xiaobo all along. It's a lot harder for a recipient to criticize the awarding committee!

 

[Narmer]

I'm starting to see the wisdom in awarding Obama the Nobel. IIRC Liu Xiaobo was one of the front runners that year too according to the buzz. Maybe they were just laying the groundwork for Liu Xiaobo all along. It's a lot harder for a recipient to criticize the awarding committee!

Are you saying Obama is a China apologist?

 

[nonlnear]

Are you saying Obama is a China apologist?

I was mostly parodying the Beck types for a cheap laugh.

 

[MotF Bane]

Birds of a feather...

 

[techs]

There is a new ideology out there. It is one of anti-democracy. China is a big proponent.
And it has spread to democratic countries like the US where one political party is advocating a Unitary Presidency and many people are becoming openly critical of allowing the members of society its sees as unfit to vote.

 

[Amused]

There is a new ideology out there. It is one of anti-democracy. China is a big proponent.
And it has spread to democratic countries like the US where one political party is advocating a Unitary Presidency and many people are becoming openly critical of allowing the members of society its sees as unfit to vote.

You mean like illegal aliens who are NOT memebers of the society??? Or how about dead folks?

Or how about the party that wants to get as many people as possible on the public dole or otherwise dependent on the government so it can have more control over them?

 

[Martin]

The prize was awarded by Norwegians, you retard.

 

[OCGuy]

Chavez is only praised on the far-left boards (DU.com).

 

[Craig234]

It appears this is an act of Chavez siding with China to win favor in trade.

For the sake of argument, let's say his country makes a lot of money by doing it.

Welcome to the world of international diplomacy. It's one where 'interests' can trump morality.

Now, the most interesting thing here IMO is how the right is so blind to one side of it happening.

When it's done by 'the other side' as they view it, it's obviously wrong and evil. But when 'their side' as they view it does it and it's pointed out, they say nothing but argument.

There have been many, many thread pointing out wrongs like this or worse, but if it was the US, especially a Republican President, who did it, all you get is 'we benefit' or worse.

I don't know the Prize winner in detail, but from what I understand this is a very bad 'sellout' by Chavez.

He can point out the benefits to his country of doing it, and you can 'understand' his reasons, wanting to help his country, to diversify their trade from the US.

But it's the same problem seen a lot - where power trumps principle, so that the ugly powerful country can twist morality for their PR benefit.

The US has done this at least since post-WWII. See, for example, the recent story on memos about the US-UK meetings where Bush promised to 'twist arms, even threaten' to get the result he wanted at the UN for his Iraq war, and besides Blair telling the country he benefits from - us - he was totally with us, there were all the nations willing to go along for our own reward (or threats) to them, such as countries wanting access to trade.

But point out to me any right-winger who condemned that at the time when it was pointed out what a corrupt exercise of power it was.

It was the same thing as China demanding, for its own rewards of trade, that nations say what it wants on this and Chavez doing so.

I'm pretty disgusted by Chavez's doing this, despite whatever benefits Venezuela gets.

It can be argued that 'inconvenient alliances' are needed in international diplomacy - the Iraq war wouldn't have happened without them - but this seems a pretty direct betrayal of democracy.

I guess it can also be argued 'did this really hurt anything, as if Venezuela's position will have any effect on democracy on China', but that doesn't change what it is, a sellout against Democracy.

Too bad the right only sees it when one side does it - and has such eyesight they even see it other times when it didn't happen, unlike this case where it did.

 

[Amused]

The prize was awarded by Norwegians, you retard.

Who said it wasn't?

 

[hal2kilo]

It appears this is an act of Chavez siding with China to win favor in trade.

For the sake of argument, let's say his country makes a lot of money by doing it.

Welcome to the world of international diplomacy. It's one where 'interests' can trump morality.

Now, the most interesting thing here IMO is how the right is so blind to one side of it happening.

When it's done by 'the other side' as they view it, it's obviously wrong and evil. But when 'their side' as they view it does it and it's pointed out, they say nothing but argument.

There have been many, many thread pointing out wrongs like this or worse, but if it was the US, especially a Republican President, who did it, all you get is 'we benefit' or worse.

I don't know the Prize winner in detail, but from what I understand this is a very bad 'sellout' by Chavez.

He can point out the benefits to his country of doing it, and you can 'understand' his reasons, wanting to help his country, to diversify their trade from the US.

But it's the same problem seen a lot - where power trumps principle, so that the ugly powerful country can twist morality for their PR benefit.

The US has done this at least since post-WWII. See, for example, the recent story on memos about the US-UK meetings where Bush promised to 'twist arms, even threaten' to get the result he wanted at the UN for his Iraq war, and besides Blair telling the country he benefits from - us - he was totally with us, there were all the nations willing to go along for our own reward (or threats) to them, such as countries wanting access to trade.

But point out to me any right-winger who condemned that at the time when it was pointed out what a corrupt exercise of power it was.

It was the same thing as China demanding, for its own rewards of trade, that nations say what it wants on this and Chavez doing so.

I'm pretty disgusted by Chavez's doing this, despite whatever benefits Venezuela gets.

It can be argued that 'inconvenient alliances' are needed in international diplomacy - the Iraq war wouldn't have happened without them - but this seems a pretty direct betrayal of democracy.

I guess it can also be argued 'did this really hurt anything, as if Venezuela's position will have any effect on democracy on China', but that doesn't change what it is, a sellout against Democracy.

Too bad the right only sees it when one side does it - and has such eyesight they even see it other times when it didn't happen, unlike this case where it did.

Give it up Craig. Chavez is an asshole totalitarian. No matter what the horrible legacy the U.S has had toward Central and South America.

 

[Craig234]

Give it up Craig. Chavez is an asshole totalitarian. No matter what the horrible legacy the U.S has had toward Central and South America.

It's not that simple to equate him with 'asshole totalitarians'.

He hasn't gotten rid of elections; when he wanted to run for more terms, it was up for a vote, and he said he'd abide by the result; he put up with in the earlier part of his presidency where 90% of the media was owned by the wealth class and broadcasting extreme opposition, often false, while he had only one government channel, one of those tv station owners having his station participate in a coup; he's battling an entrenched extreme concentration of wealth and history of discrimination trying to finally provide some rights and less inequality for the majority darker skinned venezuelans; he's faced a major war with that wealth class, who shut down the economy for months trying to overturn democracy to force him from office; where are his death squads killing the opposition, his jails filled with political opponents, his torture and secret police force enforcing his dictatorship?

All those bad things are committed commonly among real 'asshole totalitarians'. The kind our right pretty much have never had a bad word to say about, unless very softly about regimes long out of power, likely with excuses and rationalizations and some attacks on 'the other side' and so on.

Show me the right-winger here who has actually condemned their side's actual copying of China's totalitarianism, like Tom DeLay's support for Mariannas Islands near slave labor.

A few might finally start to issue weak criticism, with him so long out of power - I don't remember one when the issue was brought up while he was in power.

There's criticism to be made of Chavez, but the right is far out of balance on it.

Consider the alternative. When the wealthy class, with our support IMO, removed him in a coup, they immediately as I recall suspended the constitution, disbanded the elected legislature and the Supreme Court, and moved to restore an authoritarian, right-wing system - restore the wealthy class to its position of power in an oligarchy.

Tell me again how compared to the alternative Chavez is an 'asshole totalitarian'.

No, criticize him for his errors, but keep a bit of balance. Give me someone better who will preserve the progress for the poor, and we'll talk. Who is that? No one, is it?

 

[MotF Bane]

lol craig.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Though I believe that Chavez does what's best for him. I do agree with the way his government handles welfare. In order to receive a payment work must be performed (ie cleaning medians on the highway, painting curbs, sweeping streets....).

 

[ManSnake]

Long live President Chavez!!! Long live Chairman Mao!!!

 

[Kirby]

lol craig.

lol, it took 4 sentences for him to spin it towards the right.

 

[Lemon law]

Regardless if we dislike the politics of Chevez or not, Martin is correct, Chevez is not only the Nobel prize committee and therefore has no pre or post say on who the Nobel prize committee awards various prizes to.

Chevez may have a free speech right to question the Nobel prize selections, but that and a dime can buy him 10 pennies. Meanwhile why should I waste any breath commenting on the worthless comments of Chevez.

Meanwhile the Nobel prize committee has already selected Liu Xiaobo. I happen to think Liu Xiaobo is a excellent choice but why should my comment be worth anything more than Chavez's?