The French daily Le Monde ended an article today about the reestablishment of diplomatic ties between the U.S. and Venezuela with a statement about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's support for the idea that the protests throughout Iran are the result of CIA meddling. The quote from the article is here:
"Mercredi, M. Chavez a réitéré son soutien à la réélection contestée du président Mahmoud Ahmadinejad et accusé la CIA de soutenir les manifestations en Iran."
In English: "Wednesday, Mr. Chavez reiterated his support for the contested reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and accused the CIA of supporting the demonstrations in Iran."
While it doesn't seem outlandish to me to think that the CIA might be thrilled about what's going on in the streets of Iran right now, it does strike me as absurd to assume that any foreign intelligence agency could so successfully mobilize a large and thoroughly modern population to confront authority. How utterly ironic that the man who loves to dress up like Ché Guevara and who buddies up to Fidel Castro would speak out against what is clearly a people's movement in Iran against an autocratic, militaristic and theocratic regime. The irony is compounded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's warnings that any movement against the revolutionary government — which is to say, the governmental system that has ruled Iran since the successful 1979 Islamic revolution — will be met with crushing force.
Herein lies the problem with revolutionary movements and the people who rise to power on their wings — the principle of revolution that enables major social, political, and economic transformation inevitably becomes a threat to the original revolutionaries. Once safely installed in power, former revolutionaries — history shows — are loathe to support the same revolutionary spirit in their subjects, much as they may claim otherwise. Former revolutionaries all too often become strong-fisted autocrats, often bearded, though not always.
But the problem for Iran's current rulers and men like Hugo Chavez is that the concept of "revolution" — while convenient for mobilizing the masses in the short term — will perpetually destabilize subsequent governments if those governments tend toward autocracy, especially when it becomes part of the ideology of a people. A revolutionary people will never tolerate the stagnancy of autocracy for long. The revolution — as the word itself implies — will come full circle.
And perhaps this is why Hugo Chavez, the so-called revolutionary, fears the apparent revolution against the Islamic revolution in Iran. This is perhaps why Hugo Chavez blames the CIA and supports President Ahmadinejad — he knows that the very revolutionary ethos he subscribes to and claims to represent will become a danger to him in the future.
And for all of Mr. Chavez's scathing talk about the Great Gringo, he never mentions the fact that his country is the third largest exporter of crude oil to the United States. Mr. Chavez nationalized the oil industry in Venezuela, and now his central government reaps profits from the U.S. addiction to gasoline. How many of his "revolutionary" socialist redistribution of wealth programs would be possible without oil revenue?
"Mercredi, M. Chavez a réitéré son soutien à la réélection contestée du président Mahmoud Ahmadinejad et accusé la CIA de soutenir les manifestations en Iran."
In English: "Wednesday, Mr. Chavez reiterated his support for the contested reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and accused the CIA of supporting the demonstrations in Iran."
While it doesn't seem outlandish to me to think that the CIA might be thrilled about what's going on in the streets of Iran right now, it does strike me as absurd to assume that any foreign intelligence agency could so successfully mobilize a large and thoroughly modern population to confront authority. How utterly ironic that the man who loves to dress up like Ché Guevara and who buddies up to Fidel Castro would speak out against what is clearly a people's movement in Iran against an autocratic, militaristic and theocratic regime. The irony is compounded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's warnings that any movement against the revolutionary government — which is to say, the governmental system that has ruled Iran since the successful 1979 Islamic revolution — will be met with crushing force.
Herein lies the problem with revolutionary movements and the people who rise to power on their wings — the principle of revolution that enables major social, political, and economic transformation inevitably becomes a threat to the original revolutionaries. Once safely installed in power, former revolutionaries — history shows — are loathe to support the same revolutionary spirit in their subjects, much as they may claim otherwise. Former revolutionaries all too often become strong-fisted autocrats, often bearded, though not always.
But the problem for Iran's current rulers and men like Hugo Chavez is that the concept of "revolution" — while convenient for mobilizing the masses in the short term — will perpetually destabilize subsequent governments if those governments tend toward autocracy, especially when it becomes part of the ideology of a people. A revolutionary people will never tolerate the stagnancy of autocracy for long. The revolution — as the word itself implies — will come full circle.
And perhaps this is why Hugo Chavez, the so-called revolutionary, fears the apparent revolution against the Islamic revolution in Iran. This is perhaps why Hugo Chavez blames the CIA and supports President Ahmadinejad — he knows that the very revolutionary ethos he subscribes to and claims to represent will become a danger to him in the future.
And for all of Mr. Chavez's scathing talk about the Great Gringo, he never mentions the fact that his country is the third largest exporter of crude oil to the United States. Mr. Chavez nationalized the oil industry in Venezuela, and now his central government reaps profits from the U.S. addiction to gasoline. How many of his "revolutionary" socialist redistribution of wealth programs would be possible without oil revenue?
No comments:
Post a Comment