Frustrated anti-government protesters flooded the streets of Caracas, Venezuela in October 2016. (Rodrigo Abd/AP)
This summer I wrote about the economic and political struggles in Venezuela. Unfortunately the country’s situation has not greatly improved since, and recent events have shown the frustration and discontent with President Nicolas Maduro’s leadership. Nevertheless, each side has made some recent concessions which offer hope.
Opposition parties began a petition in May asking for a recall election which could remove Maduro from power. Yet such an action would only take place with the approval of Venezuela’s supreme court, which is controlled by Maduro.
In the last few weeks this dispute reached a boiling point. In late October, the country’s supreme court suspended the recall election petition, a move derided by the U.S. State Department and the Organization of American States. Venezuelan lawmakers announced that this decision amounted to Maduro staging a coup. Outraged, they vowed to put the president on trial themselves.
Despite growing opposition, some protests rose up in support of the government. Days after the court decision a legislative session was disrupted by hundreds of pro-government protesters who muscled their way onto the floor yelling “Congress will fall!”
Though symbolic, this action was easily dwarfed by the tens of thousands of Venezuelans who subsequently took to the streets of Caracas and other cities demanding Maduro’s removal from power. Opposition leaders termed the demonstrations of outrage “the takeover of Venezuela.”
Polls indicate as much as 80% of Venezuelans want him removed from office, tired of the stagnating economy, food shortages, and significant health care deficiencies. Victoria Rodriguez of Caracas, a recent high school graduate, told the Associated Press she hoped to vote to cast her first vote to support recalling Maduro. Rodriguez further lamented her “emptying country,” noting that 15 of her 25 classmates have left Venezuela since graduation, which is just one reflection of the country’s hardships.
After the court decision to suspend the recall intensified the political crisis, various interests have attempted to broker a resolution. Representatives of Vatican City tried to organize talks between Maduro’s government and the opposition but with limited success. Some common ground was reached by Nov. 14, 2016, as both sides agreed to cooperate to address the food and medicine shortages. However some anti-government activists characterized these developments as a ploy by Maduro to divert attention from the main issue: reinstating the recall referendum. Opposition protests were called off when the Vatican-backed talks began with the understanding that a recall vote would be on the table.
Despite the mistrust, both sides have made some concessions. On Nov. 15 the opposition consented to the resignation of 3 legislators the government accused of committing fraud. Maduro commended the move, stating “The process begins for the National Assembly to respect the Supreme Court, respect the Constitution.”
As reconciliation talks continued, three days later the government released Rosmit Mantilla, a politician who had been imprisoned on suspicion of fomenting violent protests against Maduro in 2014. Mantilla had been a key figure in the opposition-controlled congress. While encouraged by the government releasing Mantilla as a first step, Amnesty International expressed the opinion of many opposition supporters in saying, “He should have never been made to spend a second behind bars. The Venezuelan authorities must now build on this positive step and release all imprisoned activists and political leaders whose only ‘crime’ was to disagree with the government.”
As long as Maduro controls Venezuela’s court system, it seems unlikely the government will agree to a recall election. Therefore the opposition may be better served focusing on ensuring that the government provides the resources and support services needed by so many Venezuelans. With the support of outside groups, they should demand that the government provide these services. If it fails or refuses, anti-government groups will be in a better position to demand political change. They have shown a willingness to reconcile, now it is the government’s turn. Presently, this is the best chance for the country’s recovery.
The post Venezuela’s Struggles Continue as Government and Opposition Clash appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
(Associated Press)
Not long ago, a war of words between the Singaporean Ambassador to China, Stanley Loh, and the chief editor of Global Times, Hu Xijin, broke out. The incident provided a rare opportunity to observe the characteristics of the two countries’ thinking and logic in recent years.
The fuse of the polemic was a relatively small, technical issue with limited relation with international pattern, yet the story must begin from here. Earlier this year in July, Laos, as the rotating presidency of ASEAN, submitted a request to Iran, the rotating presidency of the 17th Non-Aligned Movement Summit. It hoped to revise the ‘Southeast Asia’ paragraph of the draft Final Outcome Document, stating the increasingly serious concern of some leaders and ministers to the South China Sea situation.
However, the new rotating presidency and China’s ally Venezuela rejected the amendment. Thus, ASEAN wrote to the Foreign Affairs Minister of Venezuela, stating ‘ASEAN expressed reservations about the existing paragraph on the South China Sea issue and said that it could not reflect the ASEAN position and hoped that the General Assembly would record the attitude of ASEAN and the earlier request for revision of that paragraph by way of an annex.’.
Nevertheless, Global Times published a report on the summit with a title ‘the Non-Aligned Movement summit closed, Singapore highlighted the South China Sea arbitration regardless of opposition’. Singaporean ambassador to China accused that the report was not true, yet the editor of Global Times, Hu Xijin insisted that the report was true, and expressed dissatisfaction with Singapore’s foreign policies.
To break down the debate, Global Times’ reported that Singapore has made a request on the Non-Aligned Movement summit for the strengthening of the South China Sea paragraph on the Outcome Document for its own interests when ‘many countries’ expressed opposition, reflecting that the South China Sea arbitration was ‘not popular’ in the international community.
Secondly, Singapore has challenged the authority of the rotating presidency Venezuela, delaying the progress of conference, making many member states feeling uneasy, hence showing a disrespect for international rules. It is particularly noteworthy that Hu Xijin said that the Global Times has made these reports based on the information provided by the ‘informed sources’ who attended the summit, insisting that the report was not fabricated. This position was confirmed by the spokesman of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (who said ‘the truth is very clear’). It seems that these reports are not without official involvement.
Of course, the biggest message behind the report is not within these details. In fact, the main reason behind China’s discontent is how Singapore openly sided with the United States to put pressure on China over the South China Sea issue. Aside from Global Times’ usual style of writing which includes all kinds of negative, subjective and emotional words, it seems that it also decontextualized the details into a large framework of established view, and the main audience for the polemic is not international readers but the Chinese domestic readers.
Although Singapore is also a Chinese-majority country, its official routine is the opposite of China. Singaporean Ambassador to China, Stanley Loh, made his counterargument based on the following points. Firstly, he pointed out that ‘Emphasizing the South China Sea issue’ is not Singapore’s claim but the consensus of the ASEAN Summit. It is reckless for China to specifically single out Singapore for the collective decision of ASEAN. Besides, there were only a few non-Southeast Asian countries that opposed this on the summit, quite the opposite with what Global Times described.
Singapore also stressed that is its common practice for countries of the relevant region to make their own decisions on the amendments to the draft outcome document of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit. Thus, the request of Singapore on behalf of ASEAN countries was not unusual. Yet it was rare this time that Venezuela rejected the collective request of the ASEAN due to the pressure of a few ‘extraterritorial countries’, hinting that the Global Times report is an accusation made by the offender itself.
Thirdly, Singapore stressed that its ‘consistent position’ on the South China Sea issue had not changed. That was, it hoped to enhance mutual understanding with China on this matter and jointly promote China-Singapore relations development, etc. It also made a sarcastic statement that Global Times’ “escalation of issues” is simply a misread of Singapore’s response.
From this, we could see that Singapore is mechanically describing facts, emphasizing the fact on documents and legal details, and to avoid making any political statements in order to win the moral high ground of reason. The target audience is domestic readers, the ASEAN member states, and the international community.
However, Singapore has indeed avoided answering Beijing’s most concerned question: Singapore does hold certain attitude on the controversial South China Sea issue and actively support the United States in keeping its force in this region. Diplomatic issues like the South China Dispute is simply impossible to be solved by a game of word. We can expect that similar cases would come one after another in the coming days.
The post Singapore vs. Global Times: Analysis of Two Logics appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
Dans cette tragicomédie autobiographique, l'auteure explore de façon récursive son enfance et la découverte de son homosexualité, au prisme des relations avec son père et de multiples références littéraires…
Alison Bechdel, Fun Home, Denoël, 2006.
De « Game of Thrones » à « Love Actually », de l'importance de la représentation à la culture du viol, Mirion Malle dissèque la « pop culture » et les tropes du patriarcat avec pédagogie et humour.
Mirion Malle, Commando Culotte, Ankama, 2016.