All of this is under that guise that Venezuela is a "source, transit and destination country for women and children trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation."

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/599/599p8b.htm

"Although US sex tourism companies are renowned for promoting travel to South=East Asia for sexual encounters with women and children forced into prostitution (Xen - I still disagree and HATE statements like this), Bush claimed that the Chavez government isn't doing enough to curb the trafficking of women and children for the sex industry."

"For decades Venezuela's capitalist elite has bled the country’s wealth, above all its oil export revenue (Venezuela is the 5th largest oil exporter, mainly to the US), leaving 80% of the population impoverished. Washington hates Chavez because his policies are benefitting the poor at the expense of the US-backed capitalist elite."

"As a consequence, poor women have been among Chavez's strongest supporters. In April 2002, when the capitalist elite, acting with support of the US government, carried out a military coup against Chavez, it was women from the poorest neighbourhoods of Caracas who were the first to mobilise to demand the return of their elected president. Filling the streets, the working-class poor, supported by the army's rank-and-file, defeated the coup-makers, enabling Chavez's return to power."

"It has been poor women who have most benefited from the Chavez government's new education and health campaigns, funded by the state-owned oil industry, which accounts for 30% of the country's GDP and 50% of government revenues."

Oh and by the way, if Bush REALLY wanted to make a stand, he would say that the US can no longer import oil from Venezuela. Venezuela is the US's 4th largest oil supplier to the US. But no, he would NEVER do that. So he uses this bullshit excuse instead and kills two birds with one stone.

Here is another commentary on the issue:

"In announcing its decision earlier this month, the White House cited Venezuela's role in the international trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation. The administration deserves credit for making this issue a high priority."

"There are, however, serious questions about the motives behind the decision. The trafficking rationale seems particularly odd. It is hard to see what the sanctions could actually accomplish, and how they might work to promote the interests of the United States, inter-American relations and democratic stability in Latin America."

"This is not a smart way to deal with Mr. Chávez, especially since his popular appeal was ratified in a referendum last month. Though the election has been disputed and is still regarded as fraudulent by many opposition forces, Mr. Chávez has emerged with enhanced legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. Given the shrill exchanges between the Bush and Chávez administrations, however, over the past few years, it was still predictable that Washington accepted the results only grudgingly."

"The moment seemed propitious for the two countries to pursue a more pragmatic relationship. That Venezuela is the fourth-largest oil supplier to the United States - at a time of great uncertainty in the Middle East - should in itself impel a search for a modus vivendi."

"Instead, the decision will discourage a better relationship. While the sanctions may have satisfied some hard-liners in the Bush administration, they are also likely to give further ammunition to hard-liners in Caracas who have long insisted that it is futile to seek to engage a hostile Washington. Rather than contributing to the Chávez administration's moderation, the decision could foster radicalization."

"The sanctions will amount to little more than a pinprick in any case, and the loans could still be approved by the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, with backing from other nations. The $250 million involved is small change for Mr. Chávez, who is enjoying a tremendous windfall from record oil prices. This hardly constitutes real pressure. The impact - either in reducing trafficking or making Mr. Chávez more democratic - will be minimal at best."

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200409201431

(Message edited by xenono on September 21, 2004)

(Message edited by xenono on September 21, 2004)