Of course, the reason for Chavez to qualify George Bush, the current US president, to be a genocidal president is due to the continued bombings of Iraq. This is certainly not the place to discuss the Iraq war. Instead I will discuss what genocide means and how that word has been abused, deliberately, by the chavista crowds.
But first a definition:
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.The link gives only one meaning. No ambiguity.
“Genocide” is a big word, a sacred word that we inherited from the XX century. Using it lightly, inappropriately, is insulting the memory of the 6 million killed in the Nazi concentration camps just because they were Jewish, gypsies, gay, mentally retarded, qualities that they could not help. It insults the millions that died in soviet Gulag just because they were the relatives of someone sent there because s/he displeased Stalin, s/he was a Tartar, a Kulak, a Jew, a pope. It reduces to nothing the millions of the Killing Fields just because they were in between a war and were more preoccupied in finding food than joining Pol Pot or its opponents. It sends into oblivion the Tutsi massacres of Rwanda and Burundi.
You do not play with Genocide, and even less in Europe. Within the administration of George Bush I have no doubt that there is at least one nutcase that wants nothing best than to nuke Iraq and get rid of all of Islam (and probably any equally disliked minority). But if there were any hint of genocidal activity in the actions of the US government the outcry in the European governments would be beyond belief, starting with Bush very own closest allies.
So, why is Chavez throwing such a word in front of Ken Livingstone during their joint press conference? By the way, I truly hope for his sake that London Mayor was truly mortified by the incident.
First the actual words as reported by CNN.
The leftist leader [Chavez] made his remarks on Monday at a joint news conference with London Mayor Ken Livingstone after a reporter for the BBC likened some comments of his to Bush's phrase, first delivered shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, "You are either with us or against us in the fight against terror."You cannot make this up.
At that, Chavez erupted in anger about being "compared to the biggest genocide person alive, in the history of humanity, the president of the United States -- killer, genocidal, immoral -- who should be taken to prison by an international court. I don't know to what you are referring when you compare me to President Bush."
Let's go into this with some more detail.
The ever so bombastic Chavez, who now routinely belches at least a couple of hours of speeches a day, is slowly but surely inflating himself, looking for yet more effect as he is abusing all the resources that the rich oratory of the Spanish language gave him. He has been propped by his followers for years. For example you can find plenty of occasions where Tarek Saab, when he was the president of the foreign committee in the National Assembly, or when he was supposedly a Human Rights activist, used the word "genocide" to qualify any type of crime. Maybe Tarek learned to use that as an average but published poet.
At some point the word had to come to Chavez attention as a convenient term to qualify any large scale crime, thus minimizing any crime, including those that he might commit himself someday as need arise. But unfortunately Chavez has no education, no understanding on how the world operates since the beginning of times. Chavez is unable to comprehend anything from history except the military campaigns of the Independence and Federal wars of Venezuela. That is what he is, an uncouth soldier that is endowed with a quick memory to absorb facts without understanding them.
You do not like that explanation? You think I disparage my president? Then you will like even less the alternate explanation.
The use of the word is deliberate. The demonizing of Bush has nothing to do with the actual crimes he might have committed. Chavez is in fact preparing the terrain to plant a universal language of hate, a language that will resonate equally well in Teheran with nuclear war heads in hand or in Bolivia as the natives might find justification to commit violent acts against those who might not have a “pure” Aymara stock. He does as Hitler or Stalin or Castro have done before, reducing their adversaries to a condition close to animalism and thus be justified in front of their followers in eliminating any political opponent they might have. Chavez in fact has done that consistently in Venezuela against the opposition accusing them of all possible crimes, qualifying of all sorts of animal or even less flattering epithets. He has even used specific “eliminating” violence against them more than once: on April 11 with “plan Avila” which led to his brief removal; or when he used violence with more success on February 27 2004. He will do it again when necessary. He is just doing it now overseas, starting with Peru ‘s Garcia and Toledo, Bush and whomever will try to thwart his path.
There is nothing new under the sun. Only people with short memory.