September 14
2006
What's the big deal?
» Posted on September 14, 2006 02:33 PM » Category: Globalisation

I really can't understand the fuss over Red Ken's deal with Chavez. Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems like good business to me. There’s no embargo on trade with Venezuela. As far as I know there isn't even a campaign to impose an embargo. Awful as Chavez is, Venezualan oil is traded openly and legitimately. We must be using their oil anyway, just through normal purchases in the market.

So if there’s a chance to buy Venezualan oil cheap and save lots of money for Londoners, in return for a perfectly proper and legitimate export to Venezuala, why ever not?


UPDATE: I am delighted to report that I am wrong. There is something instinctively awful about a deal between Livingstone and Chavez, but for the life of me I couldn't see what was actually wrong about it. But then I received this email from someone who knows more about these things than I could ever hope to:

It’s a long argument, but you need to bear in mind that Chavez uses oil as a means of coercive diplomacy (or buying friendship in international forums). It hurts other nations (Trinidad & Tobago, e.g., is a hydrocarbons producer which loses business because it isn’t in a position to sell below market price) and subsidises rich-world consumers at the expense of poor Venezuelans.

It’s particularly disturbing that the deal is in the form a barter rather than a market transaction, because there’s no way of properly comparing the services that Venezuelans will receive.

The strong suspicion is that Chavez is using the country’s oil wealth, which ought to be stored against future fluctuations in the oil price, for securing services of value to him but that are not transparent. The poor financial nature of the deal doesn’t affect him, but it’s a way of obtaining services that are quite plainly going to be used against his political opponents (see article in Times business section on this today).


MessageSpace
Comments

I thought it was a barter deal. Chavez gives London a million barrels of oil, and, in return, the Dear Leader Ken Livingstone sends to Venezuela a team of crack city planners with a mission to implement a congestion charge zone in Caracas. Seems like a fair trade to me.

Stated by: Francis Sedgemore on September 14, 2006 3:46 PM

That Livingstone is still London Mayor proves my point pefectly about the anti-Semitism and rotteness which is so much a part of British culture and society. Had Livinstone insulted any other ethnic or racial group in anything like that fashion he would have been run out of town on a rail in nothing flat.

And who can be surprised that these two mamzerim - a greasy East End wide-boy on the political make and a Jew-hating Latin American peasant thug - should be so cosy?

For God's sake Jews of Britain get the hell out before it really is too late.

Stated by: Joshua on September 14, 2006 5:04 PM

Joshua, being a racist, sees anti-Semites everywhere. But in this case he is right. Livingstone is an anti-Semitic shit of the first water, and he does not even bother to hide it any more. If you had heard the venom with which he pronounced the word "Zionist" when dismissing all warning against the monstrous Yussuf Al Qaradawi - because, of course, MEMRI, the source of the evidence against Qaradawi, is a "Zionist" entity - you would not need any more evidence: the man hates the Jews. He is not a "some of my best friends are Jewish," jolly-put-down, joke-telling pusher of silly old ideas, either, but a the venomous, hissing, conspiracy-obsessed, pressure-cooker hater of the kind that is never satisfied except by persecution and murder. The tragedy is that he will probably run for Mayor again and win again, because no other party is going to put anyone of stature against him. And, as with this dirty little deal with Chavez, he will keep using his office as leader of one of the most prestigious metropoleis in the world to push his odious little agendas. How long, o Lord?

Stated by: Paolo on September 14, 2006 5:57 PM

Joshua,

I rarely get involved in discussions with you, because it is akin to beating one's head against the wall - nice when you stop. But do try to read the posting before you respond. This is not about Jews or Ken's comments about them.

This is about Ken using his position quite illegitimately to create a separate foreign policy for London, without bothering to find out whether that is what Londoners want. OK? With me so far? There is also the question of the use Chavez puts Venezuela's oil to and how he is aided and abetted in that by Ken and his minions who fly back and forth at the taxpayers' expense. Still with me? Good.

There are other minor problems. For instance, will this deal fall foul of the European Procurement Directive? How will Ken and TfL work out which are the bus routes most used by the poor (how do you define poor, anyway?) in order to hand out the cheap fuel. It all smells of rationing to me and many others. Then there is the suggestion that those who are poor should be able to buy cheaper tickets or, perhaps, not pay at all because of the cheaper fuel used on the buses. Tough luck if they want to use the tube, I assume. A nightmarish scenario of endless bureaucracy, forms and more forms. These are some of the issues.

If you are not interested in them but only in one subject, well, there is no compulsion on you to reply to everything. Incidentally, you don't live in London, do you?

Stated by: Helen on September 14, 2006 6:04 PM

Well, glad we finally got into the Jews against Ken issue which I've been trying to get people's attention onto all day.

Stated by: James on September 14, 2006 7:38 PM

The trouble with you guys is that you refuse to see all the other things that are wrong with Ken, as well as his blatant anti-Semitism. Having a one-tracked mind is of very little use to the rest of us.

Stated by: Helen on September 14, 2006 8:28 PM

Helen: Hell no, I do. But his anti-Semitism is so foul, so near the surface, and so utterly unrepentant, that it cries out to be hammered - and so far as I can see, not even Melanie Phillips has. So I thought I'd bring my little pebble. Bear in mind that agreeing with Joshua on anything makes my mouth hurt.

Stated by: Paolo on September 15, 2006 12:17 AM

The Times article says:

"Under the barter agreement Señor Chávez, who used the military to suppress political protests in 2004, will acquire details of how the capital’s security and public order systems operate. The proposals include advising on how to set up a CCTV system and how to use genetic scanning and fingerprinting for the identification of criminals."

Wow, groovy. Think Hugo will pass this info onto Al Qaida?

Think of any of this information can be used to disable security systems in London, or the rest of England?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Stated by: sophia on September 15, 2006 1:39 AM

Joshua: And who can be surprised that these two mamzerim - a greasy East End wide-boy on the political make and a Jew-hating Latin American peasant thug - should be so cosy?

I'm not commenting on Red Ken; but hasn't Chavez largely been absolved of the accusations of anti-Semitism which were laid against him (related to comments about 'those who killed Christ') by the fact that the main Jewish community organisation in his country has stated that it doesn't think his words were anti-Semitic?

Btw on the topic in hand, the only thing which unsettled me about this 'deal' was the suggestion that in exchange for the oil, Mr Livingstone and his officials would be actively working to improve Venezuela's image in the UK. Of course, if it's just about a few 'Visit beautiful Caracas' ads on buses, then that's fine. If it's more than that, and Ken starts expostulating regularly at public appearances about how democratic, wise and generally heroic Hugo is, then I guess we can combat it by justing taking his words with a pinch of salt.

Stated by: Lopakhin on September 17, 2006 5:33 PM

Livingstone was actually born in Lambeth. South London, not East London. In any case, your comments are insulting to East Londoners, Joshua.

Stated by: Helen on September 19, 2006 3:41 PM
Post a comment

    


    •