 |
Democratic Revolution, Democratic Coup |
 |
It is safe to assume you are considered an enemy of a nation when even its televangelists are urging your assassination. Such was the position of Venezuelan president Mr. Hugo Chávez in August of 2005, when former presidential candidate, founder of The Christian Coalition, and televangelist Pat Robertson suggested good U.S. foreign policy would be to "take out" the controversial Chavez.
His justification, that Chávez was actively working to make Venezuela "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent," was coupled with comparisons to Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. While both the allegations and the comparisons do not stand up to much scrutiny, they are certainly in keeping with the rhetoric much of the American press employs. It is in our interest to understand why he receives such treatment.
Most glaringly, Mr. Chávez does not strive to make friends within the Bush government. He matter-of-factly refers to the U.S. as a terrorist state, denounces as "imperialist" the policies of the United States, and, in his typically bombastic style, called Bush the devil to the United Nations General Assembly. These ideological attacks give rise to wild accusations from the media.
U.S. News & World Report has referred to Chávez as "America's newest nemesis," claiming terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamiyya al Gammat are allowed to operate within Venezuela's borders. They cite U.S. officials who allege that the Venezuelan government is knowingly providing identity documents to these organizations. Myraid other news sites then echoed the story.
With what did U.S. News justify its claims? With the knowledge, uncovered in a two month review of the affairs of Venezuela, "that thousands of Venezuelan identity documents are being distributed to foreigners from Middle Eastern Nations, including Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, and Lebanon."
Such proofs, if not elaborated upon, hold no water. If the issuance of identity cards alone is the criterion by which we gauge a nation's tolerance of terrorism, the U.S. is also a supporter, as are our closest European allies. It is true one could find Venezuela's leader at fault in light of U.S. News' other claim, that "Venezuela is supporting armed opposition groups from neighboring Columbia [FARC, ELN]" ,but no proof is given for this unequivocal statement.
Such a blatant campaign of disinformation as that being waged against Chávez has been witnessed before from the U.S. media, and it seems both the cover, and the potential underlying motivation, are reminiscent of our recent past.
Motivation: Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter in the world, and after Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, the United States' largest supplier. Geographic proximity makes for low transportation costs on Venezuelan crude, and many U.S. refineries are specifically equipped to handle Venezuela's sulfur-rich variety. An interruption in the flow of oil from Venezuela would cause economic havoc. Thus, Hugo's comment that "oil is a geo-political weapon," made before he ever took office, placed him squarely on D.C.'s list of enemies. No fair fighting with unconventional weapons.
In accord with his statement, Mr. Chávez has enacted significant, and innovative, efforts towards building a "coalition of the willing," if you will. Moves like the petrol for health-care trade off between the resource-rich Venezuela and the doctor-laden Cuba, are indicative of his efforts to form Petrosur, a Latin American gas and oil alliance. The U.S. government most likely interprets these moves as a threat. Such an alliance of regional gas and oil producers would provide added political weight to participants' governments, thereby challenging U.S. hegemony in the Americas.
The Internal Reaction: In 2005, Republican Senator Richard G. Lugar asked the Government Accountability Office to study how a sharp decrease in Venezuelan oil imports would effect the U.S. economy. The Senate asked for a review of plans "to make sure that all contingencies are in place to mitigate the effects of a significant shortfall of Venezuelan oil production…" Clearly, Mr. Chávez makes the U.S. government nervous.
The External Reaction: Dr. Maxwell Cameron, a professor at the University of British Columbia, is the author of"The Slow-Motion Constitutional Coup in Venezuela." In it, he suggests that, via democratic institutions, Mr. Chávez is undermining democracy. Such a notion is also voiced by select members of Venezuelan society, and though few go so far as Mr. Robertson's death sentence, they often label him with the titles of "dictator," "fascist," or "communist."
The argument given by Dr. Maxwell is, at its core, based upon reforms passed during Hugo's now more than 8 year old stint as president. The most controversial of these occurred at the end of 2001, when Mr. Chávez passed by presidential decree 49 new economic laws. He did so with eyes towards land reform, and increased governmental control over the Venezuelan oil industry. Violent opposition to this measure ensued, and a coup briefly forced Chávez from office.
Pedro Carmona Estanga, head of the Venezuelan business association Fedecámaras, and a major player in the formation of the coup, then declared himself president of Venezuela. Hugo's ostensibly more-democratic replacement forthrightly dissolved the legislature, the Supreme Court, and the country's constitution.
Mr. Estanga's term as president was a miscarriage, ending at a tender 47 hours. Military units, as well as popular support, returned Chávez to power. Any notion that Mr. Chávez was not the desired leader of his people was then refuted in the 2004 recall referendum, again urged by the president's foes. The results: 58% against recalling the presidency of Mr. Chávez, 42% in support of the measure. Seventy percent of Venezuelans participated. Jimmy Carter and the OAS Secretary General César Gaviria both endorsed the results. Despite this avowed support for most of his reforms, many are still critical of the Venezuelan democracy, even calling upon other "more democratic institutions" to intervene in the situation. The following is an excerpt from Dr. Maxwell's book:
"The United States is in a weak position to challenge the constitutional or democratic credentials of the Venezuelan government since it supported the April coup that briefly deposed Chávez… That leaves it up to countries like Mexico, Chile and—why not?—Canada to suggest that the emperor has no clothes."
But wait, Mr. Chávez is the foe to democracy, not the United States of America. Dr. Maxwell states our credibility as a voice against the non-democratic credentials of Chávez was undermined by our support of the coup, but in what manner did we support it? Was it by not categorically condemning the coup, even applauding it in some "liberal" newspapers? Was it by withholding our knowledge of the coup before it took place? or was it because our position was undermined by actions which directly supported the overthrow of a Democratically elected leader? If this last one be the answer, it is contrary to subsequent government statements, but in keeping with the available, circumstantial evidence.
It has been suggested, vociferously by Mr. Chavez, more calmly by others, that the U.S. was, at the least, financially involved in the coup. CIA files recently requested under the Freedom of Information Act were denied "in the interests of national security." Amongst the denied files were papers concerning Súmate, an organization instrumental in organizing the 2002 recall referendum, and with close ties to the White House. Released USAID documents show that much of the U.S. financial aid given to impoverished Venezuela was given to groups with an anti-Chavez constituency and agenda.
An American organization and recipient of congressionally approved aid, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, rumored to have been instrumental in funding the coup, has at present several articles posted on Venezuela. They bear such titles as "Franchising Jihad," "The New Cold War," "The Other Axis of Evil," "A Little Fidel in Caracas," and "Venezuela: The Next Cuba."
While the first three titles are clearly sensationalist, the last two are not so easily dismissed. These are titles with some truth to them, and, despite their derogatory intent, are by no means an indictment of Mr. Chávez. Fidel is anathema to the U.S. government, and a comparison to him serves as the same. But in much of the Latin American world he is looked upon in a more favorable light. He has been a champion of the poor and oppressed (omitting the repression of certain elements of his own society), and has held out against inhumane sanctions from the world's giant, the U.S. government, for over 40 years. He is a populist, and Mr. Chávez is avowedly from the same mold as "El Comandante."
As such, support for Mr. Chávez largely falls along class lines. In a documentary filmed around the time of the coup, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," available to watch free of charge with a click on the link, it is evident the sort of support Mr. Chávez enjoys from those who have not shared in Venezuela's natural wealth. In order to bring some of the treasure to this majority of the population, he speaks out against neo-liberalism, the invisible hand of the free market, and American policy, which is firmly entrenched in the former two.
Thus, to the upper class of his society he is a thief and a tyrant, taking what has formerly belonged to them, redistributing it according to his own whims. To the lower portion, he is Robin Hood, pairing a cult of personality with tangible accomplishments. These include access to health-care and education, previously a scarcity for the rural poor.
These accomplishments do not impress the American media. Neither do those of like-minded South American leaders Evo Morales in Bolivia, and, to a lesser extent, Rafael Correa in Ecuador. In Paraguay's next election Father Fernando Lugo is poised to present a strong opposition to the entrenched Colorado Party, and if he is elected it is doubtful there will be praise for his accomplishments. The former priest, prone to comments like "in Paraguay there are only thieves and victims of thieves," already has some nervous.
For the U.S. press and government the concern seems not to be upholding democracy, but rather upholding the status quo of trade relations between developing and developed countries. If the natural wealth of a nation is to be used to line individuals pockets, other countries may more easily benefit from it. All it takes is the necessary cash. If it is to be used for the good of the nation as a whole, however, the purchase price is no longer seen in strictly economic terms.
Just as Robin Hood may be simultaneously, and without contradiction, two polar opposites (thief, hero), so may Mr. Chávez be simultaneously oppressor/liberator. His centralization of power, nationalization of the oil industry, and repression of certain segments of the media, leave him vulnerable to legitimate criticism from those who wish to fault him. His earnest work on behalf of Venezuela's impoverished, however, makes him impossible to dismiss as a tyrant.
The truth, as it usually does, rests in the grey. Anyone who is attempting to paint him explicitly in black or white reveals their own bias in the process. Just as Fidel has been deified by some, villified by others, the legacy of Chávez will rest in the eyes of the beholder. If their sympathies lie with the underdog, Fidel's cry "history will absolve me!" will be unnecessary for his ally in South America. There will be no crimes to absolve. If their belief in property rights is absolute, he will be grouped together with Castro as an enemy of freedom. Both will be right. And both will be wrong.
I'm still confused as to why America fears communism still. Venezuela still seems like a good country to do business with, even if we're dealing with the government. As a non-middle eastern source of oil, why not? I can't imagine Bush is actually hurt by Chavez's crazy rhetoric, so we should really just ignore it. America has a history of still doing business with countries that "hate" us, and this should be no exception. Venezuela might never be an ally in the traditional sense, but that doesn't mean the business worlds won't get along.
I guess what I'm trying to say is who cares what Chavez says or does, as long as he's not killing people. Ignoring a country because of their leadership is not a good plan for the future. So far Chavez has not done anything to seem like an evil dictator (no genocide, no suspension of civil liberties, no human rights abuses, etc…) so I wouldn't worry about it until something like that happens, if it ever does. Certainly we need to keep an eye on him, but this fued seems silly to me.
As far as his "crazy rhetoric," I would argue that's a tool Chavez uses pretty well. It paints him as one who's not afraid to rail against The Empire. I'm sure he knows exactly what he's doing when he makes statements like that. He's a very astute leader. Informed people will know there is some legitimacy to his calling the U.S. imperialist, and recommending Noam Chomsky's books, but the rest who will never read the book are capable of being swayed by strong statements like Bush is the devil. The U.S. government employs the same sensationalist techniques. "axis of evil" most immediately comes to mind. It's also no doubt a lark for Chavez to stand before the world and attack Bush, the man whom Chavez, I feel, sincerely believes is working against the world's interest for the sake of a small percentage of wealthy individuals.
As far as business, it seems there's no love lost between the two. We still do a healthy bit of trade. And no doubt personal attacks against Bush don't phase him. And though some in Venezuela, mostly the upper classes, would most likely argue with your claim that no civil liberties have been restricted, that is not a reason Chavez has been painted as a tyrant. Any time the U.S. government peddles that line it's for the sake of the public. It's a testament to the public's good nature that lines like that are necessary, but the government has acted in contradiction to such statements too many times to be believed. To me, the anti Chavez stance is somewhat similar to our stance against Fidel. True, our anti Castro stance is largely due to the displaced Cuban community based in Miami, but Fidel and Chavez are both charismatic figures who don't buy the U.S.' ideologies. If Latin America is allowed to go that way, in the way of Fidel and Hugo, then we have lost our sway in the region, potentially losing trade partners because they don't want to do business with us, and even becoming an enemy to the people in the process.
The arrogance of a statement like "if latin america is allowed to go that way" is indicative of the control the U.S. wishes to have over other countries, of our Monroe Doctrine mindstate, and our "imperialism" that Chavez warns against.
Normally such leaders could be overlooked, but Venezuela's natural wealth makes it capable of building ties and shaping south america the way it sees fit. This challenges U.S. superiority in the region and in the world, hence the need to illegitimize Chavez.
I'd say from my reading that the final straw with Cuba was the threats to national security a la Cuban Missle Crisis. Certainly those in power didn't like Cuba, but until there were some real threats there wasn't as much of an embargo and isolationism.
So, with Venezuela, I would hope that the countries could continue to do business even if they are ideologically opposed. For as many times the US has moved against those without human rights violations, the US economy has worked with those whom the government dislikes. The rhetoric will hopefully stay at the political level and there will be no need for the silly isolationist strategies we've imposed with Cuba.
Hey, I'm with you on this one. Central and South America can swing as left as they want. It's not the cold war anymore. If the spicy rhetoric still fires up the people then fine, but once Bush and his cold war hawks are out of office I think future leaders will look for more substence than words in their friends and allies.