Tag Archives: Henrique Capriles

The Dialogue Between the Venezuelan Government and the Opposition Must be Accompanied by Sanctions

The violence that began between the Venezuelan government and large segments of the opposition last February has now resulted in a dialogue between the opposing sides.

Although there is much wishful thinking on the side of the opposition represented by the Mesa de Unidad (MUD) coalition, a group that includes most opposition parties, the future is far from certain.

In the two meetings that have taken place between the government and the opposition an agreement was reached to create a Truth Commission to investigate the events of the last two months where 41 people lost their lives, hundreds were wounded, more than 2,000 were arrested, and many were tortured. In principle, the Truth Commission would integrate members of the Assembly with recognized public personalities that are not necessarily from the political arena. However, it has not yet been decided who these individuals will be.

The opposition also agreed to be part of the Pacification Plan aimed (Plan de Pacificacion) at improving citizens’ security in light of increasing crime.

Another aspect of the agreement is that public positions such as members of the National Electoral Council (CNE) or the Supreme Court would be properly elected by a two-thirds majority of the parliament. This particular aspect of the agreement is important because it not only adheres to the constitution of Venezuela but the last time the appointment of three members of the CNE was done it was by automatic extension not by a two thirds majority of the National Assembly.

The government, for its part, rejected an amnesty law proposed by the opposition that would have benefited political prisoners and political exiles. This, despite the fact that these imprisonments took place without due process, most notably the imprisonment of the leader of Voluntad Popular, Leopoldo Lopez whom the government arrested following the protests that erupted in February. Three elected mayors from the opposition suffered a similar fate.

This is the main reason why this important faction is not part of the dialogue. According to David Smolansky, mayor of the city of El Hatillo there is no way Voluntad Popular could participate if their people remain in jail.

Granting an amnesty to political prisoners and exiles would have been a great gesture that would have shown the government’s good intentions. The Truth Commission is a process whose outcome is not in the near future and could be subjected to manipulation. Making the opposition also responsible for bringing a solution to the security problem is a joke, particularly when much of the violence is the result of the fact that the regime empowered thugs to defend it and provided an entire “born to kill” generation all the freedom and protection criminals in civilized countries only wish they had.

Likewise, the implementation of the election of public positions needs to be monitored as well as the appointment of members of the Truth Commission.

Some leaders of the opposition claim that the agreements represent progress. However, based on what was heard in those hearings such prospects are not on the horizon. For example the Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro pointed out during the debates that “the bourgeoisie is no longer in power and it will never gain political power again”. If he were serious about respecting the democratic rules, the exclusion of the bourgeoisie like any other group or class would have been unacceptable. This means that Maduro intends to continue deepening the revolution and the authoritarian regime founded 15 years ago. Other members of the government repeated the usual ideological discourse. According to them, they never carried out any acts of violence. They don’t consider that the organized communal groups (colectivos) are the ones perpetrating acts of violence but instead blame the opposition and the demonstrators. Maduro talked about an armed insurgency rising against him and thus he justifies that his supporters have the right to arm themselves.

Likewise, the scarcity and economic hardship Venezuela is experiencing is not the result of bad government policy but the result of an economic war against Maduro’s regime. The aggressive discourse of the pro-Maduro representatives casts serious doubts about the intentions of the government. As we repeatedly pointed out, the Bolivarian regime has not been designed to give up power. It is a fully revolutionary regime and at the same time, it is a mafia state, to use the words of political scientist Ari Chapin.

The most significant shift has been the attitude of former Brazilian president Jose Inazio Lula Da Silva, who has always been, like his successor Dilma Rousseff, a strong apologist and enabler of the regime founded by Hugo Chavez. Yet, Lula issued surprising statements criticizing Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro for practicing political rhetoric instead of governing the country and dealing with the economic problems and the scarcity affecting the Venezuelan people. Although Lula did not make any reference to Venezuela’s political prisoners, the state of democracy or human rights, he praised the leader of the opposition MUD leader, Henrique Capriles, for resorting to dialogue and not acting in a radical extremist way.

Lula, who is believed to be an emissary of Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, proposed a five-year coalition government that would include the opposition in order to deal with the current economic and political crisis in Venezuela.

Lula referred to Venezuela as being a country of strategic importance to Brazil. Many Brazilian companies have contracts in Venezuela for billions of dollars. A poor, chaotic and deteriorating Venezuela is not a good deal for the Brazilians.

Early in April Jose Miguel Insulza, secretary of the OAS, acknowledged at an event in South Florida that Venezuela is in a deep crisis and even if protests cease the crisis will continue, regardless. In a private conversation with others and me he acknowledged that Venezuela has violated human rights.

It is not clear how Lula and Insulza’s changed sentiments will influence the situation or if it will change anything but their respective statements were long overdue. Yet, they are very important, not because they are sufficient but precisely because they are a first step. If Venezuela has strategic importance to Brazil, it is more the case for the U.S. This is not because of the oil contracts or the oil supply but because Venezuela is a dangerous regime that declared it’s enmity to the U.S. In addition it is a rogue state that supports terror, as well as a narco-state, whose political and military elite is involved in drug trafficking. It is important for U.S. policy makers to recognize the fact that Venezuela, situated barely two hours away from Miami, is part of a geo-political security zone that affects our country’s security.

Therefore, it would be a wise move for the United States to capitalize on Brazil and Insulza’s change of attitude by insisting that the dialogue be fair. In addition, the U.S. should discuss this issue with the Brazilian government and try to work in coalition with Brazil to restore democracy to Venezuela. Although it remains unclear how far the Brazilians are willing to go in pressuring the Venezuelan government, this shift by Brazil should open an opportunity to engage the most important player in the continent.

It would also be incumbent for the U.S. government to follow the Senate initiative of Senators Robert Menendez, Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson and the House initiative of Congresswoman Ileana Ros Lehtinen and apply sanctions at least on those individuals responsible for the repression in Venezuela.

Those sanctions must not only be a first step but must be conditioned to provide a successful and clean outcome for the ongoing negotiations. Without pressure the Venezuelan government is unlikely to concede. Giving a blank check to a dialogue that is already going through a bumpy process would be a huge mistake and would only perpetuate the problem.

Challenges Continue After Maduro’s Election in Venezuela

According to results reported by the national Elections Committee of Venezuela (CNE), Nicolas Maduro, Chavez’s chosen successor and protege, won the Venezuelan presidential election by a skimpy margin of less than 2%. Once again the Chavistas won because they took advantage of huge state resources that include mass media, intimidation of public employees and the use of the oil giant, PDVSA, to fund their political campaign.

Irregularities include claims that on Election Day about 535 voting machines were damaged and they affected almost 190,000 voters. Henrique Capriles refused to recognize the results, demanded a recount and mobilized his supporters to bang pots and pans. Protesters also burned trash and blocked highways but were chased by the Venezuelan national guard. Maduro reacted negatively by accusing Capriles of carrying a coup d’etat and called out his followers to defend the government. In this way, Maduro was indirectly inciting violence.

On the other hand, Capriles called for peaceful protests to demand the recount of the votes. He also called on the government to begin a dialogue since he received almost half of the votes that need to be taken into account.

Maduro refused to allow Capriles and his supporters to demonstrate and the latter called off the demonstration saying that he will not do anything that could end in violence.

Yet Capriles rightly stands on his demand to get a fair recount. The Government-controlled CNE is not allowing it which could be a sign that fraud indeed has taken place, perhaps not only in this election but in previous elections as well. But most importantly, the government of the PSUV is being challenged as illegitimate.

As the charisma of Chavez disappeared, the Venezuelan people are likely to become more conscious of the situation they have lived in for a decade and a half. Intimidation, bullying, inflation, power outages, food shortages, deterioration of the middle class, a war against the private sector, persecution of opponents, abuse of the judicial power, violation of human rights, and the list is long.

That is why it is important for the international community to support a recount as President Barack Obama and the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Jose Miguel Insulza, have done.

If indeed the result announced by the CNE remain unchanged, the fact that scarcely a month after Chavez’ death, his successor received far fewer votes than Chavez received in the October, 2012 presidential elections is significant. Chavez won the October elections with 54.66% vs. 40.73 % for Capriles. Maduro won with 50.78% Vs. 48. 95% for Capriles. In terms of votes the difference between support of Chavez in October and Maduro on April 14th is 750,000 votes.

This clearly indicates that Maduro’s uncharismatic personality and his often ridiculous attempt to be “Chavez” was only slightly successful and did not convince many of Chavez’s followers.

The question is what will happen next.  The head of the military wing of Maduro’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), Diosdado Cabello, called on the Chavistas to reflect and engage in self-criticism. “It does not make sense for the poor to vote for those who exploit them” Cabello pointed out.  Regardless of the opportunism of Mr. Cabello who will probably use these arguments to challenge Maduro’s leadership, it is important to reflect on the meaning of what he said.

If the PSUV represents the poor and Chavez was their savior, why wouldn’t they overwhelmingly support his successor? This shows the irrational power of Chavez and his discourse. For many years those who criticized Chavez’ policies thought that the Venezuelan government’s awful waste of money and resources plus and its mismanagement of the oil sector t would end badly for Venezuelans. However, as long as Chavez was in power, the effervescence of his charisma, his ability to communicate with the masses, and his image as the protector of the poor overcame the reality of the conditions in which they were living. The fact that Venezuela is one of the few countries in Latin America that has not grown economically, expects more unemployment and even higher inflation and decline matters more now than ever before. Maduro can no longer rely on his charisma but on improving the economy.

Only Chavez could create illusions and fascination. Maduro will have to work hard like every boring elected leader. We will hopefully see a transition between the charismatic model of government to a rational one.

However, this could prove to be very difficult. Can Maduro act rationally and make the economy flourish? Does he possess the charisma to change the course of the revolution? It is unlikely. After all, the Bolivarian government and its companies, such as PDVSA, are populated with political loyalists that include a plethora of inept and corrupt people. The professionals are long gone. Maduro is likely to continue the course of the revolution and follow in Chavez’s footsteps. Since he lacks the charisma and ability to galvanize the public, this will put him at the mercy of all the elements that were empowered under Chavez: the Cubans, the co-opted military officers, the boliburgeois, the Bolivarian circles, the militias, and the Para-military.

Under these circumstances, Venezuelans may get tired of this. A highly polarized society will bring about protests and government violence. The Bolivarian Para- military will be quickly mobilized and the whole state apparatus will increase its repression.

With regard to the United States, the New York Times published the morning after the election, a story about Venezuelan-U.S relations under Maduro.

Although Maduro  used anti-American rhetoric during the electoral campaign-including the argument that the U.S injected Chavez with the cancer that killed him – he privately told former New Mexico governor and U.S Ambassador to the United nations,  Bill Richardson, that he is willing to normalize relations with the United States.

Without suggesting that the United States should reject Maduro’s overtures, it is important not to fall under any illusion. The structure set by the 14 year Chavez rule created a structure that will need to be dismantled.

The Venezuelan government placed the country’s airports, ports, planes, and ships at the disposal of drug cartels. Venezuela became a major transit route for “cocaine out of Colombia and has increased manifold the amount of cocaine flow. Venezuela also developed relations with the FARC harboring and cutting an ideological and militant partnership. It provided FARC with military support, supplies of Russian- and Chinese-made automatic weapons, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, and man-portable air defense systems.

Chavez also nurtured relations with Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah. Its relationship with Iran cannot be reduced to a commercial dimension as some analysts have done. Iran has developed a complex relation with Venezuela as well as with some of its allies in the region that includes helping Iran avoiding financial sanctions and providing political support for its nuclear program. Venezuelan diplomats have been involved in helping Hezbollah fund-raising efforts and facilitated the travel of its operatives to and from Venezuela. Today the power of Iran is encroaching on the backyard of the United States, making our own border more vulnerable. Further, Iran’s cooperation with the Mexican drug gang called “Zetas” in the October 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, DC, only confirms our potential vulnerability and terrorist activity in the region.

And if Iran develops nuclear weapons, will Venezuela or other Iranian allies in the region allow them to be posted on their soil? In that case, the United States and the entire region could face a serious threat comparable to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Maduro has also reportedly maintained close relations with Cuba, Iran and with the FARC.

The United States should not take the message to Governor Richardson at face value. It must demand the reversal of these ominous relationships before prematurely celebrating the “beginning of a new era” as well as continuing to support a recount of this last election.