Tag Archives: Hugo Chavez

Chavez’s Deeds: He Was A Threat to America and His Own People

Hugo Chavez died on March 5th, 2013 exactly 60 years after Josef Stalin.

The Mexican political scientist Fredo Arias wrote on Facebook, paraphrasing Karl Marx, that “history repeats itself twice; the first time as history and the second time as a farce.”

In Venezuela he helped destroy democracy and reduced it to mere referendums on his persona. He skipped parliamentary procedure and subjugated the judiciary, sometimes incarcerating judges whose verdicts did not fit his desires. He sent opponents to exile and  went after the media who criticized him.

He created para-military groups and chaos. He scorned the law and the constitution he helped create. He conducted extra-legal killings.  He placed the state above civil society and individual rights.  He intimidated entrepreneurs, sent many to exile and and enriched many of his cronies, whose only virtue was to be close to power. He bought the higher echelons of the military and purged others. He believed in the fusion “between people and the military” but to establish an authoritarian “elected” regime.

He gave the people gifts, care of the country’s gigantic oil-based national income. He placed people in black lists. He fired people from national companies based on their political views and destroyed countless families. Venezuela turned into a field of insecurity.

Chavez’ Bolivarian revolution has been not only a domestic affair of Venezuela. It has had an expansive wave.  Chavez actively promoted the revolution abroad, funding sympathetic candidates, and establishing relations with different group s across the continent. These groups included indigenous in the Andes, Argentinean Piqueteros, the Brazilian Landless Movement  and others. He also reached out to violent movements such as the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Iranian proxy Hezbollah.  Chavez purchased weapons from Russia and handed them over to the FARC. He sent Venezuelans to be trained in Lebanon. He created international conferences that gathered various terrorist organizations from all over the world.  He extended a friendly hand to drug cartels and made Venezuela into a free zone for drug trafficking to North America and Europe.

He opened up to rogue countries such as Iran and tyrannies such as the Belarus , Syria, Saadam Hussein’s Iraq,  and Muammar Gadaffi’s Libya.  He was influenced by nefarious writers such as Norberto Ceresole, an ex- Argentinean  guerilla and a Holocaust denier.

Countries of the region such as Brazil and Argentina and the entire Organization of American States looked the other way while Chavez violated human rights. He and his allies Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Evo Morales (Bolivia) and Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua) blasted the OAS human rights commission. The entire left, extreme and moderate in the region admired Chavez and saw him as a key in the regional integration of the continent despite the fact that conservative governments in Latin America also supported regional integration.

The legacy of Chavez will remain because it has established an authoritarian structure in his own country and broad support abroad. The legacy of Chavism remains a challenge for the future of the region and a threat to American security.

Insightful look at daily life under Chavez’ authoritarianism

Click here to purchase “The Lieutenant of San Porfirio” at Amazon for $16.77

Joel Hirst is a young writer and social scientist who wrote a powerful novel that reflects the state of Venezuela under the rule of Hugo Chavez.

What a novel can do that a rigorously academic or even journalistic piece cannot do is to involve the reader in the day to day impact of living under an authoritarian revolutionary regime like the one Venezuela is experiencing today.

“The Lieutenant of San Porfirio” is not merely a fictional drama or a parody of contemporary Venezuela. Through the novel we can understand the why and how of Venezuela’s everyday reality.

Hirst grasps, through his intimate familiarity with a country where he spent part of his life, the major transformation of a society once considered to be one of the most prosperous and free in Latin America.

The novel focuses on a number of characters, each of which represents something different: The resented and socially underprivileged lieutenant, Juan Machado who finds in the revolution a way to achieve the power and dignity he never had while at the same time pursuing his desire for revenge against the upper class. Machado becomes an effective instrument of revolutionary repression and a ruthless character that does not hesitate to use cruelty and murder if necessary.

FirefoxScreenSnapz101Doña Esmeralda is an old oligarch who in the spirit of Boris Pasternak’s Dr. Zhivago is forced to allow poor individuals into her house. Doña Esmeralda laments the loss of her household, while at the same time not hiding her authentic contempt for the socio-economically marginal. She behaves like an aristocrat; insensitive to the neediest. Under the revolution she falls in disgrace and her status changes dramatically. While painting the character of Doña Esmeralda, the author does not necessarily show sympathy for the victim of a revolution he despises. He gives us a realistic picture of the aloofness and the mistreatment to which workers were subjected on the farms under the old regime.

Testimonies of such mistreatment are numerous up to the point that the repressive skills of the enforcers of the oligarchy are later used to serve the new revolution. This repressive character is later embedded in the person of Enrique who confronts Lieutenant Machado who happens to be one of Enrique’s past victims. That confrontation of two active supporters of the revolution is dramatic and also shows another component of the revolution: the high number of opportunists that have become part of it.

Another character in the novel is Freddy, a typical liberal –minded American that identifies with the struggles of the Third World. He is fascinated by the revolution despite the fact that he falls victim to the violence and robbery of the revolutionaries. He feels somewhat disappointed by these indecent acts but he continues to believe in the justice of the revolution. At one point his excitement about the revolution leads him to violence. He hits an anti-government student leader (Pancho) with a bottle and sends him to the hospital with multiple injuries

“A revolution must be bloody”, Freddy is told. The American ends up accepting this but the revolutionaries’ contempt for him does not fade away despite his loyalty.

Freddy is finally betrayed by the corruption of the revolution he admires and his fate falls in line with the enemies of the revolution.

Hirst portrays the element of violence extremely well. Violence unfolds as revolutionaries like the character Geronimo preachs the truth and dogma of the revolution. Violence develops because the revolution finds an enemy to blame for the suffering of the people the revolution is trying to save. Violence increases because the revolution recruits criminal elements as exemplified in the character of the murderous Quispe. Quispe is portrayed as a monster capable of committing the worst types of crimes.

Hirst exposes, in a very subtle way, the cynical, criminal, and illegal character of the revolution. On the other hand, he does not depict the opponents of the revolution in a good light either. The general state of lawlessness also corrupts the politicians who can easily be bought while betraying the principles they had fought for.

“The Lieutenant of San Porfirio” is the first novel to describe life under the Bolivarian revolution. In addition, this very well written and intriguing book includes other elements that play out in the Bolivarian Revolution such as anti-Semitism, drug trafficking and callous government impunity.

The reader not only enjoys a dynamic and intriguing story but derives a good sense of what contemporary life in Chavez’s Venezuela is all about.

Luis Fleischman is co-editor of the Americas Report also the author of the upcoming book “Latin America in the Post-Chavez Era: The Security Threat to the United States”

China’s Battery and Assault

With Roger Noriega, Gordon Chang, Dean Popps, and Andrew McCarthy.

AEI scholar ROGER NORIEGA discusses what the chances are of Hugo Chavez recovering in time for his inauguration, and predicts what impact his likely death will have on U.S.-Venezuelan relations.

GORDON CHANG of Forbes.com talks about India’s desire for the U.S. to take the lead in confronting China in the region. Chang also explains why Bill Richardson’s trip to North Korea will be detrimental to U.S. sanctions on the country.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Former Acting United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology DEAN POPPS discusses the disastrous consequences of China’s acclamation of American-made lithium ion A123 battery technology.

ANDREW McCARTHY chats with Frank about Obama’s choice of John Kerry and Chuck Hagel for Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, respectively.

 

Speculating on Venezuela’s Future

There is a great deal of speculation these days about the immediate political future after Chavez’ expected death.

Some analysts, like Amherst University professor Javier Corrales argue that regardless of what happens, the next government will have to deal with a serious problem left behind by Chavez . This problem centers on the previous irrational approach to government spending in which money was used as an instrument of political influence domestically and abroad.  Government officials never worried or valuated whether these expenditures made sense or whether they were creating a huge deficit and debt.  Therefore, Corrales believes that the main challenge for Venezuelan leaders will be economic adjustment and that no successor will have the same level of largesse or fiscal irrationality as Chavez had.

However, there are other commentators who focus more on the ideological differences and potential conflicts that may ensue after Chavez’s departure.

They view Chavismo as being deeply divided between the military and the civilian factions.  This division was kept together under Chavez but it is likely to explode after the commander’s death.

Nicolas Maduro, the current foreign Minister and the man Chavez appointed as his successor, leads the civilian faction.  Maduro has strong ties to the Cuban government and plays a key role in forging alliances with rogue states such as Iran, Syria, and Belarus.  He was also instrumental in strengthening alliances with the Bolivarian countries and in raising the status of Venezuela in the region, including its inclusion in the South American common market (MERCOSUR).

The current President of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, leads the military faction.  He is more nationalist oriented, has only visited Cuba once, and  is not close to the Cuban government.  However, Cabello played a role in Chavez’s domestic agenda, particularly in cracking down on the media.  He was also instrumental in helping Chavez corrupt the machinery of government in order to strengthen his power.  Cabello was part of the group of officers that orchestrated the coup d’état in 1992 that helped Chavez rise to the public scene as an anti-establishment figure.

According to Vladimir Gessen, a former congressman, the military reject the Cuban model and also resent their presence in the Venezuelan military.

Thus, according to his view, the conflict between the two factions could  be very serious as the military has played a role in the social missions and eleven of twenty Chavista governors are former military officers. Therefore, Gessen assumes that Cabello will do everything he can to prevent the civilian faction led by Maduro from taking the reins of the Bolivarian Republic.

In my opinion, these analyses are relevant and important to note.

However, I would like to reflect upon the situation from a different angle before relating to the arguments presented above.

Going forward, the first major question to consider is whether the Bolivarian Revolution will change its course. In other words, is  there any incentive to change a revolution that has shown considerable success both domestically and abroad?  While taking into account Corrales’ serious arguments about the Venezuelan fiscal deficit, it is important to understand  that Chavez was not only re-elected in the October 7th elections but also was victorious in the December 16th elections, winning the overwhelming majority of governorships (20 out of 23.)  Though these results reflect continued popular support for Chavez, elections in Venezuela are not transparent.  Chavez and his cronies have an overwhelming advantage because the Electoral Commission is controlled by the regime as well as large segments of the media.

At the domestic and regional level, Chavez has earned an image as the father of the oppressed, thus his followers believe he is the only leader in the region that has the ability to unite different and diverse sectors of the population.  Following the thought of scholars Hannah Fenichel Pitkin and Ernesto Laclau, we can say that, how the constituent is kept satisfied matters less than the symbol the government or the leader represent.  Whether or not the Bolivarian Revolution succeeded in fulfilling its promises or whether it has created a fiscal cliff has less weight than the loyalties and identification of its followers.  One of the great accomplishments of Chavismo has been its ability to homogenize and bring together a diverse group of people, who now have a sense of representation, unknown to them prior to the revolution.

The collective perception that Chavez and his revolution represent the oppressed and disadvantaged, is crucial, regardless of whether people truly are better off now than they were fourteen years ago.  The revolution has also succeeded in blaming the opposition for the problems it has created. The Chavez regime has adopted a patronizing attitude towards the opposition, accusing it polarization, when in truth, the larger polarizing force is the regime itself.

The Bolivarian Revolution has excited the masses, not only in Venezuela, but also across Latin America. It has expanded the revolution to Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua.  It is a symbol among the grassroots of the ruling Workers and Peronist Parties in Brazil and Argentina respectively, and the Movement of Popular Participation (MPP), one of the largest sectors in Uruguay’s ruling party, the Broad Front.  The Bolivarian Revolution is popular among the indigenous grassroots, including CONAIE, the largest indigenous movement in Ecuador.  The revolution has also fascinated important sectors of the intellectual left.

Chavez and his revolution are so powerful that various governments in South America, including that of Brazil, a rising world power, viewed the victory of Chavez in the October elections as a necessary condition for the continuity of regional integration.  A proud atheist such as the Uruguayan president, Jose Mujica, took time out of his schedule to pray in a Church for Chavez’s health.

The success of the Bolivarian Revolution provides no incentive to the new leadership in Venezuela to change its course, whether there is economic bankruptcy or internal divisions.  Contrary to the Fascist or the Communist Revolutions, the Bolivarian Revolution has neither been challenged nor contained.

Once we have reached this conclusion, we can discuss how, for example, the Maduro-Cabello confrontation might play out. The assertion that the military is anti-Cuban requires a more comprehensive analysis than this piece can cover.

However, even if the military were anti-Cuban and succeeded in expelling Cuban advisors and officers from the Venezuelan Armed Forces, this act alone would probably not constitute a major turning point or the end of the Bolivarian Revolution as we know it. One might also ask, is the military now anti-Cuban enough after all the purges that have taken place in the last 14 years and after all the bribery and luxurious life that has been provided to many of the military officers?  What role are the 125,000-troop militias likely to play after Chavez’s death?  Will the alliance with Iran or the drug cartels end?  Will the revolution lose ideological strength?  Will it become less hostile to America?

The Bolivarian Revolution does not depend on the Cuban government economically but, rather, the other way around.  Nor, does the revolution depend on Cuba for ideological support.   In fact, it has already achieved an influence that the Castros never had.  The Castro Regime, at its peak, responded to the Soviet Union, whereas, the Bolivarian Revolution maintains its own leadership. The Cubans mostly play a role in assisting the Bolivarian regime in consolidating a repressive and controlling regime.

From a geo-political point of view, governments of the region, including the United States, must look beyond hasty conclusions because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the Bolivarian Revolution is the most far-reaching and most challenging phenomenon in the Western Hemisphere.

Terrorists on Twitter

With Fred Grandy, Fred Fleitz, David Brog, and Bill Gertz.

FRED GRANDY of the Center for Security Policy talks about House Speaker Boehner’s failed “Plan B” idea to prevent the fiscal cliff, and the way in which many conservatives spoke out against it and its supporters–including Grover Norquist. Fred also discusses the need for a Watergate-style committee to conduct a thorough and reliable investigation into the 9/11 attack in Benghazi.

Lignet.com’s managing editor FRED FLEITZ talks about the problems of the “accountability” review, as well as the influence that Cuba had on whom Hugo Chavez chose as a successor.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

DAVID BROG, executive director of Christians United for Israel, asks the questions that need asking: Why is terrorist organization Hamas allowed to have a Twitter account? Why can the Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, a terrorist affiliate,  have a Facebook? Why is the U.S. continuing to send military aid to Egypt when no one is threatening it?

BILL GERTZ of the Washington Free Beacon points out the Obama administration’s rule-breaking in encouraging companies to not abide by the WARN Act in the face of sequestration, and the legacy of retiring Senator Jon Kyl.

The Gaza Crisis and the Intellectual Left in Latin America

The recent Gaza crisis, during which Israel responded with a limited military operation to stop Hamas missile attacks against Israeli populations, unleashed a number of reactions by intellectuals in Latin America.

Some of these reactions were expected but others raise serious concerns about the direction  Latin America is taking in what is called “the battle of ideas”.

The reaction to the Gaza crisis by some intellectuals reflects the ideological power of the Bolivarian Revolution and the challenge this revolution will present for us in the future.

This time we did not hear mere pacifist statements calling to stop the bloodshed. We heard a much more aggressive discourse that accused Israel of conducting genocide on the Palestinians; promoting expansionism; committing war crimes; and nothing short of serving the devil.

These types of accusations are not new and certainly not new for the left. However, if we carefully analyze what guides the viewpoint of these intellectuals the story is hair-rising. Not for the nonsense they say about Israel but rather because of the sources they draw from and its significance in the context of the current political situation in Latin America.

For example, Eduardo Galeano is a Uruguayan writer who became famous at a young age when he wrote “The Open Veins of Latin America”, a humorous account of Latin American economic history viewed as systematic exploitation of natural resources by developed countries and imperial powers. Since the transition to democracy in Uruguay, he has become a public intellectual, mostly representing the left. He is often a guest on national TV. He comes across as having a great sense of humor and warmth and remains a popular figure. He is close to the political circles of President Jose Mujica.

In reaction to the recent events in Gaza, Galeano launched a strong and vicious attack on Israel, to which I responded here in Spanish.

Galeano not only attacks Israel’s specific action but also claims that Israel was built at the expense of the Palestinians and continues to expand. What is curious about Galeano is that he literally uses elements drawn directly from Arab propaganda and distortion. Using the most vicious Arab propaganda he claims “the persecution of the Jews has been an old European habit but in the last half century this historical debt has been charged to the Palestinians who have never been anti-Semitic. Furthermore, they are Semitic themselves.” Galeano suggests that Israelis kill civilians on purpose, “knowing exactly what they are doing”. The military industry is “successfully testing (its equipment) in this operation of ethnic cleansing”. In another passage Galeano argues that the threat of a nuclear Iran is an invention of the pro-American media and that the real nuclear threat comes from the Americans because they burned Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The international community is repudiated by what Galeano calls another “piece of theater put on by the United States”.

Another intellectual who follows this same line of thought is Atilio Boron, an Argentinian columnist for a major national daily, a PhD from Harvard University and a person very close to the political circles of President Cristina Kirchner.

Boron accuses Israel of being a terrorist, murderous and a “scoundrel” state. He defines Israel as being far more evil than Al Qaeda. He quotes from fanatic Arab sources that claim that Israel manipulates the Europeans, the Egyptians and the entire world community, including President Barack Obama in order to keep its stand.(I have responded to Boron in Spanish here)  )

What is interesting is that Mr. Boron accuses Israel of murdering civilians but in regard to Syria he claims that the uprising against the tyranny of President Bashar Al Assad is nothing more than an “imperialist conspiracy”. Boron implies that the Syrian regime, that has already killed more than 40,000 people, is not a murderous regime but it is a victim.  He also holds Israel responsible for increasing tensions with Iran, despite the fact that it was Iran that broke off diplomatic relations with Israel 30 years ago.  Iran has also expressed its desire to destroy Israel, and has sponsored terrorist activities against it. Furthermore, using language drawn directly from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and even Neo-Nazis, Boron blasts Israel for using the Holocaust as a way to blackmail the world.

Of course, they both justify Hamas hostility against Israel because Israel is the “repressor”. Hamas is not at fault and its past suicide bombers against Israeli civilians or the bombardments of Israeli populations are not mentioned. The fact that Israel withdrew from Gaza seven years ago or offered peace concessions that were rejected altogether by the Palestinians does not seem to be important either.

What is important is that Israel is a U.S. ally. They detest American power with all their might.

But the most astonishing public figure and intellectual is the Nobel Prize laureate from Argentina, Adolfo Perez Esquivel. Mr. Perez Esquivel received the prestigious prize for his activism on behalf of human rights. He strongly opposed the Argentinean and other Latin American dictatorships during the 1970’s and 80’s and became a star during a dark time where tragic events where occurring in the Southern Cone of Latin America. Like the previous public intellectuals I mentioned he blames Israel for the conflict in Gaza, calls it a “terrorist state” and initiated a letter calling for a boycott of Israel. He drew on people like Noam Chomsky and 50 other like-minded individuals to participate in this effort.

In an article published on November 20th, Perez Esquivel wrote the following paragraph: “When will the international community stop allowing Israel to act with impunity, without attempting to limit its aggression against the Palestinian people? When will the United States and the European Union stop being part of the aggression against the people of the Middle East, Palestine, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq? When will they stop threatening Iran?

As the European Union received the Nobel Prize, Perez Esquivel repudiated the European countries’ intervention in the conflict in Libya and warned them of intervening in Syria, as well. Of course, this human rights activist does not mention that in both the case of Syria and Libya, we are talking about murderous dictators that launched a merciless war against their own people.

But Perez Esquivel is even more nefarious. In a letter directed to President Obama after the killing of Osama Bin Laden last year, he questioned why the U.S. didn’t capture Bin laden and try him in a court of justice. Then he answered his own question by suggesting that Bin Laden probably knew information that the United States did not want him to disclose. Thus, several paragraphs later, Perez Esquivel tells the U.S. president: “You know that there are people who have investigated the tragic events of 9/11/2001 and claim there is evidence that this was a self-coup (self-inflicted attack)”

Perez Esquivel continues “This event was the perfect excuse to launch a war against Afghanistan and Iraq and now against Libya”.  In the same letter the human rights activist and Nobel Laureate accused the United States of committing the worst atrocities in the world to keep world power. Finally, he calls the U.S. an “axis of evil”.

These three intellectuals are strong supporters of Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution. They also support the half -century old Cuban dictatorship. While three decades ago they were active in the struggle for democracy in the Southern cone, they now have no problem supporting Hugo Chavez, a putschist who in the name of economic and social justice subjugated the judicial power; limited freedom of the press; persecuted opponents; organized Para-military groups to intimidate people and potential opponents; who now controls the electoral council and has forced thousands of Venezuelans into exile. This is without mentioning Venezuela’s attempt to destroy the Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States.

Galeano, Boron and Perez Esquivel are not just identified as bloggers or anonymous fanatics that run colorful website pages. These are opinion leaders who are respected in their societies.

But the most important point is that they are public intellectuals that not merely support the Bolivarian Revolution in its political form. They are also part of its ideology including the anti-imperialist lunacy, the admiration for tyrants and the delirious and venomous conspiracy theories that this revolution wishes to propagate.

In past writings, I mentioned how Chavismo will survive without Chavez and showed how this will most likely happen in Venezuela. I also mentioned that the Bolivarian revolution has absorbed many elements of the left, including moderate elements, and is gradually succeeding in achieving a regional unified message in what seems to be a continental movement of the left.

Now, the case of these three public figures shows that the Bolivarian Revolution has established its hegemony in the form of ideas and prejudices that will be very difficult to remove in the years to come. The Post-Chavez era will survive as a movement because it no longer depends on Chavez’s personal well-being for its ideological survival.

All this shows that ideas matter and that the intellectual left in Latin America has and continues to have an enormous impact influencing the thinking of large segments of their societies. Since the United States has retreated from communicating our ideas and values, many old notions about the U.S. as an exploitive and expansionist power still hold sway in the minds of many Latin Americans. By not taking seriously or participating in the political and ideological debate, our side will never be heard and freedom and democracy in Latin America will suffer as a consequence.

Reflections on Regional Reactions to Chavez’s Victory

Two days prior to the Venezuelan presidential election, Francisco Toro, a Venezuelan journalist and blogger, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times stating that Chavez and his movement have become irrelevant.

As Chavez’s socialism is becoming increasingly authoritarian and has failed to reduce poverty, Toro claims that it is no longer an exemplary to other Latin American states; in his opinion, it is Brazil’s template—combining free enterprise and democracy with social programs aimed at reducing poverty—that is what everyone in the region hopes to follow.

To illustrate his point, Toro uses the examples of Ollanta Humala in Peru and Venezuelan presidential opposition candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski. (To this list, we could also add Fernando Lugo in Paraguay). All of them ran on a “Brazilian” platform based on the social democratic principles established by former Brazilian president Lula Da Silva.

Toro also points out that, in public, the authoritarian and the social-democratic Left are united but, behind closed doors, they are divided to the point of being “viciously dismissive of each other.”

Yet, as we have observed, both the authoritarian and the democratic Left displayed public enthusiasm for the victory of Hugo Chavez. I would argue that this was not necessarily a public display of hypocrisy but rather an event that has serious implications for the region.

Indeed, shortly after Chavez’s victory was announced, various Latin American leaders congratulated Chavez. Of course, the followers of the Bolivarian alliance enthusiastically praised Chavez’s victory. Non-Bolivarian allies such as Argentina broadcasted live the announcement of the president of the Venezuelan National Electoral Council declaring Chavez the victor. Argentina’s president, Cristina Kirchner, tied Chavez’s victory to the future of her own government and political philosophy. Paraphrasing Venezuelan national hero, Simon Bolivar, Ms. Kirchner sent a written note to Mr. Chavez stating, “Hugo… you have cultivated the land and planted seeds in it; you have watered it and now you have harvested it….  Your victory is our victory.”

However, the reaction of the Government of Brazil is the most confounding, precisely because it is the Brazilian model that has been most often contrasted with Chavez’s.

Brazil’s president, Dilma Roussef pointed out that the “Venezuelan election is a model of an exemplary democratic process.”

Marco Aurelio Garcia, a senior advisor to President Roussef, and a former senior advisor to President Lula—and considered one of the most influential organic intellectuals and foreign policy architects of both governments—praised the democratic character of the Venezuelan elections. He also pointed out, “Venezuela is not a model Brazil should follow, but Chavez, with his own style, implemented a program of social inclusion. In this way, he sought to find equilibrium between political and social democracy. Such equilibrium is something the whole region aspires to achieve.”  (My own translation).

Interestingly enough, the first part of Garcia’s statement seems to point to a distance between Brazil and Venezuela (as Toro rightly pointed out) but the second part of the statement seems to recognize, as acceptable, the Venezuelan model.

Then, Garcia proceeded to complain about the “international support for the Capriles’ candidacy and for the attempt to delegitimize the democratic process in Venezuela”. In an even more perplexing statement, Garcia suggested that Chavez’s victory reinforced democracy, particularly after the region suffered “a democratic interruption with the impeachment of (President) Fernando Lugo in Paraguay.”

This argument surprised everyone that has followed or experienced the deterioration of democracy, human rights, and the increasing political restrictions and political violence promoted by the Venezuelan government for more than a decade now.

But this makes sense if we continue to listen to what they say.

Echoing Chavez’s repeated statements, Garcia said, “right and center-right opposition forces in Latin America supported Capriles.” Thus, he implied that the Venezuelan elections were a point of contention between the right and left wing forces in the region. Therefore, had Chavez lost the elections it would have been a defeat for the left in general—whether the authoritarian or the democratic wing.

This last point is particularly astonishing since Capriles ran on the platform of the social-democratic Brazilian model. However, the left could not see Capriles as one of them; he confronted Chavez, an authentic symbol of the left. The Bolivarian model for the Brazilin leaders may not be the model to follow, but Chavez remains a symbol of the left’s strength throughout the continent.

In other words, the Brazilin leaders felt that if Chavez lost the election, it may have made the entire left vulnerable.

Garcia acknowledged that in the region there are different types of leftist regimes but what they all have in common is that “all of them are marching in the direction of translating political democracy into a social factor.” Here, Brazil is passionately defending the idea that no political democracy can co-exist with inequality or the lack of social inclusion.

The fact that political democracy, human rights, and judicial independence are sacrificed in the name of social justice is of no concern to the Brazilian leaders.

Brazil’s position suggests that its government cares more for regional integration than for democracy.

Chavez is seen as a good partner for regional integration—and this is what matters to the Brazilian leaders. Both Brazil and Venezuela have championed the idea of regional integration and economic independence. This would not only be good for the region but also for Brazil as it aspires to be a regional leader and ultimately a world power.

The Brazilian government seems to obsessively believe that such integration can only work with left wing governments.

This is why Roussef pointed out that “Brazil wants to cooperate with Venezuela in the construction of a more equal and just South America by reinforcing bilateral relations and regional integration.”

The idea that regional integration can only come to being through the left and not through the right has pushed conservative governments, also eager to be part of this regional integration, to adopt positions aimed at gaining the acceptance of its leftist neighbors.

As an example, the foreign minister of the Conservative Government of Sebastian Pinera in Chile, Alfredo Moreno, not only congratulated Chavez on his victory but also pointed out that “most countries of Latin America are experiencing a democratic reality that has been in existence for a long time and this is different than what occurred in our continent a few decades ago.” The reference of course was to the right-wing military dictatorships of South America but does he really think that Venezuela is a true democracy?

Chile’s desire to be part of this regional integration not only contradicts the idea that integration can take place only through the left but also shows the overwhelming pressure left wing countries can exercise over conservative governments.

By the same token, the conservative government of Manuel Santos in Colombia has initiated talks with the guerilla group known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). I dare to assume that a Colombia-FARC reconciliation is somehow tied to Colombia’s willingness to gain acceptability among the dominant left.

If at one point I thought, like Toro, that the solution to the problem of  Bolivarianism and the radical left could be found in the counter-balancing power of the moderate social-democratic left, I no longer hold this view.

For the moderate left, political or liberal constitutional democracy is only understood in the context of social justice. Without social justice, democracy has no meaning. But the problem has been that the drive towards regional integration became the excuse to disregard political democracy and legality.

I foresee that very soon the Organization of American States (OAS) and its democratic charter will cease to be relevant.

Perhaps, at this point, the best hope to weaken the power of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution is if the moderate left loses elections in the countries where it holds power.

Furthermore, what we have witnessed during the different Latin American summits (including the Latin American and Caribbean Summit, the Summit of the Americas, and the OAS General Assembly) is that the leftist tsunami returned the intractable authoritarian Cuban regime to the status of acceptable government while the Inter-American Human Rights Commission and the Inter-American Court were ferociously attacked by the authoritarian left and by moderate Brazil.

In the short term, we will see the OAS coming under pressure to dissolve itself as governments in the region view it as an obsolete organization aimed at serving U.S. hegemony. This is a major challenge for the United States, which should try to use its influence to discourage such a situation.

This context may have affected Capriles Radonski’s decision to immediately accept the results of the election.

Indeed, those allowed to  “observe” the election included  Marco Aurelio Garcia himself; Carlos “Chacho” Alvarez, an Argentinean former vice-president  who is the head of the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI) and a Kirchner loyalist;  and ; other individuals friendly to Chavez including a Spanish Communist professor and a fervent pro-Chavez Chilean writer, among others).  The Chavez-controlled Electoral National Council did not allow the OAS or any other neutral body to observe the election.

This was a deterring factor on Capriles.

Had Capriles waited a few hours and gotten the right advice, he could have requested a careful review of the electoral process. Had he done so, he would have, at minimum, brought the Venezuelan abuses to public debate or even mass protests and attracted some international attention. By accepting the results he contributed to the myth propagated by Chavez and his regional supporters that Venezuela is, without doubt, a true democracy.

Election in Venezuela

The upcoming October 7th elections in Venezuela do not constitute just another round of elections in another country. These elections are crucial for the future of Latin America and for the security of the United States. In fact, it is no exaggeration to point out that the Venezuelan drama should be as great a  concern as the  elections in the young democracies of the Middle East that emerged in the aftermath of the Arab spring.

Unfortunately, the Venezuelan electoral process  has been characterized by intimidation of the opposition and the press, violence, and indiscriminate use of state resources, all this with the objective of providing an advantage to Hugo Chavez.

In fact,  two supporters of Henrique Capriles Radonsky, the opposition candidate  challenging the President,  were recently shot to death.

Although Chavez and his interior Minister pledged to make every effort to bring the killers to justice, the case seems to follow an environment of intimidation and fear that has characterized the Chavez campaign. Opposition rallies have been blocked and undermined by pro-Chavez supporters and fistfights have been very common. Even the last killings took place at the time Chavez supporters blocked a motorcade of Capriles supporters. In September, Chavez supporters blocked a motorcade and burned a truck that belonged to the Capriles campaign.

As polls have shown a tight race between the two contending sides, Mr. Capriles has proven himself adept at mobilizing large crowds. In the aftermath of the election, It seems almost inevitable that violence will increase especially if Chavez loses the race.

Experts have discussed possible scenarios in the aftermath of October 7th. They predict that if Chavez loses the election there might be a rise in violence, street protests, political hooliganism, and even sabotage of public services or invalidation of the election. So far, the Venezuelan government has rejected observers.

A paper written by Dr. Ray Walser, a Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, is called “The Chavez Plan to Steal the Venezuelan Election.”  In that document, Walser unequivocally defines the electoral process as an attempt by Chavez to win the election by non-legitimate means.  Walser describes how Chavez has used state power and monopoly over the main natural resource (oil) to spend money to benefit people; how  he has restricted the media and freedom of the press including laws that protect slander of the President; and how he has abused the electoral rules that limit air time for other presidential candidates.

Walser stresses that the electoral process has been flawed. Many voters have raised questions about whether their vote is really secret as their fingerprints, which are required as an anti-fraud mechanism, may be ultimately used to reveal the identity and the political choice of the voter. There is also concern about fraudulent registration of people who are not legally allowed to vote.

I would add that violent scenarios could be created not only if Chavez loses but also even if Chavez wins. This is not necessarily because the opposition and Capriles supporters are violent but because if it is perceived that Chavez cheated, there will be rage similar to the one that took place in the Ukraine and some of the former Soviet satellites and Republics a few years ago. This sense of fraud might mobilize people who are tired of Chavez’s chaotic and authoritarian rule.

In either case, Chavez is likely to mobilize his militias and paramilitary; violence will ensue but this time the presence of fire -arms will increase and we will see  a situation of civil war. Not unlike what is now occurring in Syria.

It will be interesting to see how the United States will respond should Venezuela erupt.

In his paper, Walser urges the United States government to support civil society and continue to support NGO activity to train domestic electoral observers. Walser also urges the Administration to reaffirm their commitment to democracy and demand transparency.  Likewise, he suggests that the United States  work in coalition with other countries in the region and in Europe  to act in unison in case of fraud or violence that might  arise. Finally, Walser calls on the Administration to develop a plan of action that could include severe economic sanctions such as designating Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism, thereby prohibiting the importation of Venezuelan oil.

These recommendations are certainly right on target. We can only hope that countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Chile and a few others will stand on the side of democracy without making excuses in the name of national sovereignty.  These countries have to understand that the prevalence of authoritarianism may have a contagious effect in the hemisphere and can promote more and more pro-Chavez leaders in the region . The clearest examples are, beside the countries of the Bolivarian alliance, the former Government of Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, a conservative who became a Bolivarian, and the current government of Cristina Kirchner in Argentina. Almost 30 years ago, Argentina rejected authoritarianism after  horrible years  of repression. Ms. Kirchner has elevated Chavez to the level of a statesman and a hero. What is worse she has replicated  a number of Chavez’s practices including the nationalization of private companies, bullying of the opposition and the private sector, control and censorship of the media. In addition Kirchner has created a constant discourse of hostility, and has instigated a suspicious project of constitutional reform.

The U.S needs to exercise leadership among countries in the Hemisphere but making sure that the Democratic Charter signed by members of the Organization of American States (OAS) is implemented. The U.S must exercise its influence to take democratic leadership in the region or allow another key country to do so. It would be ideal if Brazil could be persuaded to take such leadership as the country is a growing democracy and economic power.

I would add that the struggle for democracy in our hemisphere should not be merely based on moral principles. The struggle for democracy needs to be understood as a major strategic tool of national security. Democracy promotion creates a culture of peace and tolerance. A real democracy includes substantive components that reject elements such as alliances with rogue states.

As Venezuela continues to ally itself with Iran, Belarus, Russia and China, the security threat on the United States aggravates. Chavez has brought his Bolivarian allies in the hemisphere including Presidents Rafael Correa from Ecuador, Evo Morales from Bolivia and Daniel Ortega from Nicaragua into similar alliances with Iran. If Iran turns nuclear, it is likely that missiles will be posted on Venezuelan soil creating a major threat to our security.

Chavez has built an illiberal democracy that includes  regular elections but  nothing else: no rule of law, no reasonable dialogue between the factions, no free press and abundant violence and intimidation. Chavez, nonetheless, rules because he continues to be elected. This is the card he holds to maintain his legitimacy. This is why Western Hemisphere  countries have accepted Venezuela as a democracy,  as have  the Organization of American States (OAS) and  Mercosur (The South American Common Market). In both organizations democracy is a pre-condition to become a member. However, Venezuela does not seem to fall under the category of non-democratic countries because Chavez  elections are held and Chavez has been “democratically elected”..

If Chavez continues in power,  he will consolidate his regime to the point where it will survive his death. Moreover, both China and Russia have  major interests in perpetuating the Chavez government for a number of reasons including an ability to counteract U.S. influence in the hemisphere.

The United States cannot treat the Venezuelan case as it has treated the Syrian case. Our national security is at stake.

U.S. policy should be as determined and aggressive as possible with the purpose of restoring genuine democracy to Venezuela and the hemisphere. The morning after the election will be the real test for the region and for the United States.

The consequences of Colombia’s negotiations with FARC

Early in October, peace negotiations will take place between the Colombian Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Oslo, Norway. If successful, the talks will continue in Havana, Cuba.

These talks are taking place against the backdrop of major military victories by  the Colombian army against the FARC, the elimination of key FARC leaders in the last four years, and, confirmed connections between the FARC and the governments of Venezuela and Ecuador.

The upcoming talks were made possible through the mediation of Chile, Venezuela and Cuba. Venezuela and Cuba are two key players in the revolutionary, anti-American Bolivarian alliance. The Government of Venezuela has been one of the staunchest enemies of Colombia whom it views as an American puppet. Venezuela has also objected to the war on drugs and to Plan Colombia..  Many  of Hugo Chavez’s international political attacks have been directed towards Colombia.  Chavez even started an arms race with the help of the Russians and made a number of threats against his Colombian  neighbor.

Chavez also made alliances with the FARC, proven in the FARC Files (or Reyes Files) captured during a military raid in Ecuador early in 2008. Venezuela served as haven for the FARC guerillas escaping Colombia and also made alliances with other drug cartels who are the archenemies of the Colombian government.

The presence of Chile in the mediating group looks rather symbolic and poses a serious question mark as to their reasons for participating.

On the other hand these talks are taking place in Norway, far away from the region and in a country whose dominant political culture has been apologetic towards  extremist organizations.  According to Alan Dershowitz, a well-known Harvard Law professor, the former Norwegian Prime Minister, Kare Willock reacted negatively to President Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. It appeared that the fact that Emanuel was Jewish  disqualified him  for   a job that included dealing with  the Middle East conflict. Following the same logic, the Government of Norway has also maintained contacts with the arch-terrorist group, Hamas, claiming that it supports “dialogue”. [1] In other words, whether Norway’s opinion matters in the FARC-Colombia dialogue or not, Norway’s role is consistent with its approach that “terrorist groups might not be that bad, after all. It is likely that Norway’s sponsorship  will lend  legitimacy to the talks. It is also likely that they will  bestow  the status of “freedom fighter” upon  the Colombian guerrilla group even though the FARC  is and has  been responsible for the deaths of countless innocent people just like Hamas.

As stated, if the first round of talks are successful the second round will take place in Cuba, a country that has supported both terror and  the FARC.

Though it is not clear why Santos agreed to these negotiations given that terrorist organizations like the FARC are not known for their trust- worthiness in abiding by treaties, there are a number of possibilities as to why these negotiations are taking place and the kinds of outcomes that may result.

First, it is  possible that the Colombian government believes it can reach a good deal given the weakness of the FARC after four years of military setbacks. In this case, the FARC can either become a political party or somehow be integrated into the democratic mix. . Such expectation is based on the belief  that the FARC may replicate the experience of the M-19, a former guerilla group, which so far has been positive and lasting. Thus, if the FARC follows in the footsteps of the M-19,  Colombia could  have a situation of total peace. The Colombian people would then  be happy and grateful to President Manuel Santos for his efforts.  However,I find this scenario to be highly unlikely given the still extremist discourse, behavior and resentment of the FARC leadership.

In order to find a possible answer to the reason for these strange   negotiations, mediated by two allies of the FARC and enemies of Colombia, it is important to understand some of the shifts that the FARC has undergone in the last several years.

The alliances between the FARC and the Bolivarian countries have a deep strategic meaning.

The FARC is a guerilla movement with decades of experience in what is called “asymmetric war” or the war of the weak against the strong.  “Asymmetric war” is a concept adopted by Chavez very early in his tenure.  He defines it as the “war of all the people” against a never to come U.S. invasion.

Though defined this way by Chavez, asymmetric war can be fought in support of the consolidation of a revolution and the spread of terror on an  oppressed population or as a subversive force against a government the revolution seeks to overthrow.

The FARC’s weakening has forced the organization to cut an alliance with Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution.  In light of this, the Bolivarian Revolution seems to be the only viable way to achieve a radical transformation. Thus, the FARC has loosened its ideology of peasant-based Marxist revolution in order to embrace the Bolivarian Revolution and to commit to its expansion. This includes the fight against U.S. imperialism, neo-liberalism and globalization. Likewise, it embraces socialism and continental unity.

The Venezuelan Bolivarian leader, Hugo Chávez created a body called the Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana (Bolivarian Continental Coordinator or CCB), which later changed its name to Bolivarian Continental Movement (MCB). The CCB and the MCB has the FARC as one of its members.

The CCB was founded in 2003 as an umbrella organization that integrates different social and political revolutionary organizations across Latin America. The organization seeks to “rescue and reaffirm our historical memory and Bolivarian integration in order to create a new alternative pole against the domination of the world imperial powers.” The CCB seeks to create “a movement capable of articulating the diverse revolutionary forces and to develop a strategy in order to defeat the imperialist strategy and so emancipate Latin America (Nuestra America) forever.”[2]

The CCB/MCB views violence as a crucial component on the way to achieve its goals. Indeed, in the aftermath of the CCB gathering in Caracas, -which was attended by representatives of global extremist organizations including terrorist groups such as the Spanish ETA (the Basque insurgency), the communist party of El Salvador, remnants of the Red Brigades and other armed groups [3] a declaration was issued that stated the following: “The Continental Bolivarian movement is a means to promote the cause of the big nation” envisioned by Simon Bolivar. “We are thought and action melted with weapons against injustice. We are the combination of a variety of forms and methods of struggle.” Likewise, the “Bolivarian revolution…will be defended with our soul and hearts and with blood loaded with anger if necessary.” Then, the declaration turns more specific: “We will defeat the regime of Alvaro Uribe in Colombia…We will defeat the regime in Honduras and open up the way for a constitutional reform…Colonialism in Puerto Rico, the Falkland Islands and the Caribbean will face us.”[4]

In a message delivered by video early this year, the FARC invoked Simon Bolivar’s name as a role model and  a liberator of  oppressed people and as a supporter of continental unity. Again, the FARC repeated  its fight against imperialism and its support for socialism. Continental unity would provide the power to fight the transnational corporations that exploit national resources for their benefit and not for the benefit of the people. [5]

Although, in the same message the FARC stresses the need to continue the armed struggle against imperialism and particularly against Colombia, it is clear that they  no longer have the ability to act without the help of the Bolivarian Revolution.

In short, the FARC has ceased to be a solely  Colombian organization but rather has  become part of the Bolivarian Revolution. Its  activities and involvement are  now  regional and transnational. Indeed, the FARC is involved in about thirty countries to varying degrees. Some of their operations are more visible and some  more clandestine. The FARC reaches out to students and regular militants with propaganda and ideology and sometimes helps insurgent militias. Sometimes, they are involved in drug trafficking and sometimes in money-laundering. Sometimes they have sought support for their organization and sometimes they have sought to secure sanctuary.

In Mexico, the FARC has worked with the  Ricardo Flores Magon Militia and  has provided financial support to left-wing politicians.

In Peru, the FARC has reached out to the Peruvian Revolutionary Movement, Tupac Amaru (MRTA). The FARC provided training to several groups including a splinter group of the MRTA and the Left Revolutionary Movement (MIR).  The FARC also recruited people in Peru and provided weapons to the Maoist guerilla group, Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path).  In El Salvador,the FARC used its connections with the Frente Farabundo Marti (FMLN), now in power, to purchase arms and munitions.

In Bolivia,the FARC tried to carry out activities of indoctrination.

In Chile, the FARC recruited members of the communist party and sent them to Colombia for guerilla training. Likewise, the FARC reached out to groups, such as the Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodriguez (FPMR), the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR), and the Mapuche indigenous movement. [6]

In Paraguay there has been a large presence of FARC members. They assisted the People’s Army of Paraguay (EPP) in the kidnapping and murder of Cecilia Cubas, the daughter of  former president, Raul Cubas (1998-1999).[i] The EPP is a relatively small Marxist group, mostly active in the northeastern part of the country. The connections with the FARC have existed for more than ten years and EPP members have received training in Colombia.  The group was not only assisted by the FARC, but has allegedly also received training in Venezuela and Cuba. The group considers Hugo Chávez a hero. [7]

In summary, the reason why the FARC wants these negotiations is  to give them legitimacy  in the eyes of the world under the auspices of an incredibly naïve Western country like Norway that sees nor hears  no evil. Since Norway’s attitude towards Hamas is exculpatory, it is likely that this country will turn the blame on the Colombian government while providing excuses and apologies for the FARC. Regardless of how insignificant Norway is as a world player, it could distort the Western European perception of reality in South America in the same way it has done  in the Middle East.

In addition, the FARC could get “a break” from the Colombian mighty and effective hunting machine.  In that way, the FARC could   then  concentrate on their Bolivarian revolutionary goals. Most recently, Hugo Chavez stated that if he does not win the October 7th election there would be civil war. For that he needs a robust and healthy FARC.  Therefore, the strategy is aimed at placing the Colombian government, which is the most effective tool against the FARC, on hold. But paraphrasing Chavez,”por ahora” (for now).

President Santos has proven to be a wise man. We hope he has taken all these elements  described above into account.

But Santos  also needs the help of the U.S. government to make the right choices. Santos has refused to agree to a ceasefire until the negotiations are under way.  Likewise, he pointed out that these negotiations will not be allowed to drag on forever.  Santos has said that he will give negotiations a chance for no more than six to eight months. This is good.  However, as pointed out, even if there is an accord, the dangers of the FARC are not likely to go away as long as Chavez keeps them busy and provides them with a life-line.

Colombia is the most important U.S. strategic ally in the region and should not fall into a trap. Colombia is the country that keeps U.S. enemies in the region at bay and is an important regional ally. It is not certain whether we have recognized the fact that the Bolivarian Alliance and their allies aspire to weaken and eventually defeat their American neighbor to the North. In the meantime Chavez and his allies will do anything in their power to chip away at  U. S. interests. The United States needs to open its eyes to this reality and act accordingly.

 

[1] Alan Dershowitz, “Norway to Jews: You are not Welcome Here” , Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2011

[2] “Aporrea, Conclusiones del II Congreso de la Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana (29 February 2008),  http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/n109960.html.

[3] Douglas Farah, Venezuela Hosts Terrorist Central in Caracas, 8 December 2008, http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/517/venezuela-hosts-terrorist-central-in-caracas

[4]  Noticias de la Rebelion, Declaración Bolivariana de Caracas, 17 December 2009, http://www.noticiasdelarebelion.info/?p=4931

[5] “Saludo de las FARC-EP, Marzo de 2012” http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g9Gbk_RCopM#!

[6] The World of the FARC (Part II: America),” Semana,  January 6,  2009.

[7] Hanna Stone, “Paraguay’s EPP: Phantom or Rebel Army?,” 2 May 2011, http://insightcrime.org/insight-latest-news/item/852-paraguays-epp-phantom-or-rebel-army.

[i] ‘Fluidos Contactos con las FARC antes del Secuestro de Cecilia Cubas”, ABC Color, Asunción, September 15, 2009.

The Importance of the War of Ideas

As anti-American feelings are being cultivated in large parts of Latin America, not much attention is being paid to the potential consequences that this may eventually have.

Propaganda is easy to dismiss as non-sense. But propaganda can unfortunately work. It is sometimes easy for those who are better informed to disregard propaganda as being the work of fanatics whose discourse is so ridiculous that nobody in his right mind would take it seriously.  Yet, the effects of propaganda are manifold. Often information that distorts reality can have harmful repercussions.

This is because when something is repeated so many times, there is always the risk that such lies might perpetuate themselves. Since many governments in the region are left-wing regardless of whether they are extreme or moderate, anti-American prejudice is omnipresent. Many on the left believe in the theory of dependency, a notion that views economic development among advanced countries as being made possible by the exploitation of raw materials in the Third World. As the theory goes it is a zero sum game where Third World countries, including those in Latin America, have always been the losers.

There is also resentment over past American actions, particularly during the Cold War, where the U.S. supported right wing anti-communist dictatorships that often ended up violating human rights.

These widespread anti-American feelings have real consequences.  For example, Chavez’s love for Iran has not been limited to him and his allies in the ALBA group. Former Brazilian President Luis Inazio “Lula” Da Silva, considered to be a moderate, took the lead in trying to reach a compromise on Iran’s nuclear program that would have released the latter from any commitment to stop the program. Lula also received Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Brazil. Another so-called moderate leader, Uruguayan president Jose Mujica spoke about the special relations with Iran because Iran purchases Uruguayan rice. However, it was not merely a relation of convenience. A delegation from the Uruguayan Congress visited Iran with its president leading the visit.

Indeed, Iran has turned into a symbol of expressing anti-American feelings and repudiation of historical American influence throughout the continent. Mujica, himself, echoing Chavez called the current period a “second independence”. The government of Argentina, the third largest country in the region, has also an anti-imperialist discourse that even if it is not as blunt as the one conveyed by the Venezuelan leader, is still there. Argentinean president, Cristina Kirchner in the last conference of the Latin American and Caribbean Community of States (CELAC), referred to the problem of drug trafficking as follows: “the cause of the world’s problems has to do with those countries that have veto power in the international community and impose the rules by force”. With regard to drug trafficking she said that the “dead people are Latin Americans but the money is collected by somebody else”. President Kirchner suggested that money is being laundered in first World banks and thus she concluded that even drug trafficking benefits the First world.

This is a clear display of a political war or a war of ideas. What is worse, these ideas also influence those who are more moderate in their thinking.

In the case of anti-American propaganda there are also a set of circumstances that make the situation worse. There is a general perception of American decline as new powers emerge in the world competition. China is a case in point. China, as a relatively new player in the region, is seen by many in Latin America as a rising power with an economy that may soon overtake that of the United States. For those on the extreme left, China is a much more desirable trading partner because it is seen as being in competition with the U.S.  In spite of one’s political leanings, China is viewed favorably as a major purchaser of Latin American goods and as such having significantly contributed to the region’s growth.

The prospect of an “American defeat” has raised the euphoria of those like Chavez who want to see “the empire” collapse. But this has also been the source of rejoicing for less radical elements  in Latin America, including Lula whose tenure ended in 2010 and who with a smile on his face pointed out that the “recession is affecting the White American and European people”.

The influence that Chavez and his allies are having in regional forums such as the Organization of American States General Assembly (OAS), the Summit of the Americas, CELAC, and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), has had the effect of increasing tolerance towards anti-American and anti-democratic ideas.

The reaction of the U.S. Government is to keep a low profile in regional forums and downplay the expansion of negative forces in the region. We are seeing American diplomats praising Latin American leaders in hyperbole, generals downplaying security threats and the presence of Iran and the president of the United States, himself, declaring that there is no security challenge coming from the South. The U.S. has been successfully forced to take a back seat in order not to aggravate this menace and even denying that there is such a menace.

But the United States does not get any reward for taking a back seat. The American attitude is perceived as a sign of weakness and therefore, anti-American hostility grows worse.

Weakness generates a morbid pleasure on the other side. It is always weakness that invites more violence because it makes it easier for the perpetrator to carry it out.

To make up for this weakness no military action is needed. It is a matter of communication and projecting a resolute attitude.

We have not properly countered this misinformation coming from Latin America.

The U.S. government has this capacity to communicate to an international audience but is not using it very effectively. Currently, the Voice of America is used to broadcast news not to try to influence hearts and minds. This situation is different than the one that existed prior to 1999 before the United States Information Agency (USIA) was disbanded. (Since then the Voice of America was made part of the State Department).

This is why those who understand the power of ideas need to speak out.

It should not only be up to the U.S. Government to engage in this war of ideas but the work of thinkers, think-tanks , scholars and journalists who understand the negative message that is incubating in Latin America.

It is important to spread the idea that tyrannies will inevitably lead to enslavement of people even if they are now showing some largesse and claim to speak for the poor. A tyranny will end up hurting the poor and the hungry as it has come to pass in Cuba where the initial emigration of the rich was quickly followed by the emigration of the poor due to the oppressive conditions that existed and continue to exist.

It is important to point out that the militias and para-military groups being created by regimes such as the Venezuelan regime are aimed at establishing full political and existential control of the population and not for the purpose of defending the poor. It is necessary to say that this revolution, as in most revolutionary socialist countries, will end up being a Satanic, patrimonial sort of regime where a few people will have the monopoly over economic and state resources and govern at the expense of civil society.  Some observers are already comparing the Ortega regime in Nicaragua with the decades long rule of the Somoza family.

It is also absolutely imperative to remind people that attacks against the judiciary are going to harm justice, in general. Likewise, attacks against the press will undermine the freedom of everyone, rich and poor alike.

It is also crucial to explain why the United States is a force for good.

Average Latin Americans including some non-leftists are not aware of the role the United States has played as an armed and economically powerful democracy. China may be a major buyer of Latin American goods but are we willing to live in societies dominated by oppressive elites as people live in China?

It must be made clear that if the power of America declines in the world, the alternative is not going to be another big democracy. When Great Britain ceased to be an empire and its power declined, the United States emerged as the new power. However, the United States was the continuation of Great Britain in so far as it was a mighty democracy.

Now there is no democratic alternative to the United States.  No big power will speak for freedom, with the exception of the European Union. If China or Russia gains strong international power, the status of freedom and human rights will diminish as well. Who will carry out a moral policy as the U.S. and its European allies did during the Bosnian and the Libyan crisis?

China and Russia have been staunch supporters of the tyranny of Bashar Al Assad in Syria. China is suspicious of democracy and democratic movements because its leadership fears the rise of a democratic movement in its territory. Therefore, it will tend to support tyranny.   It is no wonder that Hugo Chavez feels close and has encouraged relations with both China and Russia

We at the Menges Hemispheric Security Project have spoken in Spanish media outlets, including those in Venezuela, explaining the tyrannical nature of the Chavez regime, the role of the United States as a force for good and why it is important for the United States to participate in the war of ideas.

Left-wing governments and some people in Latin America are drunk with a sense of economic success. However, the continuation of future economic growth is as uncertain as the continuation of democracy.

In Latin America, the war of ideas is no less intense than the war within the Arab and Muslim world between the radicals and the moderates. We are taking the latter seriously, as it should be. However, we are taking the former lightly as it should not be.

The original article can be read here.