Tag Archives: UNASUR

The Challenge After the Venezuelan Elections

Joyous celebrations have taken place across Venezuela as the opposition resoundingly defeated the ruling Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) founded by Hugo Chavez and now led by Nicolas Maduro.

The victory was overwhelming as the opposition won 112 seats in the Venezuelan parliament while the ruling party retained 55 seats. It is the first time since the year 2000 that the PSUV is not in power.

While there are many reasons to celebrate this unprecedented victory, this is only the beginning of a liberation process that will face serious resistance by a ruthless government that still controls the executive power and is even trying to expand its power in the few remaining weeks before the National Assembly is handed over to the opposition.

The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), a regional organization that has supported the Chavista government in Venezuela, commended President Maduro for having quickly recognized his defeat. But the reality is different.

It was the Venezuelan Defense Minister, General Vladimir Padrino Lopez, who resisted attempts by Maduro and the president of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, to resort to fraud and refuse to recognize the electoral results.

General Padrino Lopez, a supporter of the regime who has strongly believed in the role of the army in strengthening the Bolivarian Revolution, refused to cooperate with Maduro and Cabello. His argument was that this would have generated extreme violence.

In other words, the military, which the Chavista government cultivated for more than a decade purging opponents and rewarding key officers, withdrew its unconditional support from the government. Furthermore, polls among the military showed a trend similar to the one shown by the civilians that there was overwhelming support for the opposition.

The idea of committing fraud was raised a few days before the election in a meeting that took place in the largest military base in Caracas between the top political leaders (including Maduro and Cabello), the top military leadership, the intelligence and security apparatus, and at least one representative from the Cuban government. Cuba has been the architect of the Venezuelan repressive apparatus and the staunchest supporter of the Maduro regime.

A few days after the election, Maduro announced a change in his cabinet in order to carry out “re-structuration”. However, this is most likely a plot to expel the Defense Minister. Yet, it could well be that discontent in the army is such that the removal of General Padrino Lopez may not be enough to restore the support of the army. If this is the case we will soon know.

Maduro will do whatever he can to use the executive power to undermine the opposition. The government has already proceeded to appoint 12 judges to the Supreme Court with a clear Chavista identity. In addition, it decided to transfer the official radio and TV station of the National Assembly to the workers (mostly Chavistas) in order to prevent the new National Assembly from firing these government employees or use these official media to spread different political ideas.

On their part, the newly elected leaders of the National Assembly already declared they will give an amnesty to political prisoners and promised new laws to revive the decimated private sector. But these steps are likely to be undermined by the government who already pledged to continue the revolution. In addition, what Maduro is really counting on is that the opposition will undermine itself by infighting and internal squabbles. IT IS, THEREFORE CRITICAL FOR THE OPPOSITION TO REMAIN UNITED IF THEY ARE TO SUCCEED.

It is likely that blood will be spilled. The Maduro government’s paramilitary and gangs of lumpen and common criminals will be mobilized and chaos might increase.

With regard to the international contest, support for Maduro is fading. As we pointed out in our last article the regional block that has supported the Chavez/Maduro regime seems to be undergoing a crisis

The Secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, contrary to his predecessor, Jose Miguel Insulza, stressed the importance of respecting the democratic process and the obligation of the government of Venezuela to guarantee all the necessary liberties to the population and the press. He denounced the suppression of opposition candidates and the incarceration of political opponents. The Chilean Government, by order of the Chilean Supreme Court, is expected to request that the OAS be allowed to visit political prisoners in Venezuela. This is a significant step.

By the same token, the government of President Cristina Kirchner, a strong supporter of the Venezuelan regime will leave power on December 10th. The Brazilian workers party, another supporter of Venezuela is under serious public scrutiny as well as questions about its legitimacy due to numerous government scandals and government corruption.

The U.S. government must now monitor the situation in Venezuela and adhere to a strict human rights policy.

Neither normalization nor accommodation with  Maduro should be sought. However, the Obama Administration should strengthen relations with the new leaders of the National Assembly by giving them the recognition they deserve since they represent the true will of the majority. Likewise, the Administration should seriously address with the new legislative leaders other important issues such as the Government’s connections with drug trafficking and terror.

By the same token, the Obama Administration should take advantage of the new shift in the OAS and actively encourage a human rights agenda and the implementation of the organization’s democratic charter.

Finally, the Obama Administration must also reinforce relations with the governments of Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay and Chile to support a change in all the issues mentioned above.

The Meaning of Venezuela’s Aggressive Moves Against Colombia

According to many analysts, the Venezuelan government has now lost its legitimacy. Its insistence on following its failed economic policies while promoting criminality instead of the rule of law and jailing its opponents while rigging its computers so as to commit electoral fraud has led many observers to conclude that Venezuela is no longer a functioning country. From now onward, its modus operandi is simply to survive and maintain power. Keeping the Bolivarian Revolution alive has always been the driving force of the Venezuelan government. The well being of the people was just an excuse that gave legitimacy to the new revolutionaries.

The evils and flaws of the regime are now quite apparent. However, there are those that still support the regime such as the nomenclature, the circle of people that surrounds and empowers the regime; the opportunists who have benefited from their association with the regime and became rich in the process (e.g. the boliburguesia); and those poor people that remain grateful to the Bolivarian regime for distributing government handouts.

Of course, this may not be enough to help the Venezuelan government survive through the next election.

Currently, the price of oil is at $40 a barrel. The Venezuelan government has designed its budget based on at least $60 a barrel. The country has lost its productive capacity. Scarcity of basic products has been a serious problem for the long-suffering Venezuelan people. Given the limited reserves available to  the Venezuelan government as a result of having destroyed their productive apparatus and having spent enormous amounts of money on populist policies and foreign aid there is currently not even enough to import what the Venezuelan people need. In response, the Venezuelan government is resorting to fascist methods such as falsely accusing opposition leader, Leopoldo Lopez of creating chaos in an already chaotic, insecure, and criminal country.

Another of Nicolas Maduro’s tactics has been to brazenly accuse innocent Colombian refugees living in Venezuela of smuggling and has proceeded to deport them in the most degrading circumstances. The world saw shocking images of hundreds of Colombians with families and little children crossing a border river carrying refrigerators and heavy household items, as well as animals.

The accusation is that they smuggle goods, import poverty to Venezuela, and enable the infiltration of Colombian para-military into Venezuela. However, there was also a bold attempt to blame Colombian foreigners for the Venezuelan economic deterioration. Thus, it declared martial law in all the municipalities bordering with Colombia.

The actions taken by the Venezuelan government with respect to Colombia are not only morally deplorable but also absurd and cynical in themselves. First the only paramilitary group that has entered Colombia is the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the narco-terrorist Colombian guerrilla group that is friendly to the Venezuelan government and hostile to the Colombian one.

However, the main point here is that Maduro needed to find a scapegoat and used Colombia and Colombians to cast aside blame from himself for the disastrous state of present day Venezuela.

Unfortunately, the government of Colombia under the leadership of President Juan Miguel Santos formerly sought reconciliation with the Venezuelan government, supported the government of Venezuela in international and regional forums and accepted a dialogue with its arch enemy, the FARC mediated by Venezuela (and Cuba). The latter move was fully supported by the Obama Administration.

Now the government of Colombia, to no surprise, has been betrayed by the government of Venezuela in what is clearly a foretold situation.

What is worse, the organization of American States (OAS) voted against a Colombian proposal to have a meeting to discuss the border situation and the deportations.

The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) has delayed discussion of the issue. The “humanitarian and compassionate” left sided again with the Maduro government even as human beings were suffering as a result of discrimination policies.

Thus, the Santos Government has appealed to the Interamerican Commission for Human Rights of the OAS, which is willing to consider the case. Santos finds himself alone again in a continent whose behavior is sickening. The Colombian Foreign Minister, Maria Angela Holguin, pledged not to remain silent in the face of Venezuelan behavior and will appeal to the United Nations and other international bodies.

We would hope that Santos now realizes that his policy of reconciliation with the FARC and Venezuela is nothing but a dangerous illusion. As such it needs a serious re-evaluation. The Maduro government has appealed to the most unacceptable methods to save itself and in the process has betrayed the Santos government. Will the stubborn President Santos learn the lesson? We only hope.

This is only in anticipation of what the upcoming Venezuelan legislative elections on December 6 are going to be: a huge fraud likely to be followed by a popular rebellion.

Of course, this is also going to be a challenge for the Obama Administration.

Obama’s policy of complacency with a group of countries that do not share any values of democracy and human rights needs to stop. . So far, Obama’s policies have been an attempt to adapt to the spirit of the new Latin America. Nothing embodies this spirit more than UNASUR, which has supported the Maduro regime and displayed disregard for the democratic charter of the Organization of American States. Will the Obama administration continue to follow the Latin American and UNASUR wind and continue with its’ efforts to reconcile with the narco-authoritarian state of Venezuela that is also allied with the Hezbollah terrorists? Will it continue to endorse the failed Colombian policy of cooperation with Venezuela and the FARC?

If the current Iran deal experience has taught us anything it is that official U.S. foreign policy requires strong Congressional and public scrutiny. The constitutional tradition that assumed that the executive branch is well equipped and wise enough to make autonomous decisions on foreign policy is under serious question now.

Major crises are now affecting many of the counties of Latin America. The Brazilian, Venezuelan, Ecuadorian and Argentinean economic and political crisis could well lead to the entire questioning of the regional ideology embedded in UNASUR. To conduct a regional policy aimed at complying with the current spirit in Latin America as the Obama Administration suggested, is not only dangerous but obsolete as well. We need to remain faithful to our values of democracy and human rights and not throw a lifeline to repressive, corrupt regimes that also work against our national security interests, such as Venezuela.

Free or Fraudulent in Venezuela’s Upcoming Elections

In mid-June, Thomas Shannon, a senior counselor to Secretary of State John Kerry, met with the leader of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello. Cabello is the second most powerful man in the Venezuelan regime and is also being prosecuted in the U.S. for leading a drug cartel that has reportedly shipped tons of cocaine into the United States

According to Venezuela ‘s official version, the meeting was part of a “normalization” process between the two countries.

Whereas, it is not clear what the two men discussed, it is reasonable to assume that the Venezuelan government’s decision to hold parliamentary elections on December 6, despite initial hesitations and objections, was the result of this meeting. From Cabello’s perspective the meeting provided good propaganda showing him as a statesman not a drug kingpin. In terms of any normalization between the two countries, the State Department’s conditions were; the setting of a date for parliamentary elections; allowing outside election monitors and freeing all political prisoners including the leader of the opposition, Leopoldo Lopez. Therefore, the question remains whether or not the Administration has accomplished its aims.

Although Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro agreed to hold parliamentary elections, there has been no commitment- as far as we know- to release opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez from prison or for that matter none of the 70 political prisoners currently held by the Venezuelan government without trial and without proven charges.

Secondly, parliamentary elections will be held at a time when Maduro’s approval rating, according to the latest public opinion surveys, is only at 25%. Thirdly, the Venezuelan people are suffering from a shortage of basic goods, high crime rates, staggering inflation, repression and a general sense of insecurity. Given these conditions, it makes sense for the authoritarian Venezuelan government to assume that if free and honest elections were held, the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) would likely face defeat.

Those of us who have followed the Bolivarian government’s behavior for more than one and a half decades have reached the clear conclusion that the PSUV leadership, past and present, has always viewed its rule as a revolution that is here to stay. Thus, Chavez, then, and Maduro now have aspired to perpetuate their power. Therefore, it is almost certain that the Maduro government will resort to fraud.   Indeed, the head of the Venezuelan Electoral Council (CNE) already declared that only the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) would be allowed to observe the elections.

UNASUR is an organization founded by Chavez that has given coverage to everything Venezuela has done, particularly regarding human rights and democracy violations. UNASUR, like the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) are two organizations created with the purpose of bypassing the OAS (including its democratic charter) and excluding the United States and Canada

In the past, fraud was never proven, although a lot signs of electoral fraud have been registered in Venezuela. Thus, the challenge for the U.S. is not just to take the promise of an election as an ultimate accomplishment. The U.S. must push for the creation of a legitimate international mechanism that can monitor the multiple elements that in the past have raised suspicion of fraud such as the number of voters, the registered names, the computer system and others. This will require an assertive position by this administration.

From the Venezuelan perspective, “normalization” with the United States would mean giving up their anti-Americanism which is part of the main thrust of the Bolivarian revolution’s identity. Being the leader of anti-U.S. policies has given the revolution prestige and regional status throughout Latin America, which is something the regime may not want to give up.

As for the United States, our best hope is to push for outside, independent election monitors if we expect the regime to be defeated by the ballot. “Normalization” with the Venezuelan government with its anti-democratic, repressive policies and criminal behavior holds no benefits for us.

Now, it is up to the Congress to step in and press the president to take an aggressive position in this direction in the same way that Congress forced the Administration to impose crippling sanctions on Iran and even sanctions against Venezuelan violators of human rights. Congress acting in a bi-partisan way could obtain the consensus and the initiative needed to conduct an assertive hemispheric policy. As Congressman Elliot Engel, a veteran member of the House Sub-Committee on the Western Hemisphere recently pointed out “ It is in this hemisphere where we live and we cannot neglect it despite the existence of more pressing issues in other parts of the world”

Latin American Backlash to U.S. Sanctions on Venezuela

On March 9th President Obama issued an executive order implementing The Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, which he signed last December 18th.  This measure blocks the property and interests in property of seven top Venezuelan government officials and would also block the property and interests in property of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State.

The presidential order has imposed sanctions on mostly the top echelon of the state security apparatus   in charge of the repression during the 2014 anti- government demonstrations.

Although, this executive order is a good first step, it omits to punish the president, his cabinet and his closest civilian aides. Likewise, punitive measures are not being applied to lower ranking officers who have committed human right violations despite the fact that human rights organizations have provided names and details about these individuals and their transgressions.

Yet, president Obama’s executive order is the most positive element in a series of events inside Venezuela that have been more than dishonorable.

First, Nicolas Maduro imprisoned Antonio Ledesma, the mayor of Metropolitan Caracas in a most violent and humiliating way. Ledesma’s “crime” was just being an opponent of the Maduro regime.  While Ledesma was Mayor of Caracas, the Venezuelan government tried to duplicate the functions of city hall in order to disempower the mayor. Likewise, the central government made several changes in order to undertake functions, which belonged to the Caracas city hall.

Then, as a result of demonstrations in the state of Tachira, security forces reacted violently killing a 14-year-old child. Although the Maduro government arrested a policeman in the case, that killing was also the result of government policy. Indeed, the government adopted a resolution allowing riot police to use firearms to control protests effectively lifting police restrictions in handling demonstrators.

Besides the human rights violations mentioned above, the economic situation deteriorates day by day up to the point where there is scarcity of basic goods. . Thus, people stand in long lines to purchase food and other basic products. Often the police have kept order by using violence to control people’s wrath while standing in line. The government has also organized “popular military groups” to control the long lines in what Diosdado Cabello, president of the national Assembly says is  “an economic war against Venezuela”.

The government of Venezuela has made and continues to make huge mistakes and carries out bad polices while blaming the private sector or the United States. According to President Maduro, problems inside Venezuela are due to a conspiracy organized from Washington, which then causes public discontent, not the Venezuelan government’s misguided policies.

In the meantime, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) has stepped up an effort “to resolve” the Venezuelan crisis.

As was expected, this body, whose mission is to promote regional integration and cooperation between the countries and includes the most important countries in the continent, issued a statement in support of the Maduro government.

In that statement, UNASUR’s Secretary, Ernesto Samper, a corrupt, former president of Colombia who was denied entry to the U.S. due to the fact that his presidential campaign received funds from drug cartels, pointed out that the organization “rejects any attempt to destabilize the Venezuelan democracy”.  Likewise, UNASUR took very seriously Maduro’s claim that there is an attempt to depose him through a military coup organized in the air force with support from the United States. UNASUR supported this paranoid vision after a meeting between Maduro and the foreign ministers of Colombia, Brazil, and Ecuador.

Ironically, Samper called for a dialogue between the Venezuelan government and the opposition, knowing such an   effort has proven to be futile time and again. The government has never seriously negotiated with the opposition and has made crystal clear that it wants to hold its power forever. So Samper’s proposal is nothing but a ploy to avoid making a decision on Venezuela.

This disgraceful attitude by UNASUR is likely to affect the Organization of American States (OAS). On March 18th, a new secretary will be named to replace the outgoing secretary, Jose Miguel Insulza. There is only one candidate and he is no other than the former Uruguayan foreign minister, Luis Almagro. Almagro is a staunch supporter of the Maduro regime and has strong connections with Iran.   He served as a commercial attaché in Teheran for about five years and under his watch commercial relations between the two countries flourished. Likewise, a Uruguayan parliamentary delegation visited Teheran to strengthen relations with Iran. Almagro defined Uruguay and Iran as “two countries that fight against injustice and oppression”.

In the face of these facts, the OAS is not expected to apply its democratic charter unless the left loses elections in key countries in Latin America.

Cuba, a country with whom the Obama Administration seeks to normalize relations, stood firmly in support of Maduro. The U.S. should also use its negotiations with Cuba as a means to demand that the dozens of    Cubans who are helping to develop the Venezuelan security apparatus be removed from Venezuela. If such a demand is not made, the U.S. will look like an accomplice of this immoral UNASUR attitude.

It is vitally important that the United States stand firm in its own principles and continue its pressure on Venezuela and even increase and expand sanctions as long as human rights violations, arrests of opposition figures and repression continues.  The same applies in the case of Cuba where the U.S. must also resolutely demand from Cuba that human rights be fully respected and that Cuba cease its support of the Venezuelan repressive apparatus.

The human rights agenda is not only a moral imperative. It is also an issue of national security as President Obama pointed out in his executive order. It is a security issue because more and more dictatorships are being elected in Latin America and have accumulated enormous power. Then, they use this power to carry out an agenda and this agenda includes dangerous items such as increasing connections to drug cartels, terrorist groups, Iran, and other elements that endanger regional and U.S. security.

The time has come to develop a consistent strategy to counteract the current dangers in Latin America.

Standing Up for Human Rights and Democracy in Venezuela

Many events have occurred since protests broke out in Venezuela several weeks ago, including the killing of 25 people by the government’s paramilitary. In addition, more than 1,000 people were arrested and others simply disappeared.

Contrary to the Venezuelan president’s pronouncements, this protest movement is composed mostly of  young people, not of  fascists or the old “oligarchy”. They are not rich and they are not spoiled. These are young people who see no future in a Venezuela that is turning more totalitarian and more repressive as time goes by.

These street mobilizations represent a social movement that could not find in the political system any expression. They are not demanding more food, salary increases, or personal advantage. They are fighting for their freedom and for their dignity. The slogan “Give me liberty or give me death” becomes very much a reality as these protestors find the status –quo in Venezuela increasingly unbearable.

Events in Venezuela encouraged Ecuadorians to vote against the regime of Rafael Correa in recent  municipal elections. Correa is a Chavez- follower who is attempting to impose on his people a Bolivarian footprint through his “Citizenship Revolution”. Indeed, Ecuador’s opposition won control of the capital Quito and the large industrial city of Cuenca. Likewise, the port city of Guayaquil continues under the control of the opposition. Correa, himself, admitted the results of the election were  a setback for the “Citizens Revolution” and pointed out that it will be harder to govern in light of  these losses. Correa, unsurprisingly,  accused the elected mayor of Quito of being a fascist- right wing conspirator.

Meanwhile, in Colombia President Manuel Santos took heavy loses in the Congressional elections, while former president Alvaro Uribe’s Democratic Center won a good number of seats. Although Santos keeps the majority in Congress, his coalition has considerably weakened.  Santos, though not part of the Bolivarian coalition, has adopted a more liberal position and is now   to negotiating a peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) under the auspices of Cuba and Venezuela. Indirectly, the result of this election represents a rejection of Santos’ FARC policies and his closeness with the countries mentioned above.

In fact, after being criticized by the Venezuelan president for helping to foment the protests along with the U.S., Santos abandoned the protesters in favor of Maduro’s phony peace plan.

Then there was the Organization of American States (OAS) that met to discuss the situation in Venezuela at the request of Panama.  After 15 hours of debate the OAS approved a declaration that rejected violence and called for justice for the people that have died in Venezuela. However, the declaration still offered support for the Venezuelan government’s peace initiative. Considering how the Maduro government operates,  all that  can be expected from this initiative is for the government to gain time while tightening the repressive screws further  and proceeding to  deepen the Bolivarian revolution. This is why the opposition remains skeptical about  this move and feels that  it is manipulation on the part of the government. In that sense the U.S. took the right position demanding that a trusted third party be the mediator in such dialogue; rightly implying that the Venezuelan government is not trustworthy.

Yet, twenty-nine countries voted in favor of the declaration with the exception of the U.S, Canada and Panama. In addition the OAS Secretary-General, José Miguel Insulza said that the current crisis in Venezuela “does not affect democracy in the continent”. Therefore he sees no reason to invoke the OAS democratic charter. This is characteristic of Insulza who consistently has turned a blind eye to human right issues and democratic institutional deterioration in the Venezuelan Bolivarian Republic.

The events described above confirmed that Insulza and the OAS have totally sided with the Bolivarian revolution. The countries of the region have shown once again that a government of the left is more valuable to them than democracy or human rights. The Chilean president, Michelle Bachelet, pointed out that her government “will never accept the deposal of a government that was legitimately elected” as if the Maduro government were the Swedish or the Dutch government.   Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff stated, “Venezuela is not the Ukraine” since “Venezuela has achieved important social gains in democracy for the poorest sectors of the population and that those gains should be preserved”. Likewise, she insinuated that protests bring about “institutional rupture”.  Really? What is the Bolivarian revolution if not the institutional destruction of the legislative and judicial powers of government and the undermining of democracy? Are the social achievements for the poor reflected in an improvement of their condition or was the destruction of the middle class to anyone’s benefit?

Indeed, as the Mexican intellectual, Enrique Krauze recently  pointed out that soon the poor pro-Chavez masses are likely to join the protests since scarcity and inflation have affected them as well.

The U.S. administration said all the right things in opposing the OAS position and criticizing  Maduro’s peace initiative in  defense of the protestors.

A few days later the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) met in Santiago, Chile,   and decided to send a commission to Venezuela to oversee political dialogue toward recovering peace. This was accepted by Venezuela.

Yet, it is unlikely that the UNASUR Commission, given its past support for the Bolivarian government, would have the desire or ability  to restore a constitutional democracy with proper guarantees.

That is why the U.S. Congress has taken some important steps.

First the House of Representatives  passed a resolution condemning the Venezuelan government and supporting the protestors.  Then, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen followed with a letter to Secretary Kerry urging him to take a more active role in the OAS in an effort to support democracy and human rights. The same letter, which was signed by a substantial number of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, calls for cutting the amount of oil the U.S.  imports from Venezuela.

On the Senate side, a similar bipartisan resolution introduced by Senators Robert Menendez and Marco Rubio passed the upper house unanimously. Consequently, both houses of Congress are now moving these letters and resolutions into bills. In the House of Representatives the “‘Venezuelan Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act’’ introduced by Florida Representatives Ros-Lehtinen and Ted Deutch calls to impose international sanctions and deny [o1]  U.S. visas against the government of Venezuela with respect to foreign persons who are responsible or accomplices to human rights abuses.

In the Senate, Menendez and Rubio introduced a bill that is similar to the one in the House but also authorizes $15 million to NGO’s and organizations that defend human rights and civil society as well as independent media. This bill, called the “Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act” also calls for sanctions against those responsible for human rights abuses.

Some may say that the actions that have been taken  are insufficient.   Maybe so, but these legislative initiatives  are extremely important because Venezuela is finally getting the attention  it should have had ten  years ago. In addition, it shows moral support for the protesters and gives credence and recognition to their cause.

As I and my fellow presenter, Michael Rowan,  gave a briefing on  Capitol Hill early in March  we could sense there was a higher degree of interest in the issue among members of Congress and more of a willingness to take a stand.

The resolutions and possible new legislation  in Congress could be a  good first step towards encouraging  the Obama Administration to play a more active role in the region and apply sanctions against a regime that is definitely an enemy of the United States. Not buying Venezuelan oil or importing significantly less of it would go a long way in weakening the regime.

That is  why it is important not to let this moment go. The moment protests cease in Venezuela the world will forget the tragedy of this country, and UNASUR and other neighboring countries will return to their bad habit of defending the Bolivarian Revolution in spite of their undemocratic actions and human rights abuses.

In a larger context, events  in Venezuela are not only a problem for  Venezuela but for the entirety of Latin America.  This is why the title of my recent book is “Latin America in the Post-Chavez Era” and not “Venezuela in the Post Chavez Era”. The Bolivarian Revolution is a transnational revolution, it has affected Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. This is without mentioning Cuba that was on board all along. Likewise, countries such as Argentina have adopted a Bolivarian style of government and rhetoric without necessarily adopting a full Bolivarian blueprint.

Therefore, protests in Venezuela need to be supported by Latin American citizens from all across the region and by Americans as well.

The case of Paraguay: A challenging ally

The land-locked country of Paraguay, neatly tucked between Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia is seldom given much notice. However, there are elements of the country that are worth taking a look at.  Last April Paraguay elected a new president, Horacio Cartes.

Cartes is a member of the Colorado party, a party that held Paraguay’s presidency for 60 years. Thirty five of those years were ones   of dictatorship. Cartes, however, joined the Colorado Party only four years ago.

Cartes’s election took place ten months after former President Fernando Lugo (2008-2012) was impeached and deposed by the Paraguayan congress.  That move by the Paraguayan legislature was seen by many countries in the region as a coup and as a result of that Paraguay was suspended from the South American Free Trade zone (Mercosur) as well as from the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and faced regional isolation.

The election took place against the background of several corruption scandals including a Senator that used his influence to secure lucrative jobs for his children’s nanny. As the investigation unfolded, Congress voted against stripping the Senator from immunity from criminal investigation. This created public outrage and ensuing protests that led to the overrruling of the Senator’s immunity so as to allow prosecution. Likewise, public outrage and presssure played a role in forcing the Supreme Court to grant a radio host the right (previously denied) to investigate the salaries of municipal workers.

As soon as he came to power, Cartes approved the investigation of  the corruption scandals. In  Paraguay, the Congress is seen  as being rather  corrupt  in that the old traditional parties dominate and protect each other and clean up each other’s mess, as we have seen in the case of the nanny scandal. Paradoxically, this explains why Cartes has seen the executive power as a counterbalance to Congressional impunity. Cartes established a new rule where government bids do not have to undergo Congressional approval. Likewise, he appointed technocrats rather than political insiders to his cabinet in order to manage the state like a business. This is a model of executive power similar to the one General Pinochet established in Chile. The difference is that the latter was a dictatorship while Paraguay is a formal and under-developed democracy (but a democracy, nonetheless).

Yet, in the long run if the problem of congressional trust and transparency does not get resolved    = the democratic system cannot rely on the executive power alone. In that case, the president will end up being as unaccountable as a monarch in the 18th century and transparency will depend solely on the moral character of the president, an unreliable resort.  Modern constitutions exist precisely because the assumption is that government will not do the right thing without a proper system of checks and balances.

Still, it is important to point out that Cartes’s actions reflect public contempt for a Congress whose elected officials follow personal agendas rather than the public welfare and where constituencies do not see its members as true representatives of their interests and concerns.

Paraguay, despite substantial economic growth (mostly due to the high price of its commodities in the world market), has 33% of its population living in poverty. Likewise, large landownership remains a contentious issue in Paraguay that triggered former President Lugo to pursue land reform, although unsuccessfully due to conservative resistance in Congress. If the Paraguayan president fails to respond to the population’s needs, a crisis of legitimacy in the political class is likely to take place. Such a crisis might also bring about an unpredictable populist regime.

A report by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation places Paraguay among the countries in the region that has suffered setbacks and reversals in its democracy. Along with Guatemala and Venezuela, Paraguay is considered under the category of “minimal democratic development”. Likewise, the U.S. Congressional Research Service reported in 2010 that Paraguayan corruption is a major obstacle in consolidating democratic institutions in the country.

Paraguay, besides having problems of corruption and transparency, is also known for being a country friendly to smugglers and traffickers. Paraguay is the largest producer of cannabis in South America, which is mostly smuggled to Brazil. In fact, the recent legalization of marijuana in Uruguay, according to the Uruguayan government, was to avoid the Paraguayan model where drug trafficking and drug growing have increased criminal activities. Cartes, himself, was suspected by the U.S Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of having been involved in drug trafficking and money laundering. He has been scrutinized by U.S law enforcement for a number of years over illicit activities.   Cartes is a multi-millionaire  who owns a multiplicity of big businesses. He was previously incarcerated  for 60 days over currency fraud.

Cartes promised to fight poverty and improve the quality of government services, particularly health services. He also set up the goal of improving education by making free education more accessible and adapting it to the needs of the labor market and economic development.

Cartes seems to understand the need for reforms in order to improve the social and economic problems affecting the nation. He also supports free markets and foreign investment and believes that this is the only way to make the nation more productive.

Paraguay’s External Relations

As a result of the Lugo impeachment, Paraguay was suspended from Mercosur. Until then, Paraguay was the only country that objected to Venezuela’s inclusion in the group, because the Paraguayan legislature refused their entry.  After Paraguay’s suspension, Mercosur took advantage of the move to approve Venezuela’s membership.  It remains a fact that Paraguay stood alone against Venezuela when the rest of the countries were flattering and flirting with the Venezuelan populist tyranny.

After Cartes became president, Paraguay was readmitted to Mercosur. This fits the Cartes agenda as his domestic economic policy is tied to foreign trade. The president declared that he is not looking for fights. This means that he is not likely to continue to resist the advance of Venezuela’s leverage in the region.  In fact, early in December, Cartes traveled to Bolivia and met with President Evo Morales, an ally of Venezuela, to renew trade relations.

However, one major dilemma for Cartes could be the increasing activities of the insurgent group, the Paraguayan People’s Army (EPP).)

Last August the EPP, a Marxist-Leninist group, carried out a terrorist attack by abducting security guards at a ranch. The insurgents then freed a supervisor, who rushed to inform the authorities of what had happened, and then the EPP ambushed the police officers when they arrived. Five people were killed.

According to a New York Times Report the EPP “is evolving from a ghostlike irritant for the authorities in Asunción, the capital, into a broader security threat in a backcountry that is already a hub for traffickers of marijuana, defiantly cultivated here on sprawling plantations, and Andean cocaine smuggled into Brazil and Argentina”.

The group has intensified its operations, terrorizing the population, and killing peasants accused of collaborating with the authorities. In 2013 alone, the group perpetrated 22 attacks.  Likewise, the EPP has increased its control over more and more territory in Paraguay itself (particularly in the northern part of the country in the border with Brazil) and has managed to elude the Paraguayan government’s efforts to hunt them.

Shortly after taking office, Cartes managed to pass an amendment in Congress to the law of national defense that enabled the military to take part in internal security. Thus, Cartes immediately dispatched military troops to the north.

The EPP keeps a strong relation with the FARC and its methods are often similar to the Colombian guerilla group.

As the FARC and the Bolivarian revolution have strong ties and as the FARC is involved in negotiations with Colombia, tensions between Venezuela and Paraguay are expected.

As we have mentioned, Paraguay suffers from corruption, smuggling and drug trafficking. By developing better relations with Paraguay the U.S should work with the country in strengthening democracy and legality and help Paraguay to stop being the bastion of drug trafficking it now is.

In a changing continent such as Latin America where traditional alliances are no more, Paraguay could be an important asset to the United States.

Union of South American Nations Give a Nod to Chavez’s Successor

Nicolas Maduro was sworn in as president of Venezuela on April 19 in the presence of a number of Latin American presidents including, Rouseff of Brazil, Kirchner of Argentina, Ortega of Nicaragua, Morales of Bolivia, and even Santos of Colombia. A place of honor was given to the Cuban dictator, Raul Castro along with the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who as a regular visitor to Venezuela was also present for the ceremony.

The irony is that even as Maduro was sworn in as president, the Electoral National Council (CNE), the body in charge of supervising elections, approved a recount of a portion of the votes (not all the votes as the opposition demanded). Due to the closeness of the vote and amid claims that there were about 3,000 irregularities on Election Day, the CNE agreed to recount 12,000 ballot boxes.

The obvious contradiction is that the CNE which is an agency controlled by the ruling party, allowed Maduro to be inaugurated while new results could have led to a different electoral outcome. In that case, the CNE would have had to ask Maduro to step down. But I said “in theory” because there is no way the leader of the opposition, Henrique Capriles Radonski, would have ever been allowed to win.

It is not only shameful and worrisome that the CNE has once again manipulated the outcome of the Venezuelan elections but that the Union of South American Nations went along with it.  Indeed, UNASUR was convened in an emergency meeting to discuss the crisis in Venezuela. After a three hour debate the organization decided to recognize Maduro’s victory.

At the meeting, eight heads of state recognized the outcome of the election. However, what is most unnerving is the fact that UNASUR also welcomed “the decision of the CNE to carry out the auditing and the recount of the votes” and called for a dialogue between the parties.

Let us not fool ourselves about the statement by UNASUR which is nothing but complicity with the actions of the Bolivarian government. The contradiction in which the CNE is immersed also applies to UNASUR.

How can they recognize Maduro and support a recount? Don’t they think that there is a contradiction between recognizing a president whose election is still in doubt and a few weeks later perhaps recognizing another president?

It is obvious that the UNASUR leadership, like the Venezuelan CNE, cannot tolerate anyone but Maduro as president. The obvious reason is because Maduro represents a continuation of Chavez’s policies while Capriles Radonski would dramatically turn away from those policies. Chavez has been seen as a symbol of Latin American unity and regional economic integration even as many countries in the region support this idea including conservative ones.

UNASUR countries also supported a call for a dialogue. These leaders are the same ones that witnessed Maduro’s inaugural speech as he blasted the opposition in a polarizing tone and spoke about “a revolution within the revolution” (which means nothing but the radicalization of the revolution).

Furthermore, the Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff and the Peruvian president, Ollanta Humala expressed concern over the threat of political instability in Venezuela.  Do these leaders believe that there was stability in Venezuela before the April 14th elections? If there had been stability then how would new elections create instability?

In other words, the cynicism of the Brazilian and Peruvian leaders reaches a climax here as both subtly expressed their preference for the authoritarian “stability” of the Bolivarian regime rather than supporting a democratic regime that includes different political and social voices.

A few weeks ago, a highly placed Brazilian representative told me in a private conversation that no other regime has experienced so many elections like the Venezuelan regime. (Argentinean president, Cristina Kirchner, said the same thing.)  He also added that there is a reason why Chavez came to power, perhaps suggesting that Chavismo is a historical necessity as many of his supporters claim and not simply an accident of fate.

How does this justify an overwhelmingly authoritarian, fraudulent and thuggish regime like the Bolivarian one?

Cristina Kirchner’s twitters are all religiously and ridiculously full of praise, nostalgia and tears for the Venezuelan tyrant who died on March 5th, 2013.

Many well-known academics, experts including some former and current high officials in the U.S. Government continue to say that things look good in Latin America without realizing or taking into consideration some of the more ominous developments there. For them “only consolidation of democracy and economic prosperity is on the horizon”.

By their decision to rubber stamp the Venezuelan election while not even allowing the recount to take place, the UNASUR countries have further legitimized authoritarian socialism which very well may have negative consequences for the future of democratic practices in the region.