How About Hugo

For Rice or any other member of the Bush White House to criticize any country for breaking those principles is laughable. A quick look at those principles, as outlined in Chapter II of the OAS Charter, shows the hypocrisy of Rice’s statements.

The United States, and the Bush regime specifically, have arguably broken every one of those principles in their dealings in South America. Backing coups and rebel groups; training torturers; funding political movements in an attempt to unseat elected leaders; imposing economic restraints that enrich a few while ensuring the majority remain poor; insisting on the privatization of basic human needs like water; and using trade measures to undermine the sovereignty of states--these are all very questionable actions.

The real point of the exercise is that the United States finds Hugo Chavez and the example he is setting for other South American leaders to be dangerous to the profit margins of American corporations. Since the Bush government has such close ties to the oil industry and considers the unimpeded flow of oil to fuel the USA’s fleet of sport utility vehicles a matter of national security, having a major supplier embrace socialistic principles is one of Bush’s nightmares.

Before Chavez came to power, Venezuela was very much an oligarchy. The rich determined policy, and, since what was good for the wealthy was also good for the USA, there was little conflict between the government of Venezuela and the government of the United States. Venezuelan oil flowed north cheaply, American corporations earned massive profits, and foreign ownership was mostly unfettered. In pre-Chavez Venezuela, the neo-conservative dream of capitalism run wild was an everyday reality.

The problem was that the majority of the Venezuelan people were living in poverty. Education and medical care were virtually nonexistent for much of the population. Roads not serving the neighbourhoods of the elites or the foreign corporations were substandard or absent. Adequate housing and land ownership for the working poor were little more than a pipe dream. Clean water and adequate food were a rarity among much of the population. For the working people of Venezuela the neo-conservative/neo-liberal dream was a trap of poverty and disease.

Then Hugo Chavez came to power. Contrary to the rhetoric spewing from Washington, he did so by winning an election with 56% of the vote. Chavez ran on a platform of change, and things changed.

Chavez instituted the Hydrocarbons Law, raising taxes for foreign investors in the oil sector from 16.6% to 30%, and giving Venezuela 30% of the royalties while ensuring the state has a controlling share of 51% in the companies.

This is not the kind of legislation that pleases George W. Bush and his friends in the oil industry. The US has been very vocal about that. The CIA is thought to have backed a coup that removed Chavez from office. The Venezuelan people and the military rose up and reinstated him, leaving the US government with egg on their faces. The US then backed a “strike” by the wealthy managers of the oil industry. Chavez won again. The next step was to back a recall bid by the oligarchical elites. Chavez easily won re-election.

Lately the United States has again become vocal in denouncing Chavez. Their cries are becoming more desperate, calling him dictatorial, and even challenging his sanity. The reasons for this are twofold: the need to control oil, and the failure of neo-liberal trade policies. Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution is spreading around South America. Several left-leaning leaders have been elected and have expressed support for Chavez and entered into trade agreements with Venezuela.

While Washington sits and fumes, leftist populism in South America is rising. On her junket to Brazil, Rice was gently chided by the Brazilian trade minister not to interfere in Venezuela. While the Bush administration sees Chavez’s policies as communist totalitarianism, most of South America sees those same policies as being democratic and populist and are happy to be getting out from under the thumb of neo-liberal economic plans that trap their nations in debt while ensuring that the wealth remains in the hands of a very few at the top of the social ladder or is exported back to the United States and Europe.

The US is very concerned because Chavez has become very close to their old nemesis, Fidel Castro. What they fail to see is that, while Fidel Castro is far from perfect, he is far better than the Batista regime that preceded him. When the new breed of South American leaders, with Chavez leading the way, look at the policies being pushed on them by the United States, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the G-7, and similarly ideological organisations, they see their own histories of poverty and class disparity leading in an almost unchanging line back to pre-Castro Cuba. Their political supporters see much the same thing.

That is the reason why names from the past are suddenly reappearing in the political lexicon of South America. The Bolivarian Revolution is the namesake of Simon Bolivar, who liberated Venezuela from the imperialism of the Spanish. Che Guevara is once again popular, the exploits of his youth having recently been made into a movie. They have become, once again, popular symbols of the fight against tyranny and imperialism in South America.

Fidel Castro is a symbol as well. He is also still alive, although increasingly frail, and has helped the leftist governments of South America by supplying teachers and doctors who are willing to work in the poorest neighbourhoods. That gives his symbolism the concrete weight of having visible action behind it. That he has evaded several assassination attempts by the US government over the years not only adds to his own legendary status, but gives credence to Hugo Chavez when he speaks of US interference in elections, attempted coups, and possible assassination plots by the CIA.

The US government was greatly concerned when they learned of Venezuelan plans to buy 100,000 AK-47 rifles from Russia. The Americans spoke publicly of the arms getting into the hands of Colombian rebels, either by accident or by design. Chavez counters that his military needs the weapons to protect themselves in case of invasion. Considering the USA’s history in South America, the presence of US troops in neighbouring Colombia, and the increasing anti-Chavez rhetoric sprouting from the White House, it does not seem unreasonable that Chavez should fear an American-backed military incursion designed to topple him.

As the rhetoric rises and the US becomes increasingly covetous of South American oil supplies and the contracts those supplies represent for US corporations, Chavez acts more and more as if his back is to the wall. A continued push could well push Venezuela and other South American countries back to totalitarianism, either from leftist governments that feel they have no choice or the military puppet regimes that traditionally follow in the wake of US-backed coups and invasions. A sudden failure of the Bolivarian Revolution at this point would very likely throw much of that continent into chaos and civil war.

During all of this Canada has been largely silent, tacitly backing the US. That is the wrong tack to take. Canada has a history of democratic socialism. We have continued trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba. We are a member of the OAS and Pierre Pettigrew has been recently reported to be taking over as Secretary General of that organisation. While Pettigrew is not the ideal candidate, his influence could be helpful to Chavez with the right push from Ottawa.

If we choose to, we are in a position to diffuse the increasingly dangerous situation between Bush and Chavez while helping to guide a movement that has improved the living conditions of many in South America. Canada can play a major role in ensuring that Venezuela and the South American nations that are following in its footsteps do not fall to the dictatorial forces of extremism on either side of the political spectrum, but remain within the democratic socialist principles that can improve the lot of everyone. Perhaps we can even persuade George Bush not to back another coup.