Venezuela ruled by little Saddam
www.dailytrojan.com William Goodwin Kim Culotta | Daily Trojan
I find absolute rulers terrifying. Of late, one in particular has been weighing on my mind. At the helm of an oil-producing nation, he's guilty of numerous abuses of human rights and restricting freedom, accused of assassinating potential threats to his power, and is alleged to have ties to terrorists. He's a clear threat to regional stability and global security.
I don't have monsters under my bed. I have Hugo Chavez.
While that other deceptive and destabilizing dictator plagues more distant, though no less important regions, the Americas can be happy knowing they have their own autocratic ruler. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, by imprisoning opposition leaders and, some say, orchestrating the assassinations of dissidents, has crossed the line from bully to tyrant.
In four years, Chavez has managed to undermine Venezuela's democracy, drive a growing economy into the dirt, foment unrest in an unstable region and, allegedly, support a number of terrorist groups.
Long held up as a paradigm of democracy for Latin and South America, major cracks began appearing in Venezuela's political structure at the end of the 1980s. Oil revenues had managed to prevent a fierce class dichotomy for more than 30 years; however, the last decade saw the birth of a populist movement.
Accusations of political corruption and squandered oil profits set poor against rich. Chavez was on the vanguard of this movement. In 1992, Colonel Chavez led an attempted coup with other military leaders. His subsequent imprisonment spanned more than two years and another failed military coup.
Popular support garnered him a pardon before the end of his term and ultimately carried him to election as president, after he assumed the mantle of democracy. Considering his past, one might conclude that Chavez takes, shall we say, a more "forceful" approach to governing. Over the course of his time in office, the president-turned-dictator has been quite obliging and done absolutely nothing to dissuade anyone of that opinion.
The latest child in the lineage of democratic leaders-turned-tyrants (think Robert Mugabe or Alberto Fujimori), Chavez immediately altered the constitution to permit him a second term. Media criticism accelerated the restriction of free speech. An assembly of appointed stooges replaced the popularly elected congress. With increasing regularity, basic republican values were being trampled.
The rise of authoritarian rule coincided with a vicious decline in the economy. The Washington Post commented last year, "(Chavez's) senseless mix of populist and socialist decrees seriously damaged the economy and galvanized opposition from businesses, media and the middle class."
Chavez tried to deflect criticism of his feckless economic initiatives by heaping invective on the upper classes.
Oil officials were described as "living in luxury chalets where they have orgies, drinking whiskey." The hierarchy of the Catholic Church (Venezuela is 96 percent Roman Catholic) has also endured constant attacks, according to Chavez's BBC profile. His recurring theme on his weekly call-in television address and in his addresses to the national assembly is the rift between the haves and have-nots.
Increasing poverty and economic hardship, however, have disillusioned many of the poor, on whose shoulders Chavez rose to power. Things have reached a boiling point this year. Already, Chavez has narrowly avoided an attempted coup by the military (prompted by Chavez's orders to open fire on civilian protesters outside the presidential palace). Rallies that once were massive displays of support now ring with cries for new elections.
Most recently, worsening conditions prompted a general strike that crippled oil production. The bitter fight for new elections and/or Chavez's immediate ouster let petroleum exports fall to 250,000 barrels a day, down from 3,000,000. With Venezuela typically responsible for roughly 10 percent of the United State's imports, the near-anarchy has had an immediate negative impact on our economy, albeit mildly negative.
As if alienating his own people was not enough, Chavez decided to take it to the next level and try on the international community. Besides being a good personal friend of the bearded pajama revolutionary himself, in the summer of 2000, he wined and dined with everyone's three favorite regimes; Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
U.N. sanctions notwithstanding, the-man-who-would-be-Bolivar was enchanted by the desert nations, specifically Baghdad. "His courting of Fidel Castro, Colombia's Marxist guerrillas and Saddam Hussein made him a pariah both in Latin America and in Washington," the Post reported.
Even more troubling are allegations of support for international terrorist organizations. Several high-ranking military defectors, including the former head of the border service, claim Chavez has helped conceal the identities of terrorists, many Middle Eastern, passing through the country. More fantastically, and more likely fabricated, is the charge that he funneled money to al-Qaida in October 2001, in the guise of humanitarian aid.
The testimony of former higher-ups should be taken with more than a grain of salt; however, the claims are entirely possible. Chavez has done nothing to crack down on the drug smuggling taking place in the border regions that directly benefts Colombian rebels. And he has sent members of his fanatical civilian support groups, his Bolivarian Circles (often referred to as "Circles of Terror"), to Cuba for "unspecified training."
His contentious and troublesome history aside, Chavez deserves special attention now as he carries out his pledge to make those behind the recently defeated strike pay for challenging his authority. "Twelve-armed men kidnapped the four victims on Saturday night as they were leaving a protest. They were bound and gagged, and some were tortured before the gunmen executed them, the police said," the New York Times reported Wednesday.
The killings of the three dissident soldiers and an opposition organizer, while perhaps not directly authorized by Chavez, were undoubtedly politically motivated. The Bolivarian Circles have been known to physically threaten protesters with violence. To counter this, some protesters have formed their own armed bands, raising the terrible, if still distant, specter of all-out urban warfare between opposing camps.
Such an apocryphal warning may be necessary, however, as Venezuela continues to destabilize. Labor-government negotiations are on the cusp of dissolving, and the possibility has led many to take to the streets in protests dwarfing antiwar crowds in the United States.
The downward spiral of Venezuela, both country and leader, demands close observation from the United States. Without constant attention to the democratic devolution and the ascension of Chavez the dictator, the prospect of having to a face another Saddamite is not so easy to ignore. Only this time, it's in our backyard.
Editorial columnist William Goodwin is an undeclared freshman. To comment on this article, call (213) 740-5665 or e-mail dtrojan@usc.edu.