Salon.com Books

This season's intellectual pinup, Fareed Zakaria, author of "The Future of Freedom," explains why the romantic myth of freedom could harm Iraq -- and why power elites aren't so bad.

By Michelle Goldberg

April 21, 2003  |  Since Sept. 11, hawks in the Bush administration have presented themselves as evangelists for democracy. The absence of democracy, in the neoconservative analysis, creates the climate of desperation and frustration that breeds extremism. Democracy's introduction into the Middle East, via regime change in Iraq, would bring a bracing new spirit of liberty to the region, undermining the stagnant authoritarianism of Iraq's neighbors.

Yet were it implanted tomorrow, democracy in most of the Middle East would bring to power the very totalitarian theocrats who most menace us. Indeed, argues Fareed Zakaria in his incisive new book "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad," democracy isn't necessarily the opposite of tyranny. From Venezuela to Kazakhstan, the last decade has seen a rise in elected autocrats, challenging American bromides that posit universal suffrage as the answer for all the world's ills.

The book and its 39-year-old author, the editor of Newsweek International, is getting an extraordinary amount of attention. In New York magazine, Marion Maneker gives him the movie star treatment, writing, "Dimple-chinned, with expressive eyebrows and a thick head of black hair, Fareed Zakaria could easily be the Indian reincarnation of Cary Grant." He may be the first of a new, post Sept. 11 breed -- the policy wonk as sex symbol.

For all the buzz he's generating, Zakaria's ideas about democracy's failures aren't that new -- in much of the foreign-policy establishment, they've become a kind of conventional wisdom, popularized by writers like Robert Kaplan and Amy Chua. It's clear to anyone who's been paying attention, after all, that the heartening triumph of democracy around the world in the last decade has coincided with brutal outbreaks of ethnic nationalism, civil war and genocide.

Yet Zakaria's book goes further than others, scanning the history of Western culture and identifying a series of fallacious assumptions about the roots of liberty that threaten not just fledgling Third World republics, but America as well: "Western democracy remains the model for the rest of the world, but is it possible that like a supernova, at the moment of its blinding glory in distant universes, Western democracy is hollowing out at the core?"

Freedom, Zakaria argues, comes not from politicians' slavish obeisance to the whims of The People, divined hourly by pollsters. It comes from an intricate architecture of liberty that includes an independent judiciary, constitutional guarantees of minority rights, a free press, autonomous universities and strong civic institutions.

In America, all of these institutions have been under consistent attack for the last 40 years from populists of the left and right seeking to strip power from loathed elites and return it to the masses. "The deregulation of democracy has ... gone too far," Zakaria writes.

Much of what Zakaria writes will anger liberals. He criticizes 1970s reforms that opened up the closed workings of Congress to the public, arguing, "The purpose of these changes was to make Congress more open and responsive. And so it has become -- to money, lobbyists, and special interests." The World Trade Organization is opposed by anti-globalization activists in part because of its secretive, unresponsive nature, but Zakaria argues that's precisely why it works.

• Affirms Fidel at the open tribunal in repudiation of the fascist coup attempt to defeat the constitutional government of Venezuela one year ago

BY MARIELA PEREZ VALENZUELA—Granma daily staff writer—

• TODAY’S happiness is being witness to what is occurring in Venezuela, affirmed President Fidel Castro, speaking at the open tribunal in repudiation of the fascist coup in that sister nation.

The leader of the Revolution headed the solidarity event with that country, one year after the people’s defeat of the coup d’état intended to bring down the constitutional government of Venezuela and its president Hugo Chávez Frías.

Fidel noted that Chávez effected a great political feat on obtaining the presidency, then as leader during the April incidents and afterwards by winning the huge battle when the oligarchies went on strike and attempted to paralyze the country.

Chávez possesses exceptional qualities, has a great creative capacity, is a man of infinite nobility and generosity; he is also a great leader and is showing himself to be a great statesman, Fidel attested.

The Cuban president highlighted the great unity among Venezuelans and Cubans visible in the event at the International Conference Center, as well as at the 1st Encounter between the youth of both countries in Caracas.

"For our part, we heard with emotion the words of our young pioneers and youth at the closing session of that meeting, where they excelled themselves in brilliance, as well as those of young Venezuelans and the affection with which Chávez listened to them," he commented.

Fidel went on to say that he had heard that the opposition planned to use the metropolitan police to tarnish the brilliance of the World Solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution Encounter, inaugurated on Thursday in Caracas on the first anniversary of the fascist coup.

He recalled the intensity of the days in that South American nation exactly one year ago: the poison sown by the media, the opposition call to march on the Miraflores Palace to provoke a clash with the Bolivarians who also went to the palace in support of the president.

He affirmed that those days were unforgettable and recalled with indignation how the counterrevolution killed dozens of Bolivarians.

He spoke of his concern at what was happening in Venezuela and recalled a telephone conversation with Chávez when the latter was entrenched in the Miraflores Palace without communication and how he asked the Venezuelan president to preserve his life and that of the people with him.

At another point he also referred to the fascist movement unleashed in the sister nation at the end of last year, employing different strategies to defeat the constitutional government.

Fidel went on to emphasize the strength of the Cuban Revolution from the political point of view and affirmed that our people had reached an unprecedented level of awareness.

"We are currently immersed in the battle against provocations intended to produce a conflict and U.S. military aggression, but will not lower our guard for one minute, one day or one second," he confirmed, adding that no lies, myths or slander would be able to destroy us.

Fidel highlighted the experience of the Revolution and the revolutionary awareness of our people and stated that our enemies to the North can invent lies, commit war crimes and murder but cannot win one single battle because they know nothing about politics.

"Whatever they do and whatever they spend, they cannot win one single battle in political terms."

He spoke of Cubans’ knowledge, culture and preparedness, their sense of solidarity that is increasing by the day and observed that the island has a very clear idea of what it has to do in all terrains.

"We are prepared and have a very clear idea of what we want and must do. They will never be able to do anything with this people," he affirmed.

The Cuban president stated that our country has been defending itself for 44 years and is always ready to continue to the end.

By Daniel Patrick Welch April 9, 2003 The Iranian

Teach them a lesson they'll never forget. So goes the thinking in Texas-on-the-Potomac. And what a lesson it has been! They'll never mess with us again, nosirree Bob! As this childish thinking worms its way around the neocon braintrust, now giddy with "success" of their own definition (like toppling the Taliban?), it is instructive what lessons might be drawn by more rational--albeit scared to death--observers around the world.

These are some of the conclusions I've drawn, doing my humble little part to follow Bush's sage advice. First, if you don't already have nukes, you'd better get some--and that right soon. Uncle Sam don't play. While you're in the catalog, get a whole bunch of night goggles, and tons more air support. Spend more on the military, and less on feeding, housing and educating your people, if you care about your own sovereignty.

The picture of the American GI lounging in Hussein's chair, plastered on front pages everywhere, sent the disturbing signal: it's ours.... it's ALL ours. I can't imagine that image spun quite the way it was intended around the globe--or maybe that's just the point: we're comin' to getcha! And another thing--don't bother trying to meet the Americans head on. Lesson number two is that, in asymmetrical warfare, guerrilla campaign is the only way to go--do anything, and I mean anything (see Lesson #1: Get Nukes) to keep the mighty invading army at bay.

Lessons 3 through umpteen were learned before the war started, actually: international law doesn't apply to the U.S., The UN, EU, as well as various global aid organizations, conventions, and agreements are quaint relics of a bygone era. Oh, right--there is a caveat here: we can bring them back to life on call when it suits our purpose and we want to complain about other people's behavior.

Although it may seem incongruous, I'll allow myself a Seinfeld moment here. What the hell, Americans watch 25 hours of TV a day anyway. I couldn't help thinking of the time Kramer was boasting about his karate prowess until he was forced to reveal that he was just beating up children. In an ominous twist, the kids ganged up and waited for him in the alley, where they beat the crap out of him.

And what is all this focus on civilian dead? I mean it's horrific, of course--it's the whole ball of wax, really. But soldiers aren't people? When the tables are turned, the U.S. screams bloody murder if one of our boys is killed, TV up close and personals, etc. Enemy soldiers don't have mothers? They can be blithely incinerated from 40,000 feet by fuel-air bombs and other weapons more horrific than anything currently banned--international law, thankfully for the Americans, hasn't had time to catch up to the technology. I guess that undermining, bribing, and threatening pays off. Bush and Rumsfeld (dubbed Chemical Donald by a British columnist) even insist that we have the right to use nuclear weapons, or other gases only allowed for domestic crowd control.

Only the Americans have the sovereign right, drunk with power and arrogance, to threaten to try the invaded in US courts for "war crimes." Bush and his corporate cronies are so busy trying to teach the world a lesson that they forgot the lessons they should have learned from history. For all the distorted comparisons to Hitler, they seem to have missed this gem from the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal: "War is essentially an evil thing... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

There are other lessons, both foreign and domestic. Before the war came the bugging of UN personnel, some in their own houses. A sort of Watergate gone global--get the message yet? For icing, Americans exploited the fog of war to shoot up convoys of diplomats with whom they just happened to have beef, and killed a few journalists who gave them bad press--one of them on air! Now THAT sends a message! Coupled with the unabashed prostitution of embedded (or "in-bed-with") journalism, and we have a pretty good idea of which way we are supposed to go.

But let's not forget the domestic lessons. The Bush Cartel is an equal opportunity terrorist. Cops in Oakland opened fire on protesters with "non-lethal" weapons (kind of like pushing someone gently down the stairs) in an incident oddly reminiscent of the San Francisco 1934 general strike--which also started on the docks. Radio hosts encourage violence against protesters, and some have obliged, plowing into one demonstration in a truck, calling in bomb or sniper threats. A high school principal pulled the plug on movies like "Bowling for Columbine" by that dangerous radical, Michael Moore.

John Kerry was attacked for speaking out against Bush. One GOP hatchet man went so far as to suggest that Kerry had no right to call for "regime change" during wartime. Hmmmm..in civics class I was led to believe we had (technically) regime change every four years. And the Democrats, for crying out loud, who have enough trouble defining the word "opposition!" Forget Syria and Iran: if the milquetoast Kerry, who voted for the war, is fair game, who's next?

But I suppose ol' George and his puppet masters might be touchy on the subject. Imagine if people learned the wrong lessons, and enforced regime change the way they do--or even ascended to power the way Bush did? Yikes! Iraqis, of course, don't speak out because they are afraid of the regime, and our freedom, by contrast, is the reason we should all just shut up (or else). Beam me up, Scottie!

The whole project has the air of what Robert Parry has called Bush's Alderan, recalling the Star Wars plot line where a small rebel planet destroyed by the infamous Death Star to keep everyone else in line.

Don't worry, we are told--it will all come into focus soon. Yeah, we know. But no matter how many staged footage of toppling statues, Iraqis are a proud people. And a gun-toting one. When the US military tries to disarm Iraqi civilians, we'll see...

What is also waiting to come out is that this episode of Gilligan's Travels to Liliput hasn't been quite the romp we've been told, even in the last week. Then again, it is a fiction to think that the access will be freer under the watchful eye of the US military occupation. Government minders are no match for tanks shelling your hotel.

And as far as lies go, you ain't seen nothin yet. Suicide bombers--the term itself a manipulative attempt at a subtle link with the events of September 11--will be branded terrorists (or, even more incomprehensibly, 'cowards') by an occupation force and a press corps which refuses to admit it is there illegally. What a world turned on its head: how could there possibly be any illegitimate American targets where there is an occupying army?

But of course, the invaded squirming under the tread of an Abrams tank don't have the right to resist. Further resistance will be dismissed as "getting in the way of rebuilding Iraq." They will not be heroic defenders of their country, but always foreign fighters, just as they were "outside agitators" according to COINTELPRO, and "agents provocateurs" at the Haymarket. Of course. In what conceivable universe could people actually want to repel foreign invaders?

We will be treated to many more planted stories of 'potential' WMD's, the horrors of Saddam's regime, the noble cause of "Freeing" Iraq. And the horrific cost of this war and the sanctions which preceded it will be laid at Iraq's own door--with a docile press corps, the victor writes the history.

This all relies, by the way, on keeping the American bubble inflated. The Stupidity Factor doesn't appear to be evaporating any time soon. Many Americans are perfectly happy to have a "president" who is no smarter than they are--it's not threatening unless you get on his bad side. Kind of like the old drunk on the corner stool in the bar. He tells some good jokes, but watch out when he's in a mood. Remember that egghead Carter? Yuck.

I used to think that the monopoly corporations who funded Bush's rise to power had picked wrong--and it may still be shown that they overplayed their hand. But my cynicism and despair have deepened in the past few months. What a coup (pun intended) to have picked a true idiot, a mean, drunken frat boy who does what he's told and then some, sticking to it like a rabid pit bull.

I can't help thinking that Randy Newman had the dark side of the American character pegged, and I keep running this old lyric through my head:

Americans dream of Gypsies I have found and Gypsy knives and Gypsy thighs that pound and pound and pound and pound And African appendages that almost reach the ground And little boys playing baseball in the rain America, American, may God shed his grace on thee You have whipped the Filipino, now you rule the Western Sea America, America, step out into the light You are the best dream that man has ever dreamed and may all your Christmases be white.

So, many of the people will eat it up. But the economy is in deep trouble and getting worse--the "what now" burp is already hitting the markets. And using the Conquering Hero spike to float their crazy economic agenda just won't work like they want it to. Even Democrats will put up some kind of a fight.

Don't forget the Afghan "model," where Special Forces casualties are said to be "staggering." Sorry for all the quotes and parentheses, but the bogus language of this war makes it almost impossible to talk without footnotes. Let's not kid ourselves, no matter how many times we watch the bogus, staged, rehashed footage of statues toppling: this "war" (slaughter) isn't "over" (left the front page) any more than its Afghan counterpart, where 11 civilians were recently killed by "mistake" (murder-from-above by an arrogant superpower that would rather kill and ask questions later, earning it the enmity of all and the certain retaliation by virtually anybody).

And I was only kidding before when I mentioned John Kerry. Of course we can't forget Syria and Iran, now in the sights of the voracious Democracy Installing Cabal (you do the letters). And then there's Colombia, Venezuela, Philippines, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Montezuma, the Shores of Tripoli.... But let's not forget the biggest lesson, looming in the shadows: the Kramer lesson (apologies to Michael Richards). The kids are waiting in the alley, George. They are learning different lessons from this war--and their numbers are growing.

© 2003 Daniel Patrick Welch. Reprint permission granted.

Author

Welch lives and writes in Salem, Massachusetts, USA, with his wife, Julia Nambalirwa-Lugudde. Together they run The Greenhouse School. His columns  have also been aired on radio. Others interested in airing the audio version (electronic recording available) please contact the author. Welch speaks several languages and is available for recordings in French, German, Russian and Spanish pending a reliable translation, or, alternatively, telephone interviews in the target language. Other articles, stickers for upcoming protests and other 'stuff' can be found at here.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

VHeadline.com News Editor Patrick J. O'Donoghue writes: News that members of the Venezuelan Confederation of Trade Unions (CTV) led by general secretary Manuel Cova are to visit Costa Rica to hold session with exiled Carlos Ortega has knocked me off balance.

Does that mean that trade union policy will be dictated from Ortega's place of exile?

Does it mean that Ortega will not concede his post as CTV president to someone who lives in Venezuela?

Does Ortega think that the CTV is akin to the Oil Workers Federation (Fedepetrol) which he ran as a personal fiefdom?

Knowing Mr. Ortega's close links with former President Carlos Andres Perez, it is hard to understand the hesitancy of other executive members in blasting Ortega's pretensions sky high. There have been rumblings from Pablo Castro and Carlos Navarro but it is not enough. 

The usually vociferous Andres Velasquez and Causa R colleague ,Alfredo Ramos argue that the most important thing is to get rid of Chavez Frias first and then hang out the dirty linen afterwards ... usual double-speak.

It leads me to another question: why do political analysts, such as Jorge Olavarria who pride themselves on their historical knowledge, ignore obvious connections between local politicians and foreign organizations? 

It is understandable political agony aunts, Nelson Bocaranda and Ibeyise Pacheco refuse to publish a list of opposition politicians that visited Washington or Miami, say last week but it becomes completely obvious that the stiff collars  (scholars) are trying to pull the wool over our innocent eyes convincing us that Venezuela is an island and not a dependent economy ... and yet they insist on the close connection with the USA to hit out at Chavez Frias. The only consequent scholar is columnist, Anibal Romero.

Which is why I appreciate the irreverence of left-wing political analyst, Domingo Alberto Rangel. 

Rangel goes way back and has the moral authority to debunk opposition spin that corruption has increased with Chavez Frias ... the difference is that we know more cases nowadays, thanks to the political polarization and leaks from squealers. 

Venezuela has been high in the corrupt Latin American countries top ten list but the thing is that before Chavez Frias, the media (and Transparency International) only published Venezuela's position in the world tables. 

Rangel has criticized the fact that the Armed Force (FAN) was ill-prepared for undertake its job long before Chavez Frias enlisted as a soldier ... he has exposed the cowardice of Venezuela's greedy and not very patriotic business sector.

It would be nice to see more irreverence.

Which brings me back to Ortega and Federation of Chambers of Industry & Commerce (Fedecamaras) president, Carlos Fernandez ... another person that can't and won't hand over power. 

Thank God he won't be running for President of the Republic. His rush to the emergency room should have convinced him to return to his transport business and leave politics to the politicians. 

Fernandez was very quick to step into the shoes of Pedro Carmona as Fedecamaras president but he won't allow anyone to step into his shoes, despite his heart condition.

• Venezuela is described as the land of caudillos, which I translate as "warlords"  ... which for me conveys the meaning perfectly. 

Whatever opposition and Cuban Miami hacks say about the authoritarian Chavez Frias, Ortega and Fernandez are just as or more authoritarian than the President.

Holding court in Miami, or Costa Rica or Valencia?

Well, I never!

by Stephen Johnson WebMemo #243 March 28, 2003 |

While the Bush Administration is busy rounding up Republican Guards in the sands of Iraq, an axis of mischief is taking shape in America’s back yard. Cuba is jailing dissidents and oil-rich Venezuela is telling South American neighbors that they will be the next target of American aggression.   It’s part of an effort to use the United States as a foil to breathe new life into a moribund Latin American radical movement in the wake of failed revolutions in the 1980s.  Key to its success is a convergence of forces between Middle Eastern rogue states, Latin American radicals, and various terrorist groups such as Colombia’s rebels.   Both Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s autocratic president Hugo Chávez stand in solidarity with each other, and have courted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, as well the leaders of other rogue states such as Libya, Iran, and North Korea.   Cuba has faithfully denounced U.S. and U.N. attempts to disarm Iraq and exchanged biotechnology with both Iranian and Iraqi governments. Alcibíades Hidalgo, a former Cuban vice minister of foreign relations, wrote in the Washington Post that Castro used the Soviet electronic eavesdropping base at Lourdes, Cuba to spy on U.S. command centers during the first Gulf War--passing intelligence directly on to Saddam. Most likely similar efforts are under way now.   Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez was the first democratically-elected leader to visit Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War. He also reportedly corresponded with Muammar Qaddafi about strengthening ties between Middle Eastern and Latin American radicals and using oil as an economic weapon. This January, his Education Ministry announced scholarships for Venezuelan youths to study at Saddam University.   Ironically, cash-strapped Cuba never turned its Middle Eastern connection into much of an advantage. But last week when the United States acted to disarm Iraq, Castro used the distraction of distant war to crackdown on an opposition movement that has been growing ever since May 2002 when dissident Oswaldo Payá and his Varela Project collected more than 11,000 signatures for a petition to hold a referendum on Cuba’s one-party rule. Beginning March 19, the Castro government arrested more than two dozen independent journalists and 50 dissidents.   Meanwhile, Venezuela’s Chávez has been building an international network to support his “Bolivarian” agenda of exporting populist, authoritarian government to neighboring countries and defeat what he calls “savage capitalism.” Supporters include Cuban agents who allegedly hold advisory positions in top Venezuelan intelligence and police agencies, and Colombian narcoguerrillas who reportedly trained rural paramilitaries known as Bolivarian Liberation Forces (FBL) to act as a shadow army for Chávez in the countryside.   From the Middle East, Iranian and Iraqi engineers flew in recently to help Chávez restore Venezuelan petroleum production following a two-month strike by oil workers. At the same time, Chávez named himself head of the National Oil Council, a body he created to ensure direct presidential control of the state oil company and its revenues.   Outside the country, Chávez supporters seek to create unrest. Speaking in Santiago, Chile on March 24, vice-president José Vicente Rangel warned that, “What [America] did to Iraq can happen to any other nation.” A month ago, Hasil Rahaham, a Venezuelan Muslim with suspected ties to al Qaeda, arrived from Caracas and was detained at London’s Gatwick airport after a grenade was discovered in his luggage.   Chávez loyalists are also forming foreign solidarity groups patterned after the president’s militant neighborhood political action organizations known as “Bolivarian Circles”—similar to Cuba’s Revolutionary Defense Committees. A web page hosted in Sweden, “Red de Solidaridad con la Revolución Bolivariana,” lists contacts in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Spain, Uruguay, and even the United States.   While all this might seem like small potatoes compared to the challenge the United States now faces in the Middle East, such cancers have a way of metastasizing. Especially when polls suggest that Latin American publics distrust their own leaders to behave democratically and believe that Americans are uninterested in helping them solve their problems.   Siding with Saddam Hussein and other despots, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez are shepherding forces to confront the United States in its own backyard. The Bush Administration and Congress should not take this lightly. At the very least, these men could inspire or assist reprisals against America for disarming a friend and fellow dictator. Beyond that, they will struggle to subvert U.S. allies in the region.   Despite heavy commitments elsewhere, Washington should not hesitate to increase intelligence collection (especially toward Cuba and Venezuela), step up public diplomacy in the region, and work harder to encourage friendly democrats and ongoing reforms to keep this situation from undermining the security of the United States and of neighboring democracies and free markets in the western hemisphere.   Stephen Johnson is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.