February 25, 2006

A foray into Iraq

Well, it's carnival now, so in the season's spirit of reckless abandon I'll break all my rules and post something that has absolutely nothing to do with Venezuela. This piece is from The New Republic and I'm reprinting it simply because the reporting is so strong and the writing is so compelling.

It's not that I necessarily agree with Kaplan, it's that I'd give one and part of the other to be able to write like him...
Centripetal Force
by Lawrence F. Kaplan

Baghdad, Iraq - For a return visitor, Baghdad International Airport offers a fitting portal into the new Iraq. Unlike the military side of the airport, where U.S. transport planes and helicopters operate in an industrious roar, the civilian side, which usaid renovated in 2003, now languishes in disrepair. Iraqi Airways flights, on which it was possible to light up a cigarette until recently, still come and go. But, in the terminal itself, the rest room floors are smeared with excrement, wires hang from the ceiling, and pay phones have been ripped from the walls. An emblem of war and poverty? Not really. The transportation minister, an ally of Moqtada Al Sadr and his rebellious Mahdi Army, has delegated responsibility for the airport's maintenance to the children of Sadr City, the Shia slum and the Mahdi Army's Baghdad base of support. The 14-year-olds in blue jumpsuits smoke, huddle, and even play tag. What they do not--and cannot--do is maintain an airport.

Not everything the U.S. enterprise touches here turns to gold. But everything it lets go of does seem to turn into dirt. With U.S. reconstruction aid running out, Iraq's infrastructure, never fully restored to begin with, decays by the hour. Iraq's political arena, from which the Americans had no choice but to withdraw, has dissolved into something unrecognizable, carved up for sectarian advantage and without a center to keep its parts from spinning away. In both cases, the United States may have given all it reasonably could be expected to give. But, when it comes to America's withdrawal from Iraq's security arena, a process that accelerates with each passing week, the only explanation can be that the White House, for all of its high-minded rhetoric about standing with Iraq, has decided not to. The insurgency continues to rage. Iraq's security forces still cannot operate on their own. And, as what was once a largely one-sided Sunni campaign of terrorism rapidly approaches something like parity (with the Shia taking up arms in their own defense), the likelihood of a civil war has surged. So, too, contrary to the delusions of war supporters and critics alike, has the importance of the Americans.

As the war takes a sectarian turn, the United States begins to look, even to many Iraqis, like an honest broker, more peacekeeper than belligerent. Sheik Humam Hamoudi, one of Iraq's most powerful Shia and a leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (sciri), knows this better than most. He sits, literally, atop the Iraqi government--in a sprawling office suite above Baghdad's convention center, where Iraqi politicians wheel and deal. As with many Shia politicians, Hamoudi, donning a clerical robe and turban, becomes animated when the subject turns to the U.S. military's campaign against Sunni insurgents. If anything, he believes it has been prosecuted with insufficient vigor. And, although he complains that the Americans have placed undue restraints on the Shia-dominated security forces, he likens the effect of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to "a child when he wants to walk and you ask him to play football." Absent the Americans, he says, Baghdad would be transformed into another Beirut.

Hundreds of miles to the west, in an Arabesque villa that rises out of the desert near the Syrian border, Sheik Abdullah Al Yawar--Hamoudi's mirror image in the Sunni community--echoes his concern. Al Yawar wields so much power in this insurgent hotbed that U.S. Army officers say he can turn the violence on and off like a faucet. For the moment, at least, he has turned it off, responding to pleas and aid from his American interlocutors. But he worries that the same Iraqi security forces that Hamoudi claims the United States has muzzled operate with too little American oversight. He claims they have been running amok through his province, beating and arresting his constituents and chanting Shia slogans. "If the Americans leave," he warns, "there will be rivers of blood." In their own way, then, both sheiks see the U.S. military presence for exactly what it has become: a buffer--between Iraq's sects and between relative order and complete mayhem.

---

Whether you measure Iraq's well-being through its infrastructure, politics, security, or even geography, one thing is clear: Where the Americans do not operate, very little else does. The level of corruption that pervades Iraq's ministerial orbit, for instance, would have made South Vietnam's kleptocrats blush. The problem extends beyond a simple lack of good governance. In a case that has been highly publicized in the Iraqi press, Sunni lawmaker Mishaan Al Juburi was recently charged with embezzling funds meant to pay for the protection of an oil pipeline in Iraq's north. Not all that unusual, but prosecutors suspect he then funneled the money to insurgents who blew up the pipeline.

According to a U.S. Government Accountability Office report published earlier this month, an interagency group of State Department, military, and contracting officials concluded that "critical infrastructure facilities constructed or rehabilitated under U.S. funding have failed, will fail, or will operate in suboptimized conditions following handover to the Iraqis." Absent U.S. oversight, politicians from competing sects have transformed the ministries into personal fiefdoms, where expertise counts for nothing and connections for everything. And, just as the ministries have proved impervious to direction from above, local factories and refineries ignore the ministries.

One of the reasons Baghdad has only a few hours of electrical power each day is that electricity plants in the provinces refuse to provide it--reasoning, as the head of a plant in Iraq's south put it, that Baghdad had enough power under Saddam Hussein. Although partly a consequence of the security situation, corruption has helped drive every public service measure--electricity, potable water, heating oil--down below its prewar norm.

The dysfunction works its way down to the street, too, which becomes apparent on a visit to the home of Bakr (he asked that his last name not be used), an engineering student who lives in the middle-class Waziriya neighborhood. One morning, as he was studying, Bakr explains, he looked out his window and noticed men setting up a mortar in the middle of the street. As the government encourages all Iraqis to do, he called the Interior Ministry's emergency line, 130, to report the insurgents. "They didn't answer," Bakr recounts.

"The next day, my friends warned me not to call, because your telephone number appears and they sell it to the insurgents." He insists we drive his Opel--the Humvee of the Sunni, as Iraqis call it--to an adjacent neighborhood so he can prove the point. There, faded on a wall, hangs the picture of a young man and the announcement of his death. The dead man, Bakr explains, got through to the emergency line.

nother casualty has been the authority of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari, whom the ministries routinely ignore. On the day the preliminary results of December's elections were announced, Jafari invites the election commissioners for dinner. The liberal activist Mustafa Al Kadhimiy wrangles two invitations, and, as we wait at the gate, Jafari's guards radio back and forth on their walkie-talkies--signing off with what, even in Iraq, stands out as religious phrasing: "Yes, believer." A concrete path leads to a footbridge and then across a moat, winding around Jafari's villa until it ends in a heated tent, which, Mustafa notes disapprovingly, is of Iranian vintage. But it is Jafari's relations with Iraq, not Iran, that most concern American officials here. Unlike his predecessor, Iyad Allawi, Jafari has a reputation for being cerebral, detached, and, most of all, weak.

His dinner guests look utterly exhausted. "The Sunni parties attack us," explains chief electoral officer Adil Al Lami. "We receive violence, assassination attempts." One commissioner seems to be on the brink of a nervous collapse. But not Jafari. As the commissioners pick at their kebobs, the prime minister announces that he has completed one of Thomas L. Friedman's books. Have I read The Lexus and the Olive Tree? As a television in the corner of the room conveys images of the carnage outside, Jafari admits to being partial to the works of Noam Chomsky. Why won't Chomsky come to Iraq? he asks. The commissioners don't know what to say. And, apart from expressing doubts about a Chomsky visit, neither do I. Later, asked if the prime minister offered this line of conversation for the benefit of a visiting American, a source close to Jafari responds, "No, this is how he talks in public. No one understands what he is talking about. But Iraqis--they like this. If they can't understand him, they think he knows something." Indeed, Jafari has become well-known for delivering inscrutable speeches that wander from Western philosophy to Arab literature and back again, leaving even seasoned translators perplexed. The confusion extends to his deliberations with the Americans. "Today, with our current government," Jafari tells me, "we tell the MNF [multinational forces] when to go. ... The MNF wait for our orders." Yet, when pressed on his relationship with coalition forces, Jafari sounds a more humble--and increasingly familiar--note. "If they leave today," he says, "we would be defeated."

Jafari's weakness notwithstanding, the imperial taint that colored the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and its handpicked successor, Allawi, made it impossible for either to govern effectively. While Iraqis subsequently voted along sectarian lines, in this hollowed-out state, where tribe and religion remain the basic affiliations, this hardly came as a surprise. Even Mithal Al Alusi, one of a dwindling band of liberals still committed to the dream of a secular Iraq, has come to terms with the pathologies of Iraqi political life. Alusi made the mistake of traveling to Israel in 2004, and, for his sins, insurgents murdered his two sons. Bodyguards ring his house; a gun lies beside him on the couch. "The mistakes here are by the Iraqi side, not the American side," he says. "The Iraqi politicians only believe it is in their interest to push sectarian divisions." Kadhimiy echoes the sentiment. "Iraqi politics, it has moved beyond the Americans, except, you know, on security issues," he says. "There, the Americans, they still control everything."

---

With security having been the exclusive property of the Americans for so long, Iraqis still ask when full ownership of their country will be returned to them. The million-dollar trophy that National Security Adviser Mowaffaq Al Rubaie keeps in his home study suggests the restoration has begun. For many Americans, the memory of Iraqis (supported by U.S. forces off-screen) pulling down Saddam's statue in Al Firdos Square still provides an inspirational bookend to the U.S. invasion. For Iraqis today, the statue--or at least its head--just provides a bookend. As the national security adviser tells it, in the aftermath of the invasion, a senior American officer tried to abscond with Saddam's head. But he only made it as far as Kuwait, where the authorities alerted Rubaie, who subsequently reclaimed the head for Iraq. So here it sits, in the national security adviser's study, where Iraqi elites express their hatred for Saddam by hitting him on the head with the soles of their shoes. "I put it here to remember Saddam is always here," he explains.

Iraqi forces, Rubaie concedes, have not reached the point where they can operate independently of the Americans. As if to prove the point, an American military officer in civilian clothes hovers in the background, answers the national security adviser's phone when a reporter calls, lives and travels with Rubaie, and, his fellow government ministers say, probably does much of the national security adviser's job for him. At the same time, Iraq's security forces have started to emerge from the shadow of their American instructors. Their training has been accelerated, and, in the near future, Rubaie sees "Iraqi security forces taking over, Iraqi forces taking the front line, [and] MNF doing logistical and support [functions]. By the end of 2007," he predicts, "we're very likely to see the last U.S. soldier."

According to the U.S. military, the Iraqi police force currently fields about 121,000 men, close to the number planned for, while the Iraqi armed forces number about 106,000 soldiers, nearly two-thirds of the force estimated for the end of this year. The Iraqi army no longer melts away in combat, nor does it suffer from mass desertions, as it did during its first battles in 2004. Army recruits now undergo a basic training course similar in length to their American counterparts, officers attend service schools, and Iraqis provide much of the instruction. As the security forces grow more competent, they have rapidly expanded the amount of territory under their control, which now includes several neighborhoods in Baghdad and large swaths of western Iraq.

But the professionalism of Iraq's security forces can be overstated, which becomes apparent to me a week later in western Iraq. As a U.S. Army convoy approaches within a few hundred yards of a U.S. outpost at a castle in Tall Afar, gunfire erupts on all sides. The Humvees speed toward the castle gate, where an Abrams tank links up with them, providing the convoy with extra firepower as it winds its way toward a forward operating base outside the city. The shooting, officers back at the base say at first, came from insurgents. Neither I nor the soldiers caught in the middle of it had that impression, and an officer later confirms what we know to be true: The Iraqi police, overwhelmingly Sunni in this area, and the Iraqi army, overwhelmingly Shia and Kurd, were firing on one another.

Sectarian clashes present one problem. The fact that the Army still cannot operate without access to U.S. firepower, logistics, communication, and intelligence presents another. Even conceding the Bush team's fanciful premise that Iraq will have 110 combat battalions operating by the end of the year (compared with three fully effective battalions a year ago and 40 today), American officers dismiss as wishful thinking the official line that Iraqi troops can replace U.S. troops on a one-to-one basis and then operate just as effectively as their American mentors.

As for the Iraqi police, if civil war comes to Iraq, it may be ignited as much by them as by the insurgents. For Iraq's police are, to an extent not fully grasped in Washington, not police at all. As one of his parting acts in June 2004, CPA chief L. Paul Bremer signed Order 91, outlawing militias in Iraq. In response, thousands of Shia militiamen exchanged their street clothes for police uniforms. As they have gotten better at combating Iraq's Sunni guerrillas, the insurgency, at least in Baghdad and its southern outskirts, has weakened, with attacks declining since last fall. The only problem is that brutality is one of the tactics that achieved these results.

The Interior Ministry's extrajudicial antics first came to light last November, when U.S. troops stumbled across a torture chamber in Baghdad operated by Interior police. Every week brings more handcuffed and decomposed bodies discovered in garbage dumps, rivers, and hastily dug pits. "Scores of individuals are regularly detained in the middle of the night and without judicial warrant," a recent report by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq says. "The rule of law continues to be challenged by the existence of militias and other groups who continue to act with impunity, confirming an urgent need for the State to assert control over its security forces." But these forces were never the state's to begin with. Unlike the Iraqi army, which operates in tandem with U.S. forces, the police recruit and operate locally, and, until recently, they did so largely free of U.S. supervision.

To rein in the brutality, American commanders have dispatched 4,000 military advisers to work and live alongside police and commando units. Sciri's Hamoudi, for one, chafes at the interference, claiming the Americans--by condemning abuses at the Interior Ministry and thereby creating a "general feeling that the U.S. and British are biased toward Sunnis"--have strayed too far from the embassy compound. Pointing to comments by American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, Hamoudi says, "When the U.S. or British ambassador intervenes to press against Shia, it is illogical." But there is a logic at work here. Just as the Americans create a buffer for Iraq's Shia by training and equipping their security forces to combat the insurgency, they're also building a buffer for Iraq's Sunnis, who increasingly rely on the U.S. military to keep those same forces in check. In areas like Salman Pak and Tall Afar, the once viscerally anti-American Sunni population has even turned to the Americans for protection.

For a glimpse of what Iraq would look like in the event of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal, one need look no further than Tall Afar, where there was a precipitous U.S. withdrawal. Before the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment (3rd ACR) launched its offensive to clear Tall Afar last September, the city, like Falluja before it, had become a horror show. With only 400 soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division patrolling the roughly 10,000-square-mile sector around it, officers say, there simply weren't enough troops to pacify the city. During the Falluja offensive in November 2004, police stations across the province fell to insurgent attacks, and Tall Afar itself fell under guerrilla control. On the western side of the city, tension between Sunni and Shia tribes escalated into open warfare; the remnant of the Shia-dominated police force launched brutal reprisals against the population; and forces loyal to Abu Musab Al Zarqawi moved into the city, mounting their own campaign of atrocities--killing patients in the local hospital, kidnapping and beheading hostages, and forcing children to act as human shields. "I know people at home will roll their eyes," says one American officer, "but Restore Rights [the September 2005 operation to clear Tall Afar] cleansed this place of something genuinely evil."

Police headquarters in Tall Afar is located on the grounds of a centuries-old Ottoman castle, which sits on a large hill in the center of the city. From its parapets, one can usually see the entire city, but it is pouring rain, and even tanks slide in the mud. The castle also houses the mayor of Tall Afar, Najim Abdullah Jabouri, who, until recently, was the city's police chief as well. The mayor still operates as the city's de facto sheriff--a bullet-riddled police vest hangs on the wall of his office. The power has gone out, and it is freezing and nearly pitch-black, but the mayor seems relieved just to be here. Only a few months ago, he says, "Zarqawi was ejecting Shia from the city; and the sky--it was raining mortars. Now, we target the insurgents, not each other." Even today, 3rd ACR has Tall Afar locked down, with tanks on street corners and patrols crisscrossing the city. "The American Army is mediator and judge," the mayor says. "It is a higher authority than any institution in Iraq." So desperate, in fact, is the mayor to block 3rd ACR from leaving that he has penned a letter to President Bush, pleading for the unit to stay. "Our security forces are not well-equipped," he explains. "We are undertrained, nowhere near the situation where we can take care of our own responsibilities."

Still, the violence in Tall Afar has declined sharply. Following Operation Restore Rights, attacks on U.S. forces in Tall Afar dropped from about seven per day to one. At first, the city's Sunni leaders refused to cooperate with U.S. forces, citing the brutality of a Shia commando brigade operating in the area. But 3rd ACR had the brigade pulled back, and it released detainees whom the Sunni sheiks would vouch for. In addition, explains Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Hickey, whose Sabre Squadron operates out of the castle that houses police headquarters, "I knew I needed Sunni police to get information from the population. The Shia police were just inflaming sectarian violence." After pressing local leaders to encourage police recruits, Sunnis began to sign up, eventually swelling an exclusively Shia force of 200 into a majority Sunni force of 1,700. And, as Hickey predicted, intelligence tips began flowing in. The regiment also poured millions of dollars into the city, funding 150 water, electricity, school, and cleanup projects. At the same time, it embedded advisers with Iraqi army and police units. Today, 3rd ACR personnel live among Iraqi platoons and among the population itself, having fanned out across the city and established 29 patrol bases--including directly between the warring Sunni and Shia tribes.

---

Having melted into a once-hostile population center, the Americans have become an essential part of the landscape here--their own tribe, in effect. Seen from a helicopter roaring above Nineveh province, telephone wires provide the only evidence of modernity among the ancient forts, castles, and clay huts that dot the plain below. In this primitive universe, it's easy to confuse the door gunners, their aviation helmets emblazoned with Superman logos (the "S" actually stands for their unit, Stetson Troop), with actual supermen. Which many Iraqis do: Wedged between tribes of Sunnis Arabs, Turkomen, Shia, and Kurds, a regal and persecuted people--the Yazidis--call Nineveh province home. The Yazidis, who, among other things, don't wear blue, don't eat lettuce, and take a somewhat nuanced view of Satan (their Muslim neighbors have accused them, falsely, of being devil worshippers), initially confused the arrival of the Americans with the Second Coming. An officer at the forward operating base in Sinjar elaborates: "They think that, um, we're Jesus."

The Yazidis aren't the only ones. At a base in central Iraq a few days earlier, two U.S. helicopters taxi to a halt near a C-130. The crew chiefs jump out and guide two rows of detainees, handcuffed and blindfolded, away from the prop blast. A detainee's fate, as I learned last year on stumbling across a similar scene in Baghdad, depends largely on his destination. The idea of prisoners begging to get into Abu Ghraib may seem like a stretch, but, more than anything else, they fear being turned over to the Iraqi security forces. They know the Americans probably won't kill them, and that, in all likelihood, they will be released in a few days.

As for the Americans themselves, the soldiers value their roles here just as much as the local population does. Back at regimental headquarters, framed pictures of the fallen line the wall--3rd ACR has lost 42 men during its yearlong tour, and many more have been terribly wounded, including the regiment's command sergeant major. And, yet, contrary to the faux moral posturing of those who claim to speak for the troops back home, when the troops do speak, what they say is invariably some variation of "leave us alone to do our job." The soldiers' confidence in their mission derives in part from a sense of ownership that the Army has about Iraq. While Colin Powell's reported warning on the eve of the invasion--"If you break it, you own it"--applies even as the war grinds toward the end of its third year, for the Army at least, it is equally true that, when you break it, it owns you. Having bled so much here, the officer corps cannot entertain the possibility that they did so in vain. Its members truly believe that victory, even at this late date, may be within reach.

In Tall Afar, it genuinely is. To be sure, 3rd ACR, which a Pentagon review of dozens of units in Iraq rated as the most adept at counterinsurgency, hardly counts as a typical unit. There are, to begin with, the officers gathered around the commander, among them a Harvard graduate student wounded here and a Middle East historian who can recite every detail about British operations around Tall Afar in the 1920s. There is the Iraqi-American interpreter who has established himself as a power broker among Nineveh's clans. There is the regiment's self-contained aviation squadron, its gunships baring snarling shark's teeth and its scout choppers having shut down infiltration across the Syrian border. Then there are the soldiers themselves, who benefited from unusual training (devoted largely to counterinsurgency as well as to Iraq's customs and language) and whose professionalism in dealing with Iraqis arguably has yielded more diplomatic triumphs than the combined exertions of every Foreign Service officer in Iraq.

There is, finally, the commander himself. With his raspy voice and shaved head, Colonel H.R. McMaster bears a closer likeness to the brusque officers that Robert Duvall brought to life in Apocalypse Now and The Great Santini than to the tweedy scholar on the book jacket that made him famous. McMaster's Ph.D. dissertation, which scolded the joint chiefs of staff for not protesting more forcefully Lyndon Johnson's march to war in Vietnam, appeared in 1997 as a book--Dereliction of Duty--that became required reading at the Pentagon. A parade of retired generals has wielded Dereliction of Duty as a club against today's military leaders, charging them with the same sins that the book accuses their Vietnam-era predecessors of committing. But, if McMaster sees parallels to the civil-military relations of the Vietnam era, he's not saying. When it comes to the operational realm, however, he freely concedes to drawing from the Army's experience in Vietnam. "The important thing that emerges from Vietnam is that the political, economic, and military have to go together," he says. "You have to isolate insurgents from external support. You have to develop security forces. You have to provide security for the population." Which is exactly what he did in Tall Afar, having enshrined the principles of counterinsurgency in his unit's tactics well before the term returned to favor in Washington last year. The press, in turn, has anointed McMaster a latter-day John Paul Vann, and an army of journalists has descended on this remote corner of western Iraq. (A sergeant complains that his soldiers still distract themselves with tantalizing images of Lara Logan, the swimsuit model-cum-"60 Minutes" correspondent, who dropped in from the sky recently.)

In an Army that has spent three years launching big-unit sweeps, relying heavily on firepower and otherwise heeding ground commander Lieutenant General Thomas Metz's admonition not to "put much energy into trying the old saying 'win hearts and minds,'" 3rd ACR has done exactly the reverse. Yet, rather than duplicate the Tall Afar operation in towns and cities across Iraq, the White House's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" declares, "Our forces will increasingly move out of the cities ... and conduct fewer patrols and convoy missions." The administration intends to draw down troop levels to 100,000 by the end of the year, with the pullback already well underway as U.S. forces surrender large swaths of the countryside and hunker down in their bases. The plan infuriates many officers, who can only say privately what noncommissioned officers say openly. "In order to fix the situation here," Sabre Squadron's Sergeant José Chavez says, "we need at least 180,000 troops." Iraq, however, will soon have about half that. An effective counterinsurgency strategy may require time and patience. But the war's architects have run out of both.

---

Al Yawar, the most powerful Sunni sheik in 3rd ACR's area of operations, cannot grasp this essential truth. So he has invited Colonel Joel Armstrong, the regiment's one-man State Department, to lunch. En route, Armstrong's helicopter and another Black Hawk flying escort wind along creek beds, hugging the desert floor. Eventually, the bleached landscape below yields a surprise: a miniature Versailles. A few hundred yards from the sheik's compound, the choppers set down next to a horse corral. An army of security guards--tribesmen with New York Yankees caps--usher the colonel and his fellow officers inside, where the combination of marble floors, ornate chandeliers, gilded wall trim, and a roaring fireplace casts them all in an orange glow. As for the sheik, despite the robe, headdress, and gold sash tied across his waist, he bears an uncanny resemblance to John Gotti.

He wields a similar power, having, as the colonel points out, "convinced his people not to fight us and be peaceful." The sheik presents Armstrong with a list of detainees he wants released and asks about a paving project the Americans have promised. The local mayor, it seems, has embezzled the funds, and Al Yawar would like the Americans to supervise the project more closely. More than that, he would like assurances the Americans will stay. "The government is not listening to the Sunnis," he explains. The Iraqi army, in particular, incenses him. "They hit and kick people. They are not from this region." By contrast, "The Americans--they are in the middle. They are on neither side. This is why we trust them. But, if the Americans leave, who will I talk to?"

Back at the base after lunch, Armstrong mulls over the meeting. Along with the rest of the regiment, he will head home soon. During his year here, he developed a close relationship with the sheik, and he will clearly miss his Iraqi counterpart. Armstrong shares some of the sheik's concerns, and he shares what could well be the epitaph for the U.S. enterprise in Iraq. "We're only an honest broker," he says, "so long as we're here."

See you all after the holiday...

February 24, 2006

Demands of the Living Dead

There's tremendous pathos in this El Universal story about the creme de la creme of the Living Dead Opposition making 10 "demands" for improved electoral conditions before they'll participate in December's presidential elections.

For one thing, Accion Democratica doesn't seem to have realized that they are no longer a parliamentary party - so ingrained are the habits of mind of parliamentarism that they continue to press demands on the all chavista National Assembly as though they still had seats there, as though they hadn't maneouvered furiously to keep the opposition from participating last December.

Worse still are Antonio Ledezma's Alianza Bravo Pueblo and the Polo Democratico - groups that oscillate bafflingly between refusing to recognize the Chavez regime (under Article 350) and pressing demands on it. All I can do is groan. Apparently nobody passed these guys the memo explaining that you can't make demands of an entity you don't recognize.

Anyway, this grisly parade of Opposition museum pieces has put together a list of 10 conditions to participate in elections, and however unseemly the petitioners, the petitions are hard to argue with.

  1. Naming a new CNE Board: The National Assembly is already working on this. (But will the new board be credibly non-partisan?)

  2. Manual counting of all ballot papers: Note they want ballots counted, not votes. This is what the strangely-worded Law on Suffrage and Political Participation (LOSPP) requires, though Jorge Rodriguez's CNE has steadfastly refused to budge on this point, for reasons that escape me.

  3. Guaranteeing secret voting: Again, this is motherhood-and-apple-pie stuff.

  4. Preventing data transmission during the vote: This is a key point, but it's also a point CNE had conceded in the run-up to the December 4th vote.

  5. Cleaning up the Electoral Registry: An audit of the electoral registry has already been announced.

  6. Doing away with finger-print scanners and electronic voter rolls: A major bone of contention. These machines are neither mandated nor banned by the law, but CNE had agreed not to use them in the run-up to December 4th.

  7. Setting and publishing electoral norms within established periods: An ongoing opposition gripe. LOSPP sets out explicit time limits for when various parts of the election rules must be published, and CNE routinely ignores them.

  8. Creating a plural National Electoral Watchdog: This is a new one. Point?

  9. Preventing the Armed Forces from interfering in voting: Another long-running opposition gripe, Army personnel have taken on a far more active role in running voting centers than the law allows. Legally, they are supposed to provide security and nothing else, in fact they have at times checked ID cards, refused entry to opposition witnesses, run the tallying procedure, etc.

  10. Restricting the use of public funds in the campaign: For as long as Venezuela has had elections, ruling parties have abused their access to state funds for campaign purposes. This has always been illegal, and has always been done.
Leaving aside for a moment my distaste for the groups that compiled this list, it's hard to argue with its content. Six of the ten points (points 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10) are just reiterations of LOSPP - they don't even count as concessions, they're just requests for CNE to actually do what the law tells it to do. Point 1 is already being carried out, point 4 and point 6 had already been agreed in the run-up to the December 4th vote. The only really iffy one is point 8 - there is no mention of a Fiscalía Nacional Electoral in LOSPP, and I'm not really sure what the demand is about.

The good news is that the more extreme elements of the Traditional Opposition have put their demands forward explicitly. If a new CNE were to accept them formally, there would be no reason to continue the idiot controversy surrounding voting conditions, and the country could move on to an actual election campaign. The Has Been Opposition is not insisting on the more radical proposals making the rounds out there, such as doing away with electronic voting altogether, so there is no need to alter any laws to meet their concerns. Indeed, for the most part, the list just restates what LOSPP already says.

So if the government wants to end this useless polemic, it now knows precisely how to do it.

February 23, 2006

The Caracas-Washington Rift in Geopolitical Perspective


I liked this Stratfor piece for its clear-eyed, myth-busting perspective. Friedman argues, quite convincingly if you ask me, that for all the day-to-day diplomatic heat, a cool-headed, realist calculus shows that Venezuela is not really a geopolitical problem for the US. Not at the moment, anyway (though watch that Hamas money!) I reproduce the second-half of the piece, putting my favorite bits in bold:
The United States and the 'Problem' of Venezuela
By George Friedman

Venezuela has become an ongoing problem for the Bush administration, but no one seems able to define quite what the issue is. President Hugo Chavez is carrying out the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela and feuding with the United States. He has close ties with Cuba and has influenced many Latin American countries. The issue that needs to be analyzed, however, is whether any of this matters -- and if it does, why it is significant.

[...]

In reality, Chavez's ability to challenge the United States is severely limited. The occasional threat to cut off oil exports to the United States is fairly meaningless, in spite of conversations with the Chinese and others about creating alternative markets. The United States is the nearest major market for Venezuela. The Venezuelans could absorb the transportation costs involved in selling to China or Europe, but the producers currently supplying those countries then could be expected to shift their own exports to fill the void in the United States. Under any circumstances, Venezuela could not survive very long without exporting oil. Symbolizing the entire reality is the fact that Chavez's government still controls Citgo and isn't selling it, and the U.S. government isn't trying to slam controls onto Citgo.

Washington ultimately doesn't care what Chavez does so long as he continues to ship oil to the United States. From the American point of view, Chavez -- like Castro -- is simply a nuisance, not a serious threat. Latin American countries in general are of interest to Washington, in a strategic sense, only when they are being used by a major outside power that threatens the United States or its interests. The entire Monroe Doctrine was built around that principle.

There was a fear at one point that Nazi U-boats would have access to Cuba. And when Castro took power in Cuba, it mattered, because it gave the Soviets a base of operations there. What happened in Nicaragua or Chile mattered to the United States because it might create opportunities the Soviets could exploit. Nazis in Argentina prior to 1945 mattered to the United States; Nazis in Argentina after 1945 did not. Cuba before 1991 mattered; after 1991, it did not. And apart from oil, Venezuela does not matter now to the United States.

From the American point of view, an intervention that would overthrow Chavez would achieve nothing, even if it could be carried out. Chavez is shipping oil; therefore, the United States has no major outstanding issues. A coup in Venezuela, even if not engineered by the United States, would still be blamed on the United States. It would increase anti-American sentiment in Latin America, which in itself would not be all that significant. But it also would increase hostility toward the United States in Europe, where the Allende coup is still recalled bitterly by the left. The United States has enough problems with the Europeans without Venezuela adding to them.

Taken in isolation, Venezuela can't really hurt the United States. If all of South America were swept by a Bolivarian revolution, it wouldn't hurt the United States. Absent a significant global power to challenge the United States, Latin America and its ideology are of interest to Latin Americans but not to Washington.

This explains the strange standoff between Venezuela and the United States, and Washington's basic indifference to events in Latin America. Venezuela is locked into its oil relationship with the United States. Latin America poses no threat on its own. The chief geopolitical challenge to the United States -- radical Islam -- intersects Latin America only marginally. Certainly, there are radical Islamists in Latin America; Hezbollah in particular has assets there. But for them to mount an attack against the United States from Latin America would be no more efficient than mounting it from Europe. The risk is a concern, not an obsession.

For the United States, its border with Mexico matters. For the Venezuelans, high oil prices that subsidize their social programs and buy regional allies matter. Both want Venezuelan oil to keep pumping. Aside from the one issue that they agree on, the United States can live and is living with Chavez, and Chavez not only lives well with the United States but needs it -- both as a source of cash, through Citgo, and as a whipping boy.

Sometimes, there really isn't a problem.

The piece usefully points out the basic weakness in the endless chavophile incantation of past gringo misdeeds in the region: the changed geopolitical landscape. It always makes me smile when PSFs invoke the American intervention against Arbenz, say, to bolster the plausibility of the CIA plotting to rile up Venezuelan bus drivers. Like their Beloved Leader, they don't seem to have noticed that the bipolar strategic competition that drove the logic behind those interventions is dead and buried.

But I suppose for chavistas, it wasn't geopolitics that drove US meddling in the region, but rather some innate evil in the US government - an essentialist position that shows up the zealotry in their stance. For Chavez and his supporters, the gringos don't need a strategic reason to destabilize Venezuela: they do so, Disney villain style, purely because they're bad, bad, BADDDDD.

February 22, 2006

Narcissism-Leninism Chronicles

Teodoro Petkoff writes this spicy Tal Cual editorial on Carabobo Governor Luis Felipe Acosta Carles's delirious sycophancy after he took out these mammoth billboards all over the country - including in Caracas, miles and miles from his state:


Fun bits:
This gigantic billboard should give pause to those pious souls who still believe that Venezuela is seeing a process of great social changes. History has shown many times that the sham at the heart of supposedly revolutionary regimes becomes ever more visible when pictures and statues of their leaders start peppering the landscape, gradually becoming nightmarishly omnipresent. History, that cruel surgeon, also shows that the end of such regimes goes hand in hand with the clouds of dust kicked up by those statues and billboards as they're toppled by the people.

Before they become official media policy, the giant photos start out as an expression of the most abject adulation. First up are the bootlickers, who quickly realize how pleasing to the autocrat's ego, particularly for Narcissist-Leninists, it is to see their image splashed across streets, avenues, buildings and parks. Later on come the propaganda "experts," who turn adulation into an instrument of the "revolution's" media policy.

So far, we're in the boot-licking stage. All around we see governors, ministers, any little bureaucratic chiefs "decorating" the façades of their offices with smiling images of I, the Supreme, while city walls are slowly taken over by "art" works with the same smiling subject. On the PDVSA building in Maracaibo, for instance, there's a roof-to-ground-floor billboard which would be the envy of Stalin himself. Of course, the adulatee rejoices in seeing his image splayed out everywhere his gaze falls. His pleasure feeds, in turn, the diligence of those who come to realize they're falling behind in this bootlicking tournament.

February 21, 2006

Extra! Extra! Chavismo has a good idea!

Read all about it!!

OK, so they're seven years late, and they're only reviving an old PDVSA idea, but still, chavismo wants to restart the Natural Gas for Vehicles (GNV) program.

The GNV Program is brilliant any way you look at it:

  • Environmental: Natural gas is extremely clean, emitting about half the greenhouse gases associated with gasoline and close to none of the toxic gases and particulate emissions that foul up the local air. And since Natural Gas is, well, a gas, it can't seep into the groundwater.

  • Economic: Natural Gas is outrageously cheap in Venezuela, even without government subsidies.

  • Fiscal: The more GNV PDVSA sells domestically, the fewer scarce resources it has to devote to wasteful and ecocidal gasoline subsidies and the more gasoline it can sell abroad, at much higher international prices.

  • Technological: The GNV program creates a network of local firms that specialize in converting gasoline engines to run on Natural Gas. These local firms accumulate know-how in a technology likely to be critical over the next half-century, and may have strong positive externalities.

    The only serious drawback is the high cost of converting regular gas stations to sell GNV. But much of that investment has already been made, in the mid-90s, when PDVSA established a nationwide system of GNV service stations. (The other drawback is that the damn gas tank you have to install in the trunk of your car eats up half the luggage space - but that doesn't affect public transport, which is the main target of the program.)

    Obviously, it would have been better to keep the program running continuously. Seven years ago, Venezuela had the third largest GNV vehicle fleet in the world. Today, I imagine we've slipped back a few notches and fallen behind the technology curve some.

    Still, I'd assumed PDVSA was planning to let GNV die out. They're bringing it back, and that's great.
  • February 20, 2006

    The Broken Input Side

    Why is it that Chavez's government can't seem to learn?

    I think it's worth pondering the way revolutionary dogmatism, conditioned by an automatic assumption that all criticism is animated by a hidden agenda, feeds into intolerance of dissent, leaving the revolution impervious to outside input. When you are are 100% certain you are right, you can only infer that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of tainted motives.

    It's a short step from that to concluding that only traitors dissent. And when you dismiss all dissent as treason, you leave yourself unable to absorb any information that comes from outside a restricted circle of ideological correctness.

    Dogmatism leads to intolerance, and intolerance to political catatonia.

    February 17, 2006

    Typical CIA Stuff: Infiltrating the Bus Drivers

    Straight out of the Fidel playbook, we get this stomach turning tidbit: in the wake of Condi Rice's calls for an international anti-Chavez front, National Assembly chairman Nicolas Maduro accuses Caracas's bus drivers of playing along with a US conspiracy to destabilize the government by threatening to strike on the flimsy pretext that too many of them are getting shot by street criminals. At one point, Maduro actually suggested the CIA has a campaign to kill Caracas bus drivers to goad the rest into striking. It's not so much that you couldn't make this stuff up, it's that you wish you had to...

    This should clear up a few things:
  • Every time a US government official speaks negatively about Venezuela, s/he gives an opening for chavismo to turn that statement into repression.

  • It's not just big-wig oligarch politicians and journalists who need to worry about the equation of dissent with treason. The government is just as happy this paranoid logic it to bus drivers.

  • No accusation of gringo-evil doing seems to far-fetched or silly for chavistas to put forward with a straight face.

  • If the US wants to put diplomatic pressure on Chavez, it should do it quietly, out of mike range. Doing it publicly only invites more repression.
  • February 16, 2006

    How isolated is Venezuela on Iran's nukes?

    Lets see...the countries supporting the IAEA motion to refer Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security council were:
    Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Norway, Portugal, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Yemen.

    Countries against: Cuba, Syria, Venezuela.

    Abstentions: Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya, and South Africa.
    Folks, France, Germany, Egypt, Russia, and Yemen are part of the gringo conspiracy against our new allies. Argentina, too! (et tu, Kirchner?) Even Libya wouldn't stand by the mullah's in Tehran!

    Proliferation Chronicles

    Al Jazeera sez:
    Iran hints at Venezuelan nuclear tie
    Iran is open to helping Venezuela develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but the two Opec members have not yet held talks about such cooperation, an Iranian lawmaker says.

    Gholamali Haddadadel, Iran's parliament speaker, said: "Although we have not had any conversations until now with Venezuelan authorities, we would be willing to study the possibility."

    Venezuela last year said it was interested in developing nuclear technology with the possible help of Argentina, Brazil or Iran for civilian energy and medical purposes.

    The Iranian delegation visiting Venezuela to boost ties between the two nations signed a joint statement ratifying "the right of all nations to make peaceful-use nuclear energy" and condemned the "imperialism" of foreign powers.

    Venezuela joined Syria and Cuba this month at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in opposing the UN watchdog's decision to send the Iran nuclear energy dispute to the UN Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

    Our friends in Tehran...

    Why am I horrified about Venezuela's growing ties with Iran? Ask the French:
    France Says Iran's Atomic Program Is a Military Cover
    PARIS (AP) -- France's foreign minister said Thursday that Iran's nuclear program was a cover for clandestine military activity, in an unusually direct attack on Tehran for a European diplomat.

    ''No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program,'' Douste-Blazy said on France-2 television. ''The international community has sent a very firm message in telling the Iranians to return to reason and suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment and conversion of uranium, but they aren't listening to us.''

    The International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 4 over suspicions about its nuclear activities. France, Britain and Germany have led European negotiations that have failed to persuade Iran to suspend parts of its nuclear program.

    ''Now it's up to the Security Council to say what it will do, what means it will use to stop, to manage, to halt this terrible crisis of nuclear proliferation caused by Iran,'' Douste-Blazy said.

    Watch Hugo start calling Chirac Monsieur Danger...

    February 15, 2006

    "Power to the Communities!"

    Bypassing official bureaucracy to give power directly to grassroots groups is one of those "motherhood-and-apple-pie" banners only a truly heartless escualido monster could possibly oppose. Problem is, as soon as "power" becomes "money," incentives fall into place for people to try to get their hands into the cookie jar. And if there's one thing we know for sure about corruption it's that without appropriate oversight, rent-capturing opportunities mean corruption.

    Descifrado runs this tasty item on some of the problems involved. It's a nice case study of the way beautiful slogans transmogrify into ugly realities in the Chavez era:
    The ghost of corruption haunts grassroots chavismo
    President Chavez's order to fast-track the mechanisms to transfer money directly to "the community" for barrio projects has caused serious worries among those charged with implementing the policy. The officials in charge are starting to face serious difficulties implementing control mechanisms to make sure the money isn't stolen along the way. So called "social comptrollership" remains nothing but a campaign slogan. According to Miguel De Gregorio, an adviser to the program, unless a Social Comptrollership law is approved along with a Citizen Participation law, any step to turn funds over to the communities will take place without meaningful oversight.

    As soon as Chavez ordered the creation of Community Councils empowered with administering state funds, pro-government mayors started appointing "their people" to the committees. There are some 3,600 Community Council chairmen already, and Defense Minister Garcia Carneiro has told the regional command centers of the National Guard to appoint still more, since his ministry will be charged with running the program. Since they have no legal status, the community councils could turn into a money pit for the Bs.2.2 trillion (US$1 billion) budgeted to be transferred to them in the coming days. These hurried transfers, under the banner of giving "power to the communities, may do nothing but strengthen a culture of corruption that is already growing like a fungus around officialdom.

    February 14, 2006

    Chavez's Mushy Majority

    A full year before the 2004 recall referendum, when the opposition believed unanimously that Chavez could not win such a vote, a single voice - utterly isolated - stood up to tell us this was not the case. Alfredo Keller made more than a few enemies with that line, but the guy is a serious pollster, so he called it as he saw it. For this alone it's worth taking his analyses seriously.

    In Keller's latest poll, carried out at the end of last year, 52% reported they would vote for Hugo Chavez in a hypothetical election. Not bad at all - and, in fact, about 10 points higher than in mid-2005. What's interesting, though, is what happens when Keller asks follow-up questions designed to gauge the strength of Chavez's support.

    Keller notes that 32% of voters are what he calls "transaccional chavistas," whose support based on a clientelist quid pro quo: my vote for your misión money. Another 14% is what he describes as "bureaucratic chavistas," people with more direct links to the state aparatus who depend on Chavez for their public sector jobs and perks. As for "radical chavistas" - those whose support is based specifically on ideological grounds - Keller places it at a mere (though boisterous and visible) 6% of the electorate. For all the sound and fury, this is just the "historic 6%" of ñángaras who've voted for the Venezuelan left since times immemorial.

    Keller's point is that chavismo "duro" - the hardcore, reliable voters Chavez can always count on - is confined to about 20% of the electorate: the radicals and the bureaucratic chavistas. These are the people who voted on December 4th.

    The rest of Chavez's majority is mushy. The "transaccionals," who account for 3 out of every 5 chavista votes, are unreliable, and increasingly hard to mobilize on rhetorical grounds alone. Most of them, for instance, didn't turn up last December. Which is why Chavez can't win without AD-style clientelist spending binges in the run-up to elections as a way to firm up his poll numbers.

    Another interesting survey finding is that 74% of voters express distrust in the electoral institutions; only 26% trusts CNE. In other words, most transactional chavistas distrust CNE. Secret voting is an especially sensitive topic for transactionals, since they're particularly concerned about endangering their access to petrostate handouts. Whether or not those fears are justified, they play an important role in intimidating "wavering transactionals."

    All of which goes some way towards explaing Chavez's attacks against OAS Electoral Observation Mission's reccomendation to overhaul CNE: the overwhelming perception that something's not quite right with all these voting machines plays to Chavez's advantage, both by demobilizing the opposition and by keeping wavering transactionals in line.

    For the most part, all of this is bad news for the opposition. Chavez is not going to be short of petrodollars to spend on his transactionals this year. It's very doubtful whether the opposition can find a candidate able to appeal to both traditional antichavistas and wavering transactionals. And Chavez will get the ultimate say on whether to appoint a new CNE able increase trust in the electoral system.

    For all that, it's important to realize that the myth of the unstoppable, unified chavista juggernaut is just that, a myth. Chavez's support is broader than it is deep: a savvy opposition campaign run by a talented, effective candidate could poach enough transaccionals to win this thing. Not to say that it will happen...just that it could.

    Hamas Watch

    Hamas scored a major diplomatic coup the other day when they got invited to Moscow. Now that Hamas has broken out of the ummah diplomatic ghetto with an invitation to meet with a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the stakes are much lower for Venezuela. J.V. Rangel is savvy enough to understand that:
    When asked if his country would welcome Hamas leaders, Venezuelan Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel responded, “What is the problem?” stating with absolute certainty that Hamas officials would be welcome in his country. The statement follows last week’s invitation to Hamas leaders from Russian President Vladimir Putin, a move that sparked angry reactions in Israel, the United States and European Union.
    But do note, when the Russians announced they would talk to Hamas, they stressed he would use the chance to press the group to change its violent ideology. No such talk out of Rangel...which keeps the more important question open: will Chavez give them money?

    February 13, 2006

    The Not-Quite-Impossible Dream: A Decent CNE

    There's an interesting story in El Universal today about the internal wranglings in the National Assembly over what to do with CNE. Though Chavez will undoubtedly have the last word, chavistas in the Assembly are split, partucularly on whether to leave Jorge Rodriguez in overall charge of the council. As it stands, it appears that PPT, the Communist Party, Podemos, and Francisco Ameliach's MVR faction want to see a new CNE chairman, while Nicolas Maduro, Iris Varela, and Willian Lara would like to see Rodriguez (and, potentially, all his colleagues) stay.

    Three things to note:
    • Maduro et. al. would appear to be Chavez's preferred bunch in the Assembly, so the smart money has to be on Rodriguez staying (ugh!)

    • The prospect - discounted as pure fantasy by so many in the opposition - of a decent(er) CNE is not quite out of the question yet - chunks of the Assembly are lobbying actively for it.

    • The debate itself proves the old political science adage that if you take a group of people who agree on everything, lock them in a room together and come back in a few months, you'll find parties and factions emerging. This is not to say that we have a genuinely parliamentary process in Venezuela - since everyone agrees that Chavez will make the ultimate decision - but is nevertheless interesting.

    February 11, 2006

    Getting our "isms" right...

    Seems I can't win: Chavistas regularly criticize me for calling the government an autocracy. Opposition people regularly bawl me out for refusing to call it a dictatorship. My choice of words may seem capricious, but actually a lot of thought has gone into it. Being a word-oriented kind of guy, I'm always annoyed at the careless way some of the "isms" are tossed around in debate. So I'll lay out a little taxonomy of what I see as the four key words on the liberal-totalitarian axis, to try to bring some precision to the discussion.

  • Constitutional Liberalism: A form of government that protects individuals' political liberties by dividing state power between genuinely independent institutions empowered to check and balance one another. Though it's often used as a synonym for "liberal democracy" there's no necessary link between the two: Britain practiced Constitutional Liberalism for hundreds of years before instituting democracy. In constitutional liberalism, state institutions display strong functional independence, and act under the authority of law.

    Examples: Chile, Norway, Japan, South Africa, Canada (just to pick one for each continent.)


  • Autocracy: A form of government where all state power is concentrated in a single person. Formally independent state institutions are, in reality, dependent on the autocrat. Authority stems from the leader, not from the laws. An autocrat centralizes state power, but political entities outside the state retain capacity for independent action. Individual political liberties are curtailed but not entirely eliminated.

    Examples: Venezuela under Chavez, Argentina under Peron, Russia under Putin, Egypt under Nasser, Singapore under Lee Kwan Yew.


  • Authoritarianism: Roughly synonymous with dictatorship, a form of government where all political activity is dominated by a single actor, through violence when necessary. The basic difference between autocracy and authoritarianism is that an authoritarian regime extends control not just over the state, but over all political activities in society. Political opposition is systematically repressed through the application of state power.

    Examples: most traditional dictatorships in Latin America (Gomez, Trujillo, Porfirio Diaz, Batista and a very long etc.), also Iran under the Shah, Zaire under Mbutu, Indonesia under Suharto.


  • Totalitarianism: A form of government where all social life is dominated by a single actor through the systematic use of violence. Though often misused as a rough synonym of "authoritarianism," totalitarianism is something fundamentally different. Totalitarian regimes seek to control all aspects of social life, not just politics. Whereas authoritarianism is "rational" - in the sense that it does what is necessary to maintain political power and no more - totalitarianism is not.

    Examples are few: France under the reign of terror, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and North Korea under the Kims.
  • Obviously these are "ideal types" - not every regime fits neatly in a single category. Fidel's Cuba falls into ambiguous territory beyond traditional dictatorship but short of the mass violence associated with Totalitarianism. As presidential power expands beyond the reach of congressional oversight under Bush the Younger, the US gets further away from constitutional liberalism as traditionally understood - but no sober analysts would call the US an autocracy.

    Chavez, on the other hand, is not a borderline case at all. He's an autocrat through-and-through. Though he's made some worrying moves in the direction of authoritarianism, it's perfectly clear he's far from controlling all political life in the country. It's equally clear that he's centralized all state power under his authority.

    Do you want Open Threads?

    Some of you have been writing in to complain that the comments section is going far off-topic too often. One possible solution is to start running "Open Threads" - posts without a topic meant for general discussion in the comments section. If I start running them, I'll also start erasing off-topic comments in the other threads. Think this is a good idea?

    Yes, start running open threads
    No, leave the blog the way it is


    Current Results

    Dissent = Treason

    Fidelismo 101 in action:
    "The presidential elections are coming and the opposition is all out of whack, divided, diminished...but we are not fighting against the Venezuelan opposition, but against the empire, its lackeys and its pawns."
    -Hugo Chavez

    February 10, 2006

    Thinkcrime update

    RSF Warning: Dissing the powerful might be hazardous to your freedom
    Reporters Without Borders voiced concern after the state prosecutor’s office laid a charge of ”insult” against Napoleón Bravo of Venevisión TV on 8 February 2006, since it would be the first to be tried under draconian criminal law reform.

    The organisation said it feared damage to press freedom, as the law, promulgated on 16 March 2005, steps up sanctions for press offences.

    “With the Napoleón Bravo precedent, the application of the criminal code reform will seriously compromise the future of press freedom in Venezuela, since this law is so harsh towards the media,” said the press freedom organisation.

    “Moreover the journalist is likely to be sentenced on matters dating back to before the law came into force, trampling on the fundamental principle of non-retroactivity,” it added.
    Do note, Napoleon Bravo (whom I don't much respect as a journalist, but that's neither here nor there) is not being tried for defamation. He's being tried for insulting state officials, desacato in Spanish.

    There's a big difference. The state is not going after him for making an untrue statement of fact. The state is trying him for expressing an opinion, for saying what he thinks.

    Desacato norms have been condemned repeatedly by international human rights groups. The trend in Latin America has been for such laws to be struck off the books. The few countries that have them tend to no longer enforce them. And for good reason: penalizing opinions comes close to instituting thinkcrimes.

    Only Venezuela is going in the other direction, broadening its desacato provisions, stiffening penalties, and now enforcing the new laws.

    Missing the Point of Chavez's Anti-American Rants

    The Washington Post runs this piece about Thomas Shannon's probably doomed attempt to de-escalate the Caracas-Washington pissing match. Key bits:
    After an especially ugly week in the hostile relationship between the Bush administration and the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's envoy here tried yesterday to salvage some civility, saying his country sought "mature and rational relations" with Washington and would remain a "reliable" source of energy to all foreign customers, including the United States.

    The State Department responded in kind, with its spokesman saying Washington was "open to a good relationship with Venezuela" and hoped for a "positive one." The spokesman, Sean McCormack, said that the two countries were cooperating in the fight against drugs and that the administration was prepared to work with governments across the political spectrum, including those with "left-of-center" views.
    While not exactly wrong, I think this kind of reportage, focusing on the diplomatics of the Chavez-US tiff, misses much of the point. Chavez's rhetorical anti-Americanism is more about domestic politics than about foreign policy. Taken directly out of Fidel's playbook, its basic goals are to deflect attention from the revolution's failures and, more perniciously, to delegitimize dissent.

    As Teodoro Petkoff explains when you tar all dissidents as foreign agents, you make questioning the government tantamount to treason. This is obviously what Chavez is up to: he's already said that, in December, the presidential election is going to be between him and the gringos. This kind of rhetoric has very little to do with what the US actually says or does, and everything to do with positioning himself to repress those who disagree with him (henceforth to be known as CIA agents) and extending autocratic control over society. The idea that there's some change in US policy that might defuse Chavez's vitriol is just naive: Chavez needs the US bogeyman to keep himself in power. You'd think that after a half-century facing this tactic in Havana, the Americans would've caught on.

    February 9, 2006

    Brothers...

    Teodoro Petkoff picks up on an old hobby horse of mine noting the similarities between Bush and Chavez lurking just behind the official animosity. Key graf:
    Chavez is trying to manufacture a reality which casts him as the incarnation of "the fatherland", supposedly on the brink of a gringo invasion. In that case, those who object to him don't oppose a mere president of the republic - whose work all citizens have the right to scrutinize - but becomes an "enemy" of nothing less than "the fatherland", a "lackey of imperialism." Which, funny coincidence, ressembles nothing so much Bush's own discourse: "you're either with us or against us" and those who are against us are unpatriotic...Chavez and Bush are two sides of the same authoritarian, intolerant and arrogant coin. They feed back on one another.
    I know I really shouldn't stray into US politics so much - but I can't help but notice that GOP tactics are getting more and more reminiscent of the kind of stuff chavistas do. Remember the "mano pelua" that mysteriously altered the constitutional text between the time it was voted on and the time it was published? I thought this kind of shenanigan couldn't imaginably happen in a first world country. Oh, but I was wrong.
    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert engineered a backroom legislative maneuver to protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits, say witnesses to the pre-Christmas power play. The language was tucked into a Defense Department appropriations bill at the last minute without the approval of members of a House-Senate conference committee, say several witnesses, including a top Republican staff member.
    On the right-left axis, Republicans and Bolivarianos are on opposite extremes. When it comes to political tactics, they're pretty much on the same page.

    The Devil Wears Cartier: Larry Birns and COHA's Indecent Game Against Maria Corina Machado

    Normally, I stick to a policy of ignoring the tiresome propagandistic tirades that ooze out of Larry Birns' fringy-lefty Council on Hemispheric Affairs, but his latest COHA-culo riled me just enough to respond. Birns trots out all the usual ruses - the hysterical anti-Americanism, the rank class-baiting, the tortured re-interpretations of Venezuelan law - to persuade us that locking up signature-gathering dissidents for over two-decades is a perfectly reasonable thing for a democratic government to do. While the usual stream of anti-Sumate invective is too tedious to take apart here, I want to dwell on one aspect that struck me as both new and particularly deceptive:

    Birns affirms that, for all intents and purposes, Sumate is a political party and that, under article 25 of Venezuela's Law of Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations, (LPPRPM) political parties are not allowed to receive funding from foreign sources. Sumate broke the law, ergo, they have to face the consequences.

    There's so much wrong with this argument it makes your head spin.

    In ordinary language, a political party is an organization that seeks political power by nominating candidates for election. Sumate does not do that, has never done that, and has no intention to do that. By Birns' definition, the League of Women Voters would be a political party, as well as the ACLU, and any other organization that participates in public life as it relates to the electoral process even when it does not seek election.

    As a matter of Venezuelan law, political parties constitute themselves as such by formally registering with CNE. This procedure allows them to nominate candidates for elections, and binds them to a particular set of rules set out in LPPRPM. Sumate isn't registered as a political party. Instead, Sumate is an "asociación civil", a legally registered NGO. There is no legal ban on NGOs receiving foreign funding - they do that all the time.

    But even if, by some bizarre re-interpretation of Venezuelan law, you decide that Sumate is a political party, Birns' argument is absurd. Article 25 of the LPPRPM establishes an obligation not to accept foreign funding, but does not establish criminal penalties for breaking that obligation. This is significant, since the law does establish criminal penalties for other violation. For instance, placing campaign posters on public property is supposed to land you in jail for 1 to 15 days. (Oh, the irony!) Nowhere in LPPRPM will you find any justification to jail someone for 20+ years - the penalties typically include fines or jail sentences of no more than a month.

    (It also bears noting that, unlike Sumate, MVR very certainly is a political party and has accepted over a million dollars in foreign campaign contributions, as shown by Spanish investigative magistrate Baltazar Garzón. If Birns thinks Maria Corina Machado should be jailed for 23 years on the basis of LPPRPM, it's hard to fathom why he doesn't think Chavez should receive similar punishment.)

    Since, obviously, LPPRM is such a weak instrument to base a prosecution on, the Prosecutor General is basing his accusation on article 128 of the Venezuelan Penal Code which bars conspring with foreigners against “Venezuela's republican institutions,” a charge that seems to imply Sumate wanted to impose a monarchy. The wording is, obviously, vague in the extreme...and weirdly unrelated to what Sumate actually did.

    This whole hubbub, lest-we-forget, stems from Sumate's campaign to help citizens exercise their right to seek the recall of elected officials as set out article 72 of the constitution, and I do mean the 1999 constitution, y'know, the one Chávez calls the best in the world, the one his supporters drafted and he campaigned for...that one.

    MCM's predicament is decidedly kafkaesque - threatened with decades in jail for undermining the republic by applying the constitution her persecutors wrote. It reminds me of Teodoro Petkoff's quip that the 1999 constitution reads more and more like a subversive pamphlet, so distant is its word and its spirit from official practice.

    So no, Larry, the devil doesn't wear Prada...he wears Cartier.

    Grab bag

  • Gilberto Landaeta, allegedly the #2 guy in Danilo Anderson's one-time extortion racket, is taken off Anderson's murder investigation, to "spend more time with his other cases." Yoraco Bauza, another alleged Anderson co-racketeer, now leads the case.

  • Tony Blair calls on Venezuela to respect the norms of the International Community. Chavez tells him to piss off.

  • Luis Vicente Leon thinks 55% of Venezuelans want to vote for someone other than Chavez. He doubts any single oppo candidate can bring together that many votes, however.

  • The Prosecutor General's Office is asking for a 23 year sentence for Sumate leaders, in a pre-trial hearing that violated constitutional due process from literally the first day.

  • EADS-CASA says the sale of 12 Spanish military transport planes to Venezuela is "not viable" if US proprietary technology has to be replaced, since it would entail virtually redesigning the whole plane. The announcement endangers the sale of Spanish naval patrol ships to Venezuela.
  • February 7, 2006

    What ever happened to Article 315?

    Back in 1999, I was a relatively naive 24 year old, and I'll confess I was genuinely conflicted about how to vote in the referendum on the new constitution. While I hated the expansion of presidential powers, the lengthened presidential term, and the introduction of immediate reelection, I couldn't help noticing article 315. It reads:
    In anual spending budgets, at all levels of government, clear and specific objectives for each budget item shall be established, along with the concrete goals intended, and the public officials responsible for achieving such goals. Goals shall be established quantitatively in terms of performance benchmarks, insofar as it is technically possible to do so. The executive branch, within six months after the end of each budget year, shall present to the National Assembly an accountability report and a balance sheet on the execution of the spending budget for the preceding fiscal year
    The article represents a thoroughgoing revolution in Venezuelan fiscal management, a clean break from the past, and a recipe for hugely increased accountability and vastly more effective public spending...or it would have, if it had ever been implemented. Six years on, I can only shake my head at my own naivete for having thought a Chavez government would take such obligations seriously.

    Clear and specific goals? Quantitative benchmarks? Accountability reports? Ni que fueramos suizos...

    Chavez's Latest Victory: Making Donald Rumsfeld Look Like a Master of Understatement

    From the enough-rope-for-PSFs-to-hang-themselves files:
    "We've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money. He's a person who was elected legally, just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally, and then consolidated power..."
    -Donald Rumsfeld
    Is Rumsfeld being provocative? No doubt. Is the statement, strictly speaking, true? Sure.

    Compare and contrast with:
    "The imperialist, genocidal, fascist attitude of the U.S. president has no limits. I think Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W. Bush."
    -Hugo Chavez
    It takes real talent to make Rummie look comparatively circumspect. Way to go, Huguito!

    February 6, 2006

    Don Regalon's Sums...

    I got excited when I saw this article in El Nacional claiming that an independent think tank had tallied up the costs of Venezuela's "international solidarity." They came up with the eye-popping total of $25.8 billion. Zowee that's a lot of money!

    Actually, as you think it over, it's a totally unlikely sum. It would mean Venezuela has handed out three times as much money as Japan, or Germany or France spend on foreign aid in a year.

    Then, I looked at this chart and started to see the catch. The study adds up all government spending abroad, including not just direct aid but also investments in things like Argentine bonds and Brazilian oil refineries and contracts to buy tankers for PDVSA. Now, while buying Argentine bonds may very well be bad business, you can hardly think of it as "spending" - those bonds are worth something.

    My suspicion was aroused further by the mysterious "Centro de Investigaciones Economicas" credited for the study, and the fact that no actual names are cited as authors. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I don't know what think tank they're talking about - or who's actually behind the study. Maybe somebody can help me out here.

    Anyway, the El Nacional article was by veteran reporter José Suárez Núñez - the closest thing Venezuela has to a dean of independent journalism. To his unending credit, Suárez Núñez can claim to have been harrassed by literally every single Venezuelan government since the 50s, and generally has all my respect. On the other hand, the guy is old, and it's hard for me to shake the feeling he's being played here.

    What we really need is not a naive tally of all government outlays abroad. For a country prone to Dutch Disease, investing windfall oil revenues abroad is not necessarily a bad thing. What we need is something much trickier - an estimate of the implied subsidy in foreign outlays, of the patrimonial loss to Venezuela from such foreign spending. That's something we're not getting in this study - though the headline figure is sure to get tossed around in attacks on the government.

    Of course, it's also true that the government courts this kind of attack by spending abroad in the least transparent way imaginable. Constitutionally, it's the government's job to provide reliable, clear information on all its spending - both internal and external - and it's the Comptroller General's job to check out those sums and make sure they're in order. Since they don't do that, third parties have to go out and try to estimate these things on the basis of what fragmentary information they can find.

    Still, for once, I agree that this study seems like just so much underhanded mud-slinging. I'm curious to read the full study, though, and to find out who's actually behind it. Anybody know?

    February 5, 2006

    Just how far does Chavez really want to push the envelope?

    Is Chavez's vociferous anti-americanism just rhetoric, or is he willing to take steps that really do create a strategic problem for the US? At this point, it's not at all clear...

    For the most part, por ahora, Chavez has been careful to confine his anti-gringo stance to the rhetorical level. Making grand sounding anti-imperialist speeches is a safe way to get the rebel aura Chavez so clearly craves. But aside from discoursive fulminations, he hasn't really taken steps that would create serious problems for the US. So is Chavez's anti-americanism all lip? Or is he going to put some meat on the bones of the discourse?

    The reason I'm fascinated by Hamas's tour of Latin America is that I think it'll force Chavez to answer these questions. Funding Hamas is not like bankrolling Fidel, that troublesome but ultimately unthreatening Cold War museum piece. Funding Hamas would create a serious problem for the US in the most difficult area of its foreign policy. My sense is that giving money to Hamas would bump Chavez up from the rank of nuisance to that of actual problem for the state department. Is this what he really wants, or was the strategy all along to go for the international public relations boost attached to the status of "Bush's No. 1 foe in Latin America" without incurring any of the risks? His position on Hamas will go a long ways to clarifying that question...

    You get a sense for just how hairy this issue is from this press release:
    WIESENTHAL CENTER URGES SOUTH AMERICAN NATIONS TO BAR REPORTED HAMAS LATIN AMERICAN TOUR
    The Simon Wiesenthal Center is urging the governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Venezuela to bar a delegation of Hamas leaders, who Venezuelan Vice President, Jose Vicente Rangell, said were planning to tour Latin America.

    In letters to the Ambassadors of the four nations in Washington, D.C., Wiesenthal Center founder and dean, Rabbi Marvin Hier and associate dean Rabbi Abraham Cooper said, “We urge your government to bar such a visit of representatives of an avowed terrorist organization that dispatches suicide bombers against civilian targets and openly calls for the destruction of the State of Israel….”

    They continued, “Further, Hamas’ charter at its core is openly antisemitic and states in part: ‘There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time…. [The Jews] …were behind World War I, World War II… There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it….’ The Charter goes on to declare Zionism to be ‘behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds.’”

    Rabbis Hier and Cooper concluded, “Those committed to peace in the Middle East will help further this goal by standing in solidarity against Hamas unless and until it disavows its terrorist and genocidal agenda.”

    February 4, 2006

    The revolution's endlessly malleable bogeymen

    This line, from Hutton's take on last year's Youth Festival, got me thinking:
    "When I was here in 2000-2002 I don't remember anyone using the word imperialism. The subject just didn't come up."
    It's interesting to consider the way Chavez's rhetorical bogeymen have transmogrified over the years. If I remember correctly, it went something like this:
    1994-1998: Corruption
    1999-2000: Puntofijismo
    2001-2002: The Oligarchy
    2002-2004: Coup-mongering
    2005- : American Imperialism
    Am I missing a bogeyman here? Do the dates look about right? It would take some fairly stomach-turning research in the Alo, presidente archives to confirm - I'm just not up to it.

    What's weird is the way the switchover is never explicitly justified or even acknowledged and yet, once it happens, it's absolute, Orwelian. This revolution has always been about opposing imperialism, we have never been at war with Eurasia.

    February 3, 2006

    Operation G2


    by Juan Carlos Zapata, in Descifrado en la Calle

    Cuba's G2 intelligence service has flushed out an alleged spy ring in the US embassy, infiltrated its diplomatic mission and kept its eyes on the alleged conspiratorial activities of the opposition. But G2 is unable to detect the corruption that flows through the veins of chavismo.

    The Comptroller General, Clodosvaldo Russian, who will present his report at the end of the month, will surprise us with a major revelation: corruption proliferates at the local level. A huge discovery that looks more like a smoke screen to cover up the center of the corruption problem: its presence in the highest spheres of power.

    Since it's an election year, the high government, CNE and the accountability institutions will keep a discrete silence so no scandal can taint the president's campaign.

    Not long ago, when Chavez personally realized he had been duped with the misallocation of money for a project he had announced with much fanfare, he had no choice but to talk publicly about the deception, to order an investigation and even to say he felt like executing the military men responsible.

    These are facts that the comptroller doesn't see, and since he doesn't see them he doesn't investigate them. These are the facts that G2 also takes a pass on, or doesn't care about. And these are the matters that Chavez generally doesn't address, since it's impossible he doesn't know. If the Barinas matter became an investigation, it was because Chavez felt cheated, since he'd gone as far as staging an Alo Presidente from the tomato processing plant that, despite the money allocated, was never put into operation. In other words, it was more an affront to his ego than disquiet about corruption as a real and serious matter.

    Otherwise, there's no way to explain how suddenly we see such prosperous figures inside chavismo, and how moderately successful businessmen suddenly take off to become first rank economic actors. They buy insurance companies. They become partners in banks big and small. They launch businesses. They buy newspapers and radio stations and TV stations. They start magazines. They are involved in huge contracts. Aren't these signs of corruption?

    It's obvious. I think it was Luis Miquilena who once said that Chavez uses corruption as a means to pressure his allies. He trades his silence and inaction for their loyalty. How many ministers and officials at the Finance Ministry have been signalled for shady practices? To find out, you don't need the Cuban G2. Everybody knows about it in the Banco Industrial, in Banfoandes, in the Central Bank, in the organizations that deal with financial matters on a daily basis. Chavez can't pretend he doesn't know about the baccanalia surrounding government deposits in private banks. In fact, he has known about this corrupt practice since the start of the revolution. He has been warned about it, there was even talk about centralizing government deposits in a Treasury Bank. But the party goes on. The trafficking in government deposits and insurance policies have yielded millions. And Miraflores knows that, and the business community knows that. In the last Venamcham survey they pointed to corruption and bureaucracy as the two factors that most inhibit the development of their businesses. Because, it's worth noting in passing, middlemen in each transaction are making off with as much as 15 and even 20% of the deal.

    But the comptroller doesn't see it, even if he admitted to Panorama that "we are dealing with lots of accusations." But where are the cases? A job for G2: investigating a comptroller's office which, if it can't see the obvious scams, certainly can't see the sophisticated ones, like the capital flight taking place in spite of currency controls. Because experts have said that in the "imports" account (which last year amounted to $25 billion) there are all kinds of shady deals.

    Corruption is out there. Having a party. We should note one thing. Just as corruption undermined the basis of representative democracy, adding fuel to Chavez's anti-system discourse, history tells us that corruption will end up undermining Chavez's socialist dream. Because even the reddest of revolutionaries is tempted by easy money: the great triumph of the bolibourgeoisie.

    February 2, 2006

    Hamazuela

    Well, for once random speculation doesn't blow up in my face. Hamas is coming, cap in hand, folks.

    As The New Republic points out, Hamas can't necessarily rely on Iran for a bailout:
    The secret of Iran's success [in courting Sunni support for a radical Shia regime by funding Hamas] has been to consistently support political violence in Palestine, a cause with overwhelming appeal among Sunnis in the region, while generally avoiding direct support for Palestinian institution-building--a more suspicious project that, for many hard-line Shia and Sunni Muslims, reeks of conciliation toward the Jews. Thus, Tehran broke with Arafat over the Oslo accords but revived cooperation with arms shipments during the Al Aqsa intifada. It financed a Marxist revolutionary, Ahmed Jibril, in his group's war against the Jewish state in the '90s, but it withheld some support for Hamas as punishment for its temporary cessation of suicide operations declared last year. Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Assefi, was, according to Radio Free Europe, quoted in the state news agency last week as "congratulat[ing] the great Palestinian people, the Hamas movement, all Palestinian combatants, and the great Islamic umma [Islamic nation]" for "the powerful presence of Hamas on the political scene of Palestine." Yet Iran's major financial recipient in the West Bank and Gaza, Islamic Jihad, boycotted the high-turnout Palestinian elections on the pretext of their illegitimacy under occupation, and it perpetrated a suicide attack on January 19. Broadly speaking, Iran is a fickle friend to Palestinian factions and the people they speak for; Tehran's commitment to the most uncompromising ideals of the broader Middle East region vis-à-vis Palestine easily trumps the pragmatic interests of the Palestinians themselves. Iran's history with the Palestinians is therefore a shaky basis for Hamas to expect reliable support from Tehran in any state-building project.
    So Hamas doesn't have that many good options. Can Chavez really say no?

    "Only crazy people would think International Elections Observers are biased..."

    If I had a dime for every time a chavista just plain laughed at the opposition for refusing to accept International Elections Monitors' opinions about Venezuelan elections, I'd have...well, I'd have a lot of dimes.

    But, of course, rhetorical opportunism is free, and now that the shoe is on the other foot...well, you get the idea. Suddenly, Jorge Valero, Venezuela's ambassador to the OAS, rants that the recommendations made by the OAS Electoral Observation Mission last December are part of an gringo smear campaign.

    Now, it may well be that the widespread lack of confidence in CNE is unjustified. Opinions will and do differ. Personally I think it's partly justified but overstated, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that you can be agnostic about that question - as, indeed, the OAS and EU observer missions were - and still reach the obvious conclusion that large sections of society don't trust the system.

    And, indeed, that's just what the foreign observer missions said last December. They didn't say that the opposition was right to be skeptical. They broadly hinted they thought the opposition was wrong to be skeptical, but they didn't quite say that either. In fact, they didn't take a position one way or another. They didn't have to.

    And why didn't they have to? Because widespread skepticism about the electoral system, in itself, is corrosive to democracy.

    And the fact of the matter is that, like it or not, fair or unfair, there is widespread skepticism about CNE. The turnout figures show that, the observer missions saw that, everyone knows that. Polls show that even many chavistas harbor doubt about CNE, so this is not even a strictly partisan question. To say it out loud is not to attack CNE - much less the country's sovereignty as some of the more excitable commentary would have it - it's merely to recognize reality.

    Now, having concluded that such skepticism exists - and I can't imagine how anyone could deny that - the OAS and EU missions noted that such a state of affairs is not healthy for democracy - not exactly going out on a limb there either - and drew the logical conclusion that certain changes ought to be made with a view to reducing the level of skepticism.

    Nothing more. That's all they did.

    It's for taking that mild, timid, factually unobjectionable stance that they're now being decried as imperial lackeys.

    Honestly, I never thought I'd long for the days when chavistas said only crazy people would question the impartiality of international election observers.

    ps: what's really bizarre about this is that the anti-OAS offensive comes at the same time as the National Assembly is vowing to select a new CNE.

    February 1, 2006

    Powers of Invective



    This one's an old link (new to me) but still worth pointing to.

    Try as I might, I'll never develop Harry Hutton's genius for the searingly dismissive put-down.

    All hail!

    [Warning: Very English humor ahead.]

    PSF of the Year

    Feeling a bit puckish this morning, so I'll subject you to this piece from Venezuelanalysis.com, along with my nomination for PSF of the year. Surely the prize must go to Alex Holland, for this deliriously condescending and ignorant bit of reportage.
    A Night at the WSF: Speeches as Spectacle in Chavez’s Venezuela
    By: Alex Holland – Venezuelanalysis.com

    Venezuelans love a spectacle. They love watching one. They love creating one. Their fanatical passion for baseball is an example of this. The crowd, the stadium, and the audience in the street create a mass energy that has to be seen to be believed.

    The night after the 2006 World Social Forum ended, the Caracas Baseball team, Los Leones, won the national championship. Immediately the city exploded with celebrations. There were cheers, car horns, fireworks and even gun shots. Crowds poured into the streets.

    Days before, thousands of other Venezuelans and some foreign visitors had created another spectacle. This one was about the World Social Forum, and more about the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias.

    So much about the event was surreal, or maybe, “magically real.” When I have become bewildered by the extremes of Caracas, Venezuelans often tell me, “You know Isabel Allende? She is from Caracas. (!) You know magical realism? This is it.”

    Inside the poliedro, the atmosphere was like the build up to a mega-star rock concert. The banner over the stage helped with this impression. It read like the name of a rock group, “The Social Movements and Hugo Chavez.”

    Different musicians from across Latin America were the warm up acts. Chavez had not arrived yet. The scheduled start time was 3 and by 5 there was still no sign. The Venezuelans in the crowd did not seem to need him to entertain themselves, though.

    Before the music started, they were singing, chanting, and dancing for hours. The large group of Cubans did too(!) They looked like a single, shaking, creature made up of red white and blue Cuban flags.

    It all reminded me of an England football match. The fans drum themselves into a fury of excitement while they wait. They chant songs including the names of the star players wanting to see them score. The Poliedro chanted, “Chavez, friend, the people are with you!”

    The foreigners were quieter, especially in the press section. Anti-capitalist and alternate media reporters from all over the Americas crowded into a corner of the stadium’s seating. International corporate media and Venezuelan opposition reporters sat quietly and uncomfortably amongst them.

    A long table on the arena stage started to fill up with people. Some of them could be recognized. There was Cindy Sheehan, the US anti-war campaigner whose son was killed in Iraq, as well as Ignacio Ramonet, the editor of Le Monde Diplomatique. There were nine more.

    Just then the main act arrived. Chavez walked on kissing and hugging all the people on the panel. There was huge applause from the crowd. Chavez introduced those he had been kissing. Everybody sat.

    Suddenly there was the recorded sound of gunfire and bombs. From a side entrance people appeared carrying large, black, banners with corporate media images on them. The sounds of gunfire continued.

    Just as suddenly a group of dancers dressed as peasants emerged holding fake machetes, or swords, in their hands. They jumped on the people holding the corporate banners and attacked them, chopping them down.

    Then people emerged with large white banners saying, “For peace and against war and corporate greed.” Everyone seemed a bit confused by this, considering the violent way the corporations were defeated. They clapped anyway.(!)

    But it was not over. Now a couple walked forward into the arena. One was a heavily pregnant pale woman with a naked stomach. She was walking arm in arm with a darker man carrying a child.

    Dozens of dancers in colored robes jumped in to the arena around them. They held up baskets of fruit and corn. Then they left. Chavez and the panel watched them, politely smiling but looked a bit confused. The person sitting on the other side of me said, “this is weak.”

    The strangeness had not stopped, though. A Brazilian monk in brilliant white robes got up to the microphone and spoke. He urged the crowd to live with peace and love. At one point, he asked everyone in the Poliedro to hug each other. They did.

    I started to think it could not get any stranger. Seeing the other 10 panelists I also thought about how much longer it was going to take. Just then, the monk stopped preaching and introduced Chavez. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief and applauded.

    The international notaries of the anti-capitalist movement, along with indigenous and peasant activists on the panel, were there just for decoration. (!)I thought this was strange, but was also pleased I would not have to listen to them all talk.

    The Venezuelan President spoke like he normally does. Charming, totally at ease, seemingly speaking without preparation. He talked in circles, starting a topic and going off on a tangent and then returning. Rather than being annoying, this was strangely quite endearing.

    The content of his speech was a mix of political denunciation, intellectual comment, needless listing and song.

    The name of the event was, “The struggle of the peoples against imperialism,” and his talk was full of attacks against it. Greek, Roman and Spanish Imperialism were all denounced. Special anger, as always, was saved for the US.

    George Bush is “Mr. Danger.” For attacking Iraq, Mr. Danger is the, “greatest terrorist in the world.” Chavez said the US is, “the most perverse, murderous, genocidal, immoral empire that this planet has known in 100 centuries.”

    Venezuela’s oil is why, “The US wants to impose its empire on us.” The 2002 coup against Chavez was part of their, “Imperialist strategy to do this.” Chavez has apparently not given up on the US, though.

    Chavez asked the audience to imagine, “what if the US government with all its resources and technology was actually sincere about the struggle against hunger and poverty. If it joined with poor governments and eliminated these things from the world.”

    The Social Forum also came under Chavez’s gaze. The Venezuelan President said, “It must not become a tourist activity.” He went on to say, “We must have diversity and autonomy, but also unity in a great anti-imperialist front.”

    At the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in 2005, Chavez said, “many talks were occurring without conclusions. We are not here to waste our time. We must urgently build a new socialist movement.”

    The reason for this was based on intellectual reflections. Through the speech he quoted anti-capitalist darling Noam Chomsky, 17th century English state theorist Thomas Hobbes, and German Socialist Rosa Luxemburg.

    Chavez supported his call for urgent action by quoting from the British Philosopher Bertrand Russell. Chavez said Russell knew, “the human race is the only one that can commit self-genocide.” For this reason time is of the essence. If capitalism is left to itself, it could wipe out humanity.

    The accuracy of Chavez’s other intellectual quotes was more questionable. He said the great Karl Marx also understood the danger to human existence under capitalism. Chavez said that is why, “Karl Marx famously wrote, socialism or death!”

    Even if his knowledge of Marx’s writings is shaky, Chavez’s support is not. The thousands gathered in the Poliedro loved it. Applause was loud, especially at the end.

    For a European like me, all of this was extremely strange and maybe magically real. It was also a bit disturbing at times. The setting, the numbers and the focus reminded me at times of some of the worst elements of my continent’s past.

    As a foreign observer, I often feel torn between denouncing a cult of personality and not patronizing a people who are loving and living their politics with flair and passion.

    For the pro-Chavez Venezuelans, even the critical ones, these doubts do not seem to appear. Crowds, singing, dancing and high emotions are fun not frightening. At a baseball game or a political rally they want vibrancy, eccentricity, excitement. It’s simple. Venezuelans love a spectacle. They love watching one. They love creating one.


    I can't quite explain why this piece riled me up so much. Partly, it's just badly written. Mostly, it's the way it takes everything that drives us crazy about PSFs and cranks it up to 11. It's the insouciance with which he describes making common cause with people who warmly applaud the dramatized murder of their political opponents. It's the way he's more critical of Chavez for making up a Marx quote than for saying the US is the most murderous regime in the last 100 centuries. (Genghis Khan, Stalin, Attila, Hitler, King Herod and Mao surely all deserve an apology here.)

    Holland knows this kind of shit is not ok. But he sits there, bemused, cheering a regime whose cult of personality he recognizes, but managing to rationalize it all away somehow.

    "Sure, it's a bit crude," he seems to think, "but then, it's just so exotic this whole tropical revolution thing, so magical realist...after all, didn't you know that Isabel Allende is from Caracas. (SIC SIC SIC SIC BARF SIC!!!!!!) These Venezuelans with their strange ways...chopping up opponents with machetes!...that must be folkloric around here...well, they sure do love a spectacle...isn't it all darling? Sure, it all leaves a bitterish, Europe-in-the-30s aftertase in your mouth...but we wouldn't want to patronize the indiecitos by saying that out loud, now, would we? Heavens..."

    Uggggghhhhh...

    Holland, if you're reading, try to get it through your head: what's patronizing is applying a lower standard for authoritarian-outrage to Venezuela than you do to your own country. Refraining from condemning an autocrat's cult-of-personality doesn't make you "culturally sensitive," it makes you a colaborator, if only a passive one.

    One thing you did get right, though: "the international notaries of the anti-capitalist movement, along with indigenous and peasant activists on the panel, are there just for decoration."

    Sorry, folks, I know posting this was cruel...couldn't help myself...