======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
http://socialistworker.org/2011/05/17/chavez-and-the-arab-dictators
Chávez and the Arab dictators
by Lance Selfa
Venezuela's Hugo Chávez is respected as a left opponent of U.S.
imperialism--but he is lending support to Middle East despots who are
trying to suppress popular uprisings.
May 17, 2011
WHEN THE revolution sweeping the Arab world struck Libya and Syria, the
governments there chose to act in the same way that the Bahraini
monarchy did against its internal opposition: Open fire on unarmed
crowds, arrest large numbers of people and outlaw demonstrations.
These actions have rightly received widespread condemnation from
supporters of the Arab revolutions. But they have received at least
tacit support from Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who is widely
considered an important figure on the international left.
"I don't know why, but the things that have happened and are happening
there remind me of Hugo Chávez on April 11," Chávez told reporters,
comparing the democracy rebellion in Libya to the U.S.-backed right-wing
coup against him in April 2002. A mass outpouring of Venezuelan workers
and poor people defeated the coup and returned Chávez to office.
Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro went even farther than
Chávez, declaring the Libyan government's suppression of the uprising
there to be essential to "peace and national unity."
Needless to say, these statements of support for the suppression of a
popular uprising are disconcerting for those who support the democratic
awakening in the Middle East--especially coming from Chávez and his
government. In fact, the popular uprisings in the Middle East have more
in common with the mass resistance that defeated the 2002 coup than with
the coup.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SINCE HE was first elected in 1998 with widespread support from
Venezuela's workers and the poor, Chávez has attempted to offer a
challenge to the reigning neoliberal orthodoxy. Much of the
international left has praised his paradigm of "21st century socialism"
as a model for achieving social justice in today's world economy.
So how is it possible that the originator of "21st century socialism"
can support dictators like Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi and Syria's Bashar
al-Assad, who are ordering the shooting down of ordinary people
demanding freedom and equality?
Of course, the international right has an easy answer to this question.
To it, Chávez is nothing more than a dictator himself--so his backing of
Qaddafi, Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is of a piece.
The Miami Herald, whose views on Latin America track closely with the
right-wing anti-Castro lobby, editorialized on May 2: "With dictators
toppling like dominoes across the Middle East, Venezuela's
president-for-life, Hugo Chávez, is signaling worry about his own
despotic rule."
Diego Arria, a former Venezuelan diplomat who identifies with the
right-wing opposition to Chávez, told a small demonstration at the
Libyan Embassy in Caracas: "Hugo Chávez is complicit with Qaddafi's
regime of tyranny. If his friendship with Qaddafi is greater than his
responsibility as head of state, then he should go to Tripoli and help
him there, but not in the name of Venezuela."
Before accepting these condemnations of Chávez, consider their source.
The Venezuelan right--which operates with much more freedom in Venezuela
than does any opposition in Libya or Syria, or Saudi Arabia for that
matter--can hardly tout its democratic credentials. These were the same
people who launched the failed coup against Chávez in 2002, and who
cheered the 2009 coup in Honduras against Chávez's ally, President
Manual Zelaya.
What's more, it's hypocritical for anti-Chávez forces to point out
Chávez's support for Syria's Assad while ignoring that other world
leaders hoping for Assad to prevail include Israel's Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia's monarchy, which supports the
Syrian regime as a bulwark of "stability" in the region.
Clearly, Chávez doesn't have much in common with these reactionary
players in the Middle East. But in lending his credibility to figures
like Qaddafi and Assad, he's undermining the support he had gained for
championing "21st century socialism."
When Chávez denounced Israel's 2006 war in Lebanon and expelled its
charge d'affairs from Venezuela, ordinary Arabs and activists cheered
him. Back then, Dima Khatib, Al Jazeera's Latin American correspondent,
wrote: "Today on many Arabic Internet sites, one can read comments such
as: 'I am Palestinian, but my president is Chávez, not Abu Mazen.' Or:
'I don't want to be an Arab. From now on I shall be Venezuelan.'"
Also, to millions of Arabs, Venezuela's use of its oil wealth to fund a
vast array of "social mission" programs for the poor contrasts favorably
to the Gulf kleptocracies' gaudy flaunting of wealth.
But Chávez's support for Qaddafi and Assad has changed the perception of
him, as Khatib tweeted on May 5: "Now since the beginning of the
revolutions both Chávez and [Turkish Prime Minister] Erdogan have lost
popularity in the Arab world. Chávez more than Erdogan."
It's worth remembering that even when Chávez was at the height of his
popularity in the Arab world, his support for Qaddafi, the Assad and
Ahmadinejad was no secret.
When Ahmadinejad stole the 2009 Iranian election and unleashed
repression against the mass movement protesting for democracy, Chávez
weighed in to say: "Ahmadinejad's triumph was a triumph all the way."
Chávez called Ahmadinejad "a courageous fighter for the Islamic
Revolution, the defense of the Third World and in the struggle against
imperialism."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN CONTRAST to what the right says, Chávez's praise of the despots of
the Middle East stems more from geopolitics than from an affinity with
the despots' politics. Some of it flows from a basic attitude of "the
enemy of my enemy is my friend." The U.S. government makes no secret of
its disdain for Chávez, Ahmadinejad and other leaders who refuse to bow
to U.S. dictates.
Chávez and Ahmadinejad have formed an alliance in the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to push against the pro-U.S.
positions of the Gulf oil monarchies. Along with Russia, Venezuela and
Iran have formed what the Wall Street Journal once cheekily called "an
axis of irritation" to a U.S.-dominated world energy system.
Venezuela's position as the U.S.'s fifth-leading supplier of oil has
certainly allowed it more maneuvering room on the world stage than the
U.S. would like. Its alliance with other energy powerhouses that lie
outside the U.S.-led bloc is consistent with its willingness to
challenge other U.S. global priorities, from support for Israel and wars
in the Middle East to the U.S.-led "free trade" pacts.
But even while millions of people around the world admire Chávez for his
willingness to tweak the nose of the U.S., we shouldn't lose sight of
the contradiction of his position. As the head of what is still a
capitalist state, operating in the world capitalist system, Chávez still
sees politics from that vantage point. Even while trying to forge closer
relations among countries of the "global South," the Chávez government
has developed ties with state bureaucracies across the world.
According to the left-wing Venezuelan news site Aporrea.org, Chávez
recently pointed out: "King Fahd of Saudi Arabia was a friend of mine,
King Abdullah is a friend...The emir of Qatar is a friend, and the
president of Syria, he came here, too. And [Algerian President] Bouteflika."
Chávez's glib demonstration of his evenhandedness in dealing with Middle
Eastern dictators shows the limitations of his state-centered vision of
change. Operating within international norms of state-to-state relations
means that, whatever his subjective views, Chávez can't be relied on to
be an advocate for social movements or opposition movements in other
countries.
Like Chávez's friend Fidel Castro, who maintained cordial relations with
the authoritarian Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) governments in
Mexico for years while the PRI repressed the Mexican left, Chávez is
primarily concerned with tending to the interests of the Venezuelan state.
Further evidence of this came in April, when the Chávez government
arrested and immediately deported to Colombia Joaquin Pérez Becerra, a
Colombian journalist and human rights activist who the Colombian
government claimed was an agent of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC) guerrillas. Becerra, the editor of a news agency that
reports on human rights abuses in Colombia, had received political
asylum and citizenship in Sweden after fleeing his native Colombia.
Chávez's action caused a scandal across the Venezuelan left, including
among those who are usually uncritical of him. The left rightly
questioned why the Venezuelan government appeared to be doing the
bidding of the right-wing Colombian government. Chávez admitted that he
personally authorized the operation, which won praise from Colombian
President Juan Manuel Santos. The Venezuelan government claimed it had
no choice but to enforce an INTERPOL "red alert" against Pérez Becerra.
But it's not even clear when--or if--such an alert was issued.
Colombia won the silencing of one of its critics. In exchange, Chávez
received praise from Colombian officials and a potential thaw with its
neighbor. Venezuela had previously broke relations over former Colombian
President Álvaro Uribe's accusation that Venezuela harbored FARC
guerrillas, but the two countries have since restored ties and
established trade deals.
Needless to say, pleasing a government that has promoted itself as an
outpost against the "pink tide" of the last decade's reformist
governments in Latin America is no way to advance the left or social
movements in Latin America. And equally, lending the mantle of "21st
century socialism" to Middle East despots who are trying to suppress
popular uprisings is no way to build international solidarity.
Even if Chávez and his government succumb to their own version of
"realpolitik, Venezuelan workers' organizations and social movements
should rally to the side of the Arab revolutionaries, who are, after
all, fighting for the same goals of justice, equality and dignity.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Columnist: Lance Selfa
Lance Selfa Lance Selfa is the author of The Democrats: A Critical
History [2], a socialist analysis of the Democratic Party, and editor of
The Struggle for Palestine [3], a collection of essays by leading
solidarity activists. He is on the editorial board of the International
Socialist Review [4].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Published by the International Socialist Organization.
Material on this Web site is licensed by SocialistWorker.org, under a
Creative Commons (by-nc-nd 3.0) [5] license, except for articles that
are republished with permission. Readers are welcome to share and use
material belonging to this site for non-commercial purposes, as long as
they are attributed to the author and SocialistWorker.org.
[1] http://socialistworker.org/department/Opinion/Lance-Selfa
[2]
http://www.haymarketbooks.org/product_info.php?cPath=41&products_id=1603
[3] http://www.haymarketbooks.org/product_info.php?products_id=1620
[4] http://www.isreview.org
[5] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com