Violence at Mariona

Venezuela on the brink of an abyss

The political events in Venezuela should make the politicians and the citizenry reflect about the present situation of Latin America. Once again, the subcontinent seems to be on the brink of a new episode of political instability. The celebration of the referendum, on August 15th, that president Hugo Chávez was put under, was not enough to reestablish a tranquil environment in the South American country. This article is an interpretation of the political events in Venezuela, and it will analyze how important these events are for the rest of the continent.

The winding trajectory of Chávez

The irruption of Hugo Chávez in the political life of Venezuela cannot be understood outside the particular context of this country, the fifth petroleum exporter world-wide, nevertheless, marked by levels of endemic poverty and corruption. The political ambitions of the President, a Colonel, came to the public light on February 3rd, back in 1992, when about 300 members of the parachutist brigade, with lieutenant colonel Hugo Chávez Frias at the head of it, placed themselves around the residence of the former president Carlos Andrés Perez, in an attempt to overthrow his administration.

Due to the stupidity of the rebels -they overlooked the control of neuralgic points of the country, such as the State’s television system, for example-, the movement did not arrive at a happy term. After hours of struggling, at dawn on February 4th, Carlos Andrés Perez appeared on television announcing the failure on the attempt to overthrow his administration . Shortly after, Chávez himself had to admit that it was impossible to take control of the power.

At the time, Venezuela went through a serious economic and social crisis. Some years before this, in February of 1989, a social outbreak known as the caracazo took place, a protest against the application of the economic dispositions called “adjustment measures”, dictated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Those events meant a deep political transformation in this South American country, after more than three decades of uninterrupted democratic regimes. Back in 1958, after the fall of the last Venezuelan dictator, Marcos Perez Jiménez, the political actors of that country reached an agreement through a pact in order to forgive the crimes committed by the members of the army, to launch a series of social and economic measures, and to introduce a real competition scene to have access to the public positions of popular election.

Thanks to it, from that moment on, the COPEI -that is to say, the Christian Democracy- and the Democratic Action had been successively alternated their positions in the Executive power. For that reason, the coup d'etat tried by Hugo Chávez took everybody by surprise. Venezuela had the "good" reputation of being a democratic country, where the members of the army were completely subordinated to the political power of the civilians, in spite of the increasing levels of impoverishment, and the corruption pool in which the traditional politicians swam.

The caracazo and the later attempt to bring the government down in 1992 ended with the political harmony that had reigned in that country for more than thirty years. In this context, Chávez was right when he spoke about the end of an era and the birth of a new Republic. In fact, back during his times as a younger official, this member of the army had shown his repudiation for the Venezuelan political class. On December 17th of 1982, along with other officials of the army, he had founded the Bolivariano Revolutionary Movement 200 (MBR-200, in Spanish), in reference to the bicentennial of Bolivar, a group allegedly organized to reflect and study the ideas of Simón Bolivar.

At the time, the officials who discussed the situation of the country, said that they did not have political ambitions. Chávez used to say that he was only trying "to dignify the military service and fight against corruption and the ineptitude of the civilian governments who were prone to squander the income provided by petroleum". The truth is that, ten years later, this same group of officials tried to perform a coup d'etat and, in 1998, they finally took control of the political situation of Venezuela.

It is important to mention that the commander has always counted with the support of most Venezuelans in each one of his political decisions. At least, that is the conclusion after analyzing all the results of the elections in which Chávez has participated. Even at the moment of the coup d'etat, the analysts say, he counted on the support of the Venezuelans. They were already tired of an endemic corruption, the incapacity of the governments to solve their most critical problems, and distant knowledge that the political class had about the needs of the people.

Having understood the complaints of the Venezuelans against the structures of power in his country, Chávez dedicated himself to finish discrediting a dying political class. After being pardoned in 1994 by the government of Rafael Caldera, he toured all over Venezuela to announce the arrival of a new era and his conviction about the need to change the course of his country. Simón Bolivar is Chavez’s hero, and in the name of Bolivar he intends to restore the lost honor of the country, and to reactivate the Latin American solidarity.

Fears towards an authoritarian drift

Chávez arrived at the Executive power with the support of a series of social movements and political parties from the left wing (among them, the Communist Party) that were unhappy with the traditional politicians. However, it is also necessary to say that he has lost the friendship of these parties because of his repeated attacks against a political class used to control the mysteries of the power in the South American country.

Consequently with his perception of the need to create a new Venezuela, since he arrived to the Executive power, Chávez has dramatically transformed the political institutions. His first step was to declare a social emergency situation, through which he asked for the Congress’ permission to create a plan of economic reforms. Immediately afterwards, he summoned a referendum to dissolve the Congress, to choose a Constituent Assembly, and to annul the Constitution of 1961, the foundation of the traditional political power.

Among the economic measures that he announced, there are those that created the loudest alarm between the businessmen: those connected with the decision to expropriate the uncultivated large estates, and a reform for the Petroleum of Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA, in Spanish), among other things. As for the social matters, Chávez decided that the army had to take care of the civil tasks. To the capitalist regime that prevailed in Venezuela, he declared that his motto was: "as much State as it is necessary, as much Market as it is possible".

Protected with the previous facts, the opposition denounced from the beginning the authoritarian drifts of Chávez. His connection with the government of Fidel Castro, his relation with political leaders who had been denigrated by other western governments, such as colonel Kadhafi of Libya, presented, according to them, the necessary evidence for their accusations. Some people have tried to link Chávez to the terrorist organization of Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda. In the end, the radical political transformations that Venezuela has experienced since the arrival of Chavez have helped him to achieve a total control of the political power, and this is, without a doubt, dangerous. The failed coup d'etat organized by the businessmen and some members of the army, that do not get along with Chávez, was justified by saying that they wanted to prevent Venezuela from living under a dictatorship.

Latin America in the mirror of Venezuela

Even if the amount of power that Chavez has managed to achieve can be a reason to worry for the opposition, its members, however, have not shown a more democratic behavior throughout the fight against him. In several occasions, they have seemed to be blinded by their ambitions and their deeply rooted hatred towards Chávez. The last events around the referendum are a definite sign of this.

Despite the close international supervision of the electoral process, the opposition keeps denying the legality of the popular verdict. Some even dare, in an absurd way, to blame the Organization of the American States (O.A.S.) and the Carter Center for defending the interests of Chávez. The price of petroleum would allegedly be the reason why the fraud was justified. In fact, both of these politicians and businessmen refuse to accept a reality that runs like water through their hands.

In the end, the political events in Venezuela and the reiterated support of a majority of citizens to Chávez hide a complex reality that both the opposition and their international mentors in the United States have refused to see. A reality characterized by corruption, an elitist democracy, and political leaders that are more concerned about how to satisfy the demands of the international organisms than to listen to the demands of their people. In this context, in Venezuela, one of the luckiest countries in the world because of the amount of natural resources available in the territory, most of the population hardly manages to survive with the high levels of poverty and homelessness that they have.

It is necessary to consider the existing alliance between the Venezuelan economic elites and the most important international companies. Otherwise, it will not be easy to come up with a satisfactory explanation about why the incendiary speech of Chávez keeps making an astonishing impact on his country. Those who denigrate him because of his populist speech and his reiterated denunciations against Capitalism, forget that the alleged economic normality that reigned by more than three decades never solved the economic and the social problems of most of the Venezuelans.

The Latin American political leaders have to consider what is happening in Venezuela. The same reasons that lie beneath the political crisis of that nation tends to repeat itself in each one of the countries of the continent. They speak about democracy, whereas only a small group of businessmen, the local representatives of the interests of the international companies, take advantage -not always in an ethic manner- of the economic improvements.

Back to the G-20

 The present week began with interesting news about the regional plane: the Guatemalan government has decided to return to the Group of the 20 (G-20), integrated by underdeveloped countries that are looking to act as a block in the international negotiations of free commerce. The decision of the Central American country is a gesture of self-determination before a thorny subject for the United States.

A cable from the AP agency repeated the declarations that the Guatemalan chancellor Jorge Briz Abullarach, made in the city of Brasilia, where the public official announced the decision of his government to “rejoin the G-20 without consulting with the United States". In the words of the head of the diplomacy in Guatemala, the decision was made after the visit of his Brazilian colleague Celso Amorim, with the purpose of “making a strategic alliance with countries that think in the same way”.

Brirz Abullarach assured that the decision was made without carrying out “no consultations at all” were made with Washington. He also stated that “the G-20 will bring a number of opportunities for us, and perhaps, it will also have inconvenient aspects. But we have good friends there, and the group is very important. To rejoin the G-20 was a presidential decision”. What are the disadvantages of the group? What are the opportunities that the Guatemalan chancellor is talking about?

The G-20 is a delicate subject in the relations with the U.S.A., but that does not mean that this is the end of the world for the Central American country. This does not imply that the country will be lined up with the enemies of Washington, but that it is necessary to try a new type of international relations.

Central America in the G-20: the disadvantages

It is important to remember that the Guatemalan defection from the G-20 occurred within the framework of the round of negotiations organized by The World’s Organization of Commerce (OMC, in Spanish), celebrated last year in Cancún, Mexico. In this occasion, the problem of the agricultural subsidies was discussed. The group demanded that the developed nations suspended the subsidies to their agriculturists, in order to compete in similar conditions. The discrepancies between the block constituted by the U.S.A. and the European Union, and the third-world countries grouped in the G-20 not only arose, but the meeting became a failure, because they did not reach any agreements at all.

The confrontation between the G-20 had consequences inside the organization led by Brazil and India. Soon the power of dissuasion of the U.S.A. was evident, particularly in relation to the countries of Central and South America.

The trip to Central America that the head of the American foreign trade, Robert Zoellick, made had the purpose to clear things up. If countries like Guatemala, Costa Rica and El Salvador tried to enter the Free Trade Agreement between the U.S.A. and Central America (well-known by the name CAFTA), had to leave the G-20 first. Costa Rica maintained its position, whereas El Salvador did not need the warnings of Zoellick to move away from the group. In the Guatemalan case, the government of former president Portillo initially declared that he would stay in the G-20. Nevertheless, the change of position was completed in a brief period of time.

The new administration period in Guatemala ended with many of the governmental policies. Everyone was surprised about the fact that President Óscar Berger just took the bull by the horns in a series of complicated issues: the combat against corruption, the reduction of the Armed Forces, and constant analysis of the Peace Accords. This is a surprise because Berger is a businessman and his party belongs to the right wing. Normally, what usually happens in Guatemala, as well as in other countries, is that the government is conceived like an instrument to make the private businesses bloom.

Nevertheless, this reaction of the new government reveals that there is a business sector with ideas that are different from those who want to make money by using the resources of the State. It has been understood that the private business companies are not alone in the society and that they can hardly survive while there is a considerable amount of social discontent. The economic development is a praiseworthy objective, but it cannot go too far if it remains divorced from social justice, without worthy conditions of life for the majorities.

Therefore, the decision announced by the Guatemalan chancellor corresponds with this perspective. To return to the G-20 could bring a number frictions between the U.S.A. and Guatemala, but it is necessary to have a personalized vision of the country. By strengthening the group, they are trying to assure Guatemala’s future. Perhaps the consequences of hastily signing this kind of agreements of free trade will not be seen immediately, but they might bring irreparable consequences for the economy in the future.

The tendency that some governments have to select strategies that work on a short term, that is, to operate under a vision that only includes one presidential period, is an ominous attitude. Certain governments take advantage of that time to become rich with the complicity of the sectors that control the political and the economic power. Therefore, they could not care less about the repercussions that a decision can create in the long term, what will the next government be like, how this will affect the people, and who will have to fight against the consequences.

The G-20 is not anti-American

The countries that left the G-20 did it because they did not want to harm their relations with the U.S.A.. Nevertheless, these countries made a hasty decision. This is not an anti-American group. Anti-imperialist flags, or something similar, are not being displayed.

The relation with the United States is important for the G-20. This is the result of the actions of two of its leading members: Brazil and Venezuela, countries that have narrowed their contacts with the North American nation during the last days. An article of The Wall Street Journal explained that some oil companies of the U.S.A. were ready to invest in Venezuela, whereas the Brazilian President, Luiz Inazio "Lula" da Silva, declared that the creation of the Area of Free Trade of the Americas (ALCA, in Spanish), leaded by the U.S.A., is not against the strengthening of the Mercosur.

In his declarations to the Chilean metropolitan newspaper “El Mercurio”, the Brazilian President stated that his country wants to establish “strong relations with our neighbors, but also with the United States, one of our main commercial partners”. In another interview, published by the Russian newspaper “Pravda”, President da Silva explained that it is necessary that the ALCA respects the economic differences between the countries of the Americas. “That is why, for many years, we have been discussing that in the debate about the ALCA, there is nothing similar between this project and what happened in the construction of the European Union, where the wealthy countries helped the less developed ones, like Spain, Greece and Portugal”, he added.

The G-20 is, then, a group that is trying to discuss the common problems that the less developed countries have, and to defend their positions before the powerful nations. Chancellor Amorim stated, during the ministerial meeting of the G-90, celebrated in the island of Mauricio on July 12th, that what happened in the convention of the OMC at Cancún was not a failure, but that it led the wealthy countries to adopt more of a flexible position.

“Since the delay of the negotiations at Cancún, encouraging signs have occurred”, declared the head of the Brazilian diplomacy. “The European Union has showed its disposition to finally eliminate the subsidies from the exports (...) We hope that an agreement is reached, an agreement able to define a reasonable term to conclude with all of the forms of subsidies for the exports, and this will have to include the instruments that the U.S.A. and other countries use and that have similar effects on the competition between the exports”.

The intention is not to get rid of the U.S.A., but to reframe the commercial relations with that country, based on a mutual respect basis. The U.S.A. has an unquestionable place in the world of commerce. The globalization process cannot be conceived without the support of the United States. The U.S.A. is an important commercial partner for any country.

This is about taking a realistic position, but realism does not imply an act of submission to any kind power. A realistic interpretation of the world-wide context means that it is necessary to consider the particular reality of a country, and not to establish the foundations of a project on other people's interests. Since it is very difficult to work without the U.S.A. -mainly, in the context of Central America, where the immigration issue is a crucial affair-. It is not realistic to marginalize the less developed countries of a world that keeps becoming more and more integrated through communications, at least commercially speaking.

A project as the G-20 is not looking to swap positions in reference to the relations based on inequality between the less developed countries and the wealthy ones. There is no use in perpetuating injustice by just changing their appearance.

Conclusions

A long-term vision of a country must consider the subject of the world-wide trade. That is why the decisions that are made about subjects such as the ALCA or the Free Trade Agreement must go beyond the immediate factors of a situation.

Berger has amended the erroneous decision of the previous administration. When leaving the G-20, former president Alfonso Portillo wanted to ingratiate himself with the U.S.A., and that administration had taken away from the Central American government the certification that approves the performance in the fight against corruption and drug trafficking. Previously, he had offered to the United States an unrestricted pattern of access for its imports. This exemplifies how the Guatemalan economy could be harmed if someone tries to obtain an immediate benefit.

Hopefully other countries follow the example of Guatemala. The strengthening of organizations like the G-20, Mercosur, and others, are important steps towards the integration of the Latin American countries. The future of each one of those countries, the ones that are economically powerful, like Brazil, as well as the ones that do not have a strong type of economy, cannot be isolated from the rest of the world.