Are Correa and Chavez guilty?

The story of the Colombian raid into Ecuador that killed FARC leader Raul Reyes has taken a dramatic twist. Interpol have confirmed that the files found on computers seized by the Colombian army are genuine and have not been added to or deleted - those files purportedly show the involvement of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Ecuadorian president Raphael Correa in funding and supporting the FARC. As I mentioned when the story first broke, a lot hinges on the authenticity of these accusations. If they are true it is hard to see how Colombia could continue to treat either of the two nations as anything other than hostile enemies: actively supporting a terrorist group that is trying to topple the government of your neighbour is a declaration of proxy war.
It also massively undermines the credibility of the two leftist leaders and their administrations and has wider implications for the continent. Suspicions had been raised in the Colombian press when Correa embarked on a tour of Europe last week, seemingly to give his side of the story before the revelations broke and shore up international support. Chavez has characteristically dismissed the accusations entirely. Niether can escape the fact, however, that the evidence puts them under the umbrella of countries like Iran in supporting terrorist organisations. This is not the image that they want to convey as leading lights in the new democratic socialist movement supposedly sweeping across Latin America, the idea of which has so far had an easy ride in the international press.
It is not just this, but the fact that both leaders have been struggling of late to maintain the huge public spending which is a cornerstone of their political project. Chavez has been suffering domestically as inflation continues to raise the cost of living - not popular with the urban poor that make up the bulk of his support. In Ecuador growth has slowed to its lowest in decades despite the oil profits that are supporting government spending. The opposition has been making inroads by arguing that more of the oil profits should be being saved - although oil prices are higher than ever world economic conditions are not conducive to the expensive task of maintaining welfare levels for your average Ecuadorian. Both leaders, however, have seen their popularity rise as a result of the Colombian affair - so perhaps politics in the continent could be more unstable than ever. Perhaps also we might see a reversal of the 'progressive tide,' of left wing governments elected - take Argentina, for example. Cristina Kirshna has incurred the wrath of most of the country for her export tax on farmers: for the first time social barriers between urban and rural Argentinians were broken down as the country rallied in support of the farmers. Expect social policies aimed at targeting the 'rich' to redistribute wealth (the Argentinian farmers are by no means rich) to be regarded by an increasingly sceptical eye by once sympathetic middle and lower middle classes in these cases as tax and tax brackets are increased and begin to hurt them more.

So where now for Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela? Ron Noble, the Australian police officer brought in to assertain the authenticity of the computer files has not spoken about their contents. Expect to see the Colombians producing them in the near future. The sensible option would be for the Colombians to drop the issue in favour of an unconditional assurance that Ecuador and Venezuela will break off contact with the FARC and will cooperate with Colombia in its defeat in the Amazonian jungles of the south of their countries. Anything brought up in front of the International Court of Justice or the UN could prove an intolerable embarrasment and affront to Chavez and Correa, particuarly with the former's huge ego. What is certain is that this story is not yet dead.

Good News for Paraguay

Latin America continued its bright political and social development with the election of Fernando Lugo last Sunday (20th). It would be facetious and fallacious to cast Lugo in the mould of other popular leftist leaders elected in the continent (like Lula and Bachelet) because this presupposition about Latin America and its politics is wrong: there are profound and complicated political and social differences between the countries and their political development has to be addressed on its own merits. Those who claim Lugo for another Chavez or Morales forget the former's significant middle class support. Instead, Lugo is a pragmatic social democrat - 'bishop of the poor,' undoubtedly, but not a radical in terms of economic policy and not an America hater - today, Lugo had a positive meeting with the American ambassador.
This is not to say Lugo's defeat of the Colorado party is without stormclouds. The politics of Paraguay have been intractibly, tragically and sometimes even hilarously corrupt for more than half a century - Lugo pledged to end this, but today his vice-president elect Frederico Franco was accused of being bribed $1 million by the U.S. to further their economic interests in the country. This does not bode well. Nor does Lugo's lack of a majority in parliament. The transition will be slow and painful. But the existence of left leaning parties coming to power democratically at this stage in nation's economic and political development need not fill people with alarm - this was exactly the case in Britain in the 1910's and 20's with a newly enfranchised working class that challenged existing political hierachies without overturning them. Current labour movements are generally less radical now, and democracy is more stable than then. Compare this to the backward politics of China and India, where democracy and liberal democratic ideas of political thought struggle against cultural and historical prejudice. Paraguay has achieved this week in political terms what the Chinese can only dream of.

Chavez is no worse than Berlusconi

Witness the moral high ground taken by presidential candidate Hilary Clinton at a speech to George Washington University in March. 'I will not be pencilling in...[to meet] these dictators,' said Clinton, referring to the leaders of Venezuela, Iran and North Korea. Lumbering in Chavez with Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il shows Clinton's foreign policy thinking, on Venezuela at least, does not seem to have advanced beyond the primitive belligerence of Bush, but it also reflects a wider perception in Washington and Europe that Venezuela is a 'rogue state,' or at least one in the making.
The reasons are simple - Chavez represents an unrestrained ego (moulded by his military backround) only too willing to change the constitution and bend the rules of law to get his own way. He has amassed power in the executive, and has accumulated control of a majority (although by no means all) of the press, making it sympathetic to the government, he is a political radical who rejects the recieved wisdom of free trade and liberal economic policy, he is a maverick statesman who makes incendiary speeches that offend other governments and leaders and he is a populist politician who often dismisses the concerns of many in his country to get the enthusiastic backing of the majority. This, and most importantly his anti-Americanism, is seen as reason enough to make him a pariah and has sparked American accusations of dictatorship.
However, all these characteristics seem strangely and uncomfortably familiar. Haven't we seen them somewhere closer to home? If Washington sets its moral compass by Chavez, perhaps they better take a look at another country, one across the Atlantic and part of that standard bearer of liberal democracies that is the EU. Silvio Berlusconi, who has just won his third election in Italy, shares all of the above characteristics, apart from being pro-American and anti-socialist, with the exception that he has an even closer control over the press in Italy than perhaps Chavez does, and has treated equality under the law with even more contempt. Look at the shameless changing of rules under his last premiership to avoid corruption charges.
It is inconcievable that the U.S.(with its vast Italian immigrant population), or even European countries would have the courage to raise these issues - after all, Italy is a key player in the EU isn't it? Millions of Europeans and Americans holiday there every year. The fact is that both Italy and Venezuela are not exactly paradigms of liberal democracy, but nor are they threats to international security, or in the grip of dictatorship. Both of them have their own democratic system, which may seem unfamiliar, but they are democracies. Chavez has won both the last elections fairly and squarely, and has agreed to accept the verdict of the supreme court that he cannot stand for another one. And for all his bluster, Chavez has backed down over the Colombian FARC affair. We are dealing with a rational man, not a crazed monster.
The crass charicaturing of Venezuelan politics should stop, and if America does not like to hear what Chavez has to say (and a lot of it, they shouldn't) they should at least be sensible enough not to try to convince us that he is a dictator.

Concerns for Stability in Latin America

The stakes have been raised in the developing crisis between Colombia, Venezeula and Ecuador today. Ecuador, having at first been cautious in its political response to the killing of Raul Reyes, second in command of the quasi-Marxist terrorist group FARC on Saturday, seems to have followed Venezuela's lead by withdrawing its ambassador to Colombia, helicoptering troops to the north-eastern border and roundly condemning the Colombian government.
Chavez seems therefore to have succeeded in recruiting President Correa in his attempt to isolate the US-backed Colombian government. Sensibly, Colombia's reaction has been calm and conciliatory: the Colombian government today re-emphasised its respect for its two neighbours and resisted the temptation to reply with a troop deployment of its own. Besides, it appears to have softer and potentially more harmful political weapons to hand - hard evidence of the involvement of the Venezuelan and Ecuadorian governments directly with the FARC leadership. Chavez has only recently publicly described the guerrillas, who have been partly responsible for a thirty year old civil war in Colombia which had devestated the country and which was still in full swing until the last five years, as a legitimate political and military body. Concievably, this could be because such revelations were about to come to light.
The computer disks found at the sight of the guerrillas' camp apparently include photographs of senior officials, both Venezuelan and Ecuadorian, meeting with the rebels in the very same encampment. The disks also contain references to a potential purchase of uranium, and direct communications between Chavez and FARC.
The question is, then, are the allegations true? There is a good chance they are, firstly because Colombia has pursued a practical working relationship with Venezuela despite the ideological differences of their governments, and Uribe has avoided direct criticism of Chavez and his policies: the Colombians have nothing to gain by provoking their neighbour in this fashion, and have not done so in the past. Secondly, the Colombian defence ministry has said it will submit the documents for international verification. Not the hallmarks of a smokescreen.
If they are true, it suggests a policy of destabilisation of the Colombian government by the Venezuelans, whether systematic or not. In one sense this is not surprising. Colombia, backed by the Bush administation and with a conservative president at the helm, does not quite fit in with Chavez's vision of a new socialist/bolivarian revolution across the South American continent. Furthermore, Uribe has enjoyed overwhelming popular support in Colombia for successfully ending the civil war and bringing peace and stability to a troubled land - and not just from the middle classes. He enjoys strong working class support - his policies themselves, while not exactly socialist, are not Bush-esque either. However, Chavez's support for the FARC represents a sharp and worrying change in the nature of Venezuelan politics. While Chavez's rhetoric has been fire and brimstone, he has mostly played a sensible and rational game in South American politics - retreating when taking a position too far. Materially interfering in the internal politics of a democratic sovereign state is a steep step away from this policy, and lurches uncomfortably towards the unstable despotism South America experienced throughout the whole of the last century, and has taken such a long time to move away from.
The veracity of the claims, and how seriously they are taken by the Colombian government will be vitally important in the next few days: Uribe has proved himself a strong and principled leader, and may be unwilling to let the findings go, particuarly if they prove a threat to Colombian national security. If a compromise can be reached through the mediation of Spain, this would be mutually desirable for both countries, niether of whom can afford and escalation of tensions. It is also unlikely that Chavez or Correa will succeed in corralling other South American States into anything more than a condemnation of violating Ecuador's sovereignty. Furthermore, the United States would be loath to allow a destablisation of the region, considering its proximity, the US's other commitments and the flux of leftist governments recently elected there.
A bleaker interpretation might consider, however, that both Uribe and Chavez are presidents coming to the end of their constitutionally limited terms of office (always a tricky time for South American leaders), and both have attempted to seek constitutional amendments recently to change this. Would a war shore up their hold on power?

Trouble in the Caribbean

Obscured by the hubris of the Russian presidential 'election' in the British media, a potentially far more important turn of events is taking place in Latin America today. President Hugo Chavez ordered the closure of the Venezuelan embassy in Bogota, and the deployment of 10 troop batallions to the Colombian border. This represents an extraordinary volte face from the optimistic state of Colombian/Venezuelan relations only a few months ago, after the unprecedented step taken by Alvaro Uribe in making the Venezuelan president a mediator in deadlocked hostage negotiations. In November Uribe cancelled the invitation to Chavez, claiming that he had been talking (as against prior agreement) to top Colombian generals above his head. Considering Chavez's previous experience of leading military coups, it is easy to see why.
Since then relations have sharply deteriorated, Chavez calling Colombia a 'terrorist state,' and claiming that FARC are a legitimate armed force. This latest development comes after the death of Raul Reyes, second in command in FARC after a Colombian military operation on Saturday. The action has been called a 'cowardly act,' by Chavez, who accuses Colombia of violating Ecuador's soveignty as the operation took place one mile into Ecuadorian territory.
Chavez has made several questionable decisions after surviving a coup in 2002 that was supported by Washington. These had included denouncing the United States, breaking out of the Andean community trading bloc, extending cordial relations to Iran and arming a 100,000 strong militia directly under his control from the urban poor. However, apart from the latter many of these actions have been no more than political stunts, and incendiary rhetoric more often than not gets hotter before an election or referendum that Chavez or his supporters needed to win.
Nothing has come close to a large scale military deployment that threatens Venezeula's closest neighbour.
It is possible that Chavez is feeling internally vulnerable after the rejection in December of his proposed constitutional changes in a popular referendum, meaning he has only a couple of years left as president until he has to stand down. If so, this makes today's announcement especially worrying, as Chavez had agreed to respect the result - a military emergency could threaten Venezuela's democracy, which has been itself groaning under the ego of the president, and his use of the Venezuelan state as his personal political tool.
It is even more worrying for the Colombians, who would be vulnerable to a Venezuelan attack, although the country has United States military support. President Uribe has overwhelming public backing in his policies regarding FARC, and his position with Venezuela. Because of Colombia's relationship with the United States, Chavez has attempted to ostracise the country from other South American governments, the majority of which have social democrats in charge. Chavez has talked of a 'Bolivaran-socialist' revolution across the continent. However, Colombia has cordial relations with all other South American governments, including Lula da Silva's in Brasil. This is either, then, another colossal piece of political showmanship by Chavez, intended to shore up his support among Venezuela's urban poor, who for the first time are beginning to criticise him, or something far more sinister. It is hard to see how Chavez could hold realistic plans to attack Colombia (the war would be devestating to both and each are the other's biggest trading partner), unless it was to provoke some kind of American response before the Bush regime leaves the White House. Either way, Chavez is playing a risky game.