JOHN BOLTON ON THE THREAT FROM VENEZUELA
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/16/opinion/la-oe-bolton-chavez-20100916
The Chavez threat
Successive U.S. administrations have proved unable or unwilling to slow
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s descent into authoritarianism.
September 16, 2010|By John R. Bolton
Venezuela’s Sept. 26 national parliamentary elections present a major
opportunity for strongman Hugo Chavez to cement his grip on power. Despite a
tradition of a free press and competitive politics, a cosmopolitan elite and
extensive natural resources, Venezuela is increasingly a case study in how to
lose political and economic freedom.
The stakes are especially high in light of evidence consistent with an emerging
Venezuelan nuclear weapons program. Ironically, Chavez’s frequently clownish
behavior protects him, camouflaging the seriousness of his potential threat to
U.S. security and to democratic societies throughout Latin America.
Washington, under Republican and Democratic administrations, has proved unable
or unwilling to slow Chavez’s descent into authoritarianism. Unlike coups by
prior caudillos in the Americas, the situation in Venezuela today is like a
slow-motion train wreck, which makes it all the more frustrating. A lack of
international outrage is discouraging pro-democracy Venezuelans across the
ideological spectrum. They worry they have been forgotten, especially by an
Obama administration that finds foreign policy a distraction.
This month’s elections, therefore, may be a last chance for change before Chavez
completes his takeover. He has advanced his agenda since taking office in 1999
by fragmenting his domestic opposition, manipulating election rules, closing
down opposition news sources and expropriating the considerable assets of
businesses and entrepreneurs. He has materially impaired Venezuela’s prosperous
petroleum economy by failing to make prudent investments and improvements, while
using substantial oil revenues to consolidate his hold on power.
Even more disturbing are Chavez’s international threats. While Latin American
democracies have refrained from doing anything that smacks of “interference” in
Venezuela’s internal affairs, Chavez has felt no similar compunction. For
example, it’s clear he has sheltered, supplied and financed FARC guerrillas who
seek to overthrow the government in neighboring, and still-democratic, Colombia.
In decades past, accusations that the United States was engaged in such tactics
would have brought millions into the streets shouting “Yanqui go home!”
Last year, Chavez led the charge against those in Honduras trying to prevent its
fragile democracy (and one of the Western Hemisphere’s poorest countries) from
being subverted by Manuel Zelaya, a would-be caudillo. Chavez has poured money —
openly or through suspected clandestine channels — into elections in Peru,
Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador to support leftist candidates of his ilk. To that
same end, he questioned the legitimacy of President Felipe Calderon’s election
in Mexico and purchased much of Argentina’s sovereign debt. One can only imagine
what he might be doing to support the Mexican drug cartels, as with their
cohorts in Colombia. For that reason, Venezuelan involvement in hemispheric drug
trafficking should be a top U.S. intelligence priority.
Advertisement
Ads by Google
On the world stage, Chavez’s behavior is increasingly ominous. As Fidel Castro
has aged and Cuba’s relations with Russia have faded, Chavez has stepped
forward. He has engaged in extensive military cooperation with Moscow, including
major acquisitions of conventional weapons, from infantry rifles to
sophisticated, high-end weapons well beyond any conceivably legitimate
requirements of Venezuela’s military. Chavez’s purchases of advanced-model
Kalashnikov assault rifles, some Venezuelan businessmen and former diplomats
suggest, are meant to arm campesino “militias” that will rally to him if
Venezuela’s military ever threatens his regime, or the weapons may be destined
for revolutionary or terrorist groups. In either case, the consequences would be
profoundly negative.
Beyond enhancing his own swaggering reputation, Chavez’s growing closeness with
Russia and Iran on nuclear matters should be our greatest concern. For decades,
after military governments fell in Brazil and Argentina, Latin America prided
itself on avoiding the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The 1967 Treaty of
Tlatelolco symbolized this perceived immunity, but the region’s nuclear-free
status is today gravely threatened.
Now, Venezuela is openly helping Iran evade international sanctions imposed
because of Tehran’s nuclear weapons program. Along with the refined petroleum
products it supplies Tehran, Chavez allows Iranian banks and other sanctioned
enterprises to use Caracas as a base for conducting business internationally
and, reportedly, to facilitate Hezbollah’s activity in the hemisphere.
Even more alarming, Venezuela claims Iran is helping develop its uranium
reserves, reportedly among the largest in the world. Indeed, the formal
agreement between them signed two years ago for cooperation in the nuclear field
could easily result in a uranium-for-nuclear-knowhow trade. In addition, Chavez
has a deal with Russia to build a reactor in Venezuela. All of which may signal
a dangerous clandestine nuclear weapons effort, perhaps as a surrogate for Iran,
as has been true elsewhere, such as in Syria.
President Obama and other freely elected Western Hemisphere leaders at a minimum
need to tell Chavez clearly that his disassembling of Venezuela’s democracy is
unacceptable. This is very nearly the exact opposite of current White House
policy, which attempts to appease Chavez, Castro and other leftists, as it did
by joining them against the democratic forces in Honduras.
Unfortunately, with our own elections approaching in November, it is hard to get
Obama’s attention directed to Latin American affairs, or foreign policy
generally. But make no mistake, if Chavez can intimidate his domestic
opposition, manipulate election laws and extend his authoritarian control,
Venezuela will increasingly be a global menace.
John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow
at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an
Option.”
Comments are closed.
