FARC rebels. (AP/Scott Dalton)

The last few days have been remarkable in the eyes of many in the West who see certain countries or rebel groups as the main source of conflict internationally. Despite Iran pushing against Israel and the US over its nuclear program, and Syrian rebels being crushed in Homs, the last few days resulted in North Korea renouncing its nuclear weapons program and the FARC in Colombia announcing they will no longer use kidnapping as a funding/terror source and will release the last remaining hostages, some being held for over fourteen years. These announcements came with Hugo Chavez struggling to keep healthy and possibly privately considering stepping down as President of Venezuela despite reporting he is recovering from cancer. While these announcements are certainly positive for the US and its allies, the result of diplomacy and armed intervention seems to have made a difference in North Korea and Colombia, but issues still exist of course.

Considering the influence Hugo Chavez has had on leftists in Latin America as well as abroad, the loss of President Chavez would certainly have a noted absence for the leftist movements in the region. While issues close to the hearts of leftists would not disappear, the voice of many of their causes would lose its most principal and known advocate in Latin America. With inequality still a major issue in the region and poverty an irresolvable issue, corruption and dignity will continue to clash in a region that has one of the largest disparities in income globally. Realistically, those who have experienced cancer in their lives or with relatives and friends know that aggressive treatment is not always successful and strength as well as luck is sometimes not enough. Despite this, Hugo Chavez has chosen to fight his illness as he has his opponents and this might make the difference in the end for his own personal health.

North Korea recently inherited a new leader in Kim Jong-un. No one really knows where Kim Jong-un will take North Korea, but what is known is that generals and officials in the country who worked under his father have a great deal of control and influence over the new young leader. Recently someone in North Korea’s top brass decided they are renouncing their nuclear weapons program. While this has happened in the past without a true reduction or stop to it’s nuclear program, it is hoped that this will not be the case this time. Like North Korea, Colombia’s FARC also announced they would stop kidnapping as a means of funding/terror. The last few years the FARC have been stripped of much of their leadership resulting from a combined and coordinated assault on their forces and means of conducting combat by the Colombian government. While there are still many violent attacks on Colombian society by the FARC and in the past offers to end kidnapping failed, the recent announcement is thought to be a move that may lead to a future peace talks between the government and the FARC. Despite reservations on North Korea and the FARC, these two new developments are still positive and welcomed for those in the West and in Colombia.

Led by Undersecretary Stuart Levey, the U.S. Treasury has waged a global campaign to stop banks from laundering money for Iran’s nuclear program in recent years, and international sanctions are slowly crushing Iran’s economy.

Meanwhile, Venezuela and Iran’s spheres of influence are breaking down, and a few of their allies—Cuba and Syria—have already begun death rattles.

Yet the alliance does pose a threat to US security, and there’s no way to rule out a desperate last ditch kamikaze by the Iran-Venezuela tag team. Still:

Washington shouldn’t needlessly provoke that scenario—not when the current arrangement works to America’s advantage.

Read the complete article here.

Last week Wikistrat, a geostrategic consulting firm I am associated with, published a piece on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS blog on what comes after Chávez. The article outlined five scenarios:

1) Capriles’s loss to Chávez in the election ignites an anti-Chávez “spring.”
2) High-ranking officials beatify Chávez and try to continue Chavismo.
3) The military takes power
4) Venezuela becomes the center of narcotics trafficking in South America
5) Chávez’s successor turns out to be Lula reincarnate.

In these scenarios, the impacts on Venezuela are chiefly the result of Chávez’s double-barreled assault on democratic institutions and strident anti-Americanism.

While not letting Chávez completely off the hook, on February 15 Kevin Casas-Zamora laid the blame on the Venezuelan people, chiding them for accepting the erosion of law enforcement institutions in the country, which now lays claim to the world’s most violent capital city and a country-wide murder rate that exceeds that of the United States and EU combined (Venezuela had almost 20,000 murders in 2011). Casas-Zamora, a former Vice President of Costa Rica, concludes:

When it comes to crime, people adapt. They change their behavior, accept greater encroachment on their civil liberties, and embrace an increasingly cavalier attitude towards the rule of law. The real political implications of crime are to be found more in these beliefs than in potential support for coups, or electoral results.

So, the tenor of post-Chávez forecasting seems to be glum—4 of 5 Wikistrat scenarios involve Venezuela moving backward, as does the Casas-Zamora op-ed. Alas, I’m similarly pessimistic.
Chávez has had some role in Venezuela’s bullet-riddled decline, in part by giving free rein to FARC traffickers and in part due to his refusal to cooperate with US counternarcotic efforts, specifically, and international conventions on illicit financial ties more generally. Still, Venezuela was a hub of cocaine trafficking before Chávez took power and it’s hard to argue that Chávez hasn’t enjoyed popular support through his tenure; according to recent polls 60 percent of Venezuelans still back him.

An important parallel may be the lawless tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, which has become a Hezbollah and drug trafficking bazaar over the past two decades.

Venezuela already has a porous border with Colombia—Chavez’s support of the FARC relies on it. And to the east traffickers working along the Venezuela-Guyana border have made Venezuela the largest disembarkation point for cocaine to Europe. Finally, there’s a great deal of dollar counterfeiting that goes on in Ecuador and Colombia that could easily re-center in Venezuela.

In sum, Colombia-Venezuela-Guyana could become a wholesale zone of piracy, drug trafficking and a hotbed of Islamic insurgency. There’s a nightmare scenario.

  

Now published! The introduction can be downloaded from Amazon for free.

While all Canadians will miss Jack Layton, the victory of Mr. Layton had a lot to do with his personality and charisma and his move to turn the NDP into a strong mainstream centre left party. In 2011 it can be argued that it was Layton and his strength that created what in Canada is called the “Orange Crush”, a well known soda drink in Canada, but also referring to the colours of the NDP party and the recent enormous support many in Canada and Quebec have for Mr. Layton himself. The popularity of Jack Layton will never be replaced, and the party that he took to its heights will be without a soul with the loss of Mr. Layton. Jack Layton will become one of Canada’s best known national heroes.

The downgrading of the US after political infighting, even after the debt ceiling was raised, was a direct result of Congress’ indecisiveness. The downgrade was the investor response, reacting poorly to the political divisions between Democrats and Republicans. While in Canada the passing of Mr. Layton is mourned by those on the left and right, Americans along with S&P have lost their confidence for their government due to their inability to work for a consensus for all Americans.

Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has also been dealing with similar issues since he publicly announced he has been diagnosed with cancer. While maybe not as popular in the same way as Mr. Layton, Mr. Chavez is a populist leader who is at the centre of his political party and controls much of the actions of Venezuela as a whole. With recent moves to repatriate Venezuela’s gold reserves, arbitrary and non-transparent laws and the poor health of Mr. Chavez, S&P downgraded Venezuela as well. The long term health of Hugo Chavez remains unknown, even to himself, but with the control over the Venezuelan state resting heavily in the office of the president of Venezuela, the fate of his revolution to change the political system of his country is tied in his ability to continue his reforms. While support from all Venezuelans does not come easily to Hugo Chavez, there is no question that his reforms depends greatly on Chavez and his own health to continue his revolution.

This month the world was shocked to learn of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’ admission of being ill with cancer and his flight to Cuba to undergo an operation to remove a tumour. The weight of Mr. Chavez being ill has a great effect on Venezuela and all of Latin America because he is the voice of left wing populist leaders in the region and has the clout and funds to expand his ideology across the region. Over the last 12 years of his Presidency, Hugo Chavez has fought to remain in power and has increasingly pushed for the Presidential branch to have more power in Venezuela’s Constitution. Critics of Mr. Chavez say this increased power is placing Chavez in the position of being a permanent leader with absolute authority over the country’s resources and power. With an illness or death of Hugo Chavez comes a great shift in the direction of Venezuela and the continent as a whole.

Beyond the debate between leftists and opposition leaders in Venezuela regarding the effects of an ill Chavez, for anyone to have such a horrible affliction such as cancer should be regarded with some sympathy and respect for the difficulties the victim will have with the illness. In reality, research and treatments to help cancer sufferers, even if done in Cuba, helps the international medical community to treat patients in all countries as research and funding in Cuba does not solely remain in Cuba or Venezuela. Cuban research, like all research in the international medical community often contributes to research in Europe, the US and abroad to help all cancer patients internationally. Chavez response to his illness and his view of this illness as being one of the great challenges to his personal life may have a positive effect for cancer treatment in Venezuela and for others living within Latin America.

A few years ago Venezuela offered free eye treatment for many living in Latin America who could not afford the treatments. Treatments of eye illnesses has a great effect on the lives of those in the region as the loss of sight for poorer individuals is a massive burden for those who often have no support to begin with and suffer greatly from the effects of poverty. New technologies in eye care can provide quick and clean surgeries and can change the lives of many. It is possible that Chavez will focus a great deal of funding for cancer treatment as well, but it could be that the treatment could cost a lot more than the eye care program and health initiatives by Mr. Chavez. A broad treatment initiative without comparative budgeting often does not accord with the affordability of balanced medical system for those in Venezuela and outside of the country. Despite this, there is a good chance that cancer treatment and research will get a boost in Venezuela, signed off by the President himself. Whatever the outcome of Hugo Chavez’ Presidency and continuing Revolution, cancer and how it will be treated will become a part of the historic narrative of this time in Latin American history.

In mid-May the country’s Aban Pearl platform sunk. Apparently the safety mechanisms functioned and there are no ongoing gas leaks. All employees were safely evacuated.

Maybe Venezuela has some kind of comparative advantage when it comes to the sinking of oil or natural gas platforms? Then again, any response is easier in 160 meters of water rather than the 1500-meter depth of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil drilling platform.

There has been little or no news since the first reports of the loss of the seemingly forgettable Aban Pearl. Meanwhile, daily updates about the ongoing BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico mean that the name Deepwater Horizon will be etched into our collective memory.

Those opposed to the Venezuelan government will likely interpret this ruling as another sign that the country’s leaders do not accept alternative viewpoints, even the critiques of its former allies.

In the world of Chávez loyalty is extremely important. You are either with him or against him – and there are often consequences for those who choose this second option. Anyone who signed a petition in support of a vote to recall President Chávez in 2004 were blacklisted and are banned from working for the state after their names were leaked in what is known as Tascon’s List. In the case of Baduel, even though he played a crucial role by enabling Chávez to regain power during the 2002 coup attempt, his opposition to the expansion of the president’s control appears to have been too much to overlook. He is not the first former official of the administration to be imprisoned.

Supporters of Chávez, however, probably do not see these as trumped up accusations against Baduel. Instead, they likely see the impending punishment as just desserts for charges that nearly $4 million of funds were unaccounted for when he was in office.

Information for this posting comes from the NYT and BBC.

The move appears to be an effort to dive into the use of digital media that has been a tool of opposition to the government. As Reuters points out, it may require a shift in the President’s approach:

“Known for hours-long speeches, Chavez will now face the challenge of keeping his outpourings within the 140-character limit demanded by Twitter.”

What is the significance of the name used by Chávez? In Venezuela “candanga” has its unique definition, and “is used to mean someone who is strong-willed and rebellious, or a troublemaker”. Given what the world has seen of the President during his decade-long rule of Venezuela and some of his more memorable international appearances (e.g. a speech to the UN in 2006 in which he referred to George W. Bush as the devil, and a public spat with the king of Spain in 2007), this seems appropriate.

Prior to Chávez’s first post there were more than 12,000 followers on Twitter. If these were all Venezuelans it represents a significant portion of the country’s 200,000 accounts, and all without sending even a single message. One wonders who will follow Chávez online. Are his supporters (who are more likely from poorer populations and have less access to the internet) going to be updated, or will it actually be the opposition keeping tabs on the President’s latest commentary?

Note: This story’s source, including the information on the number of Twitter users, is Reuters.

President Hugo Chávez spoke on Sunday, declaring that Venezuela is entering a new chapter of its history. In the next twenty years he stated that the country will consolidate “the socialist revolution, full independence and unity between the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean”. His message also included the common refrain, “Fatherland, Socialism or Death!” According to the BBC, Russian-made Sukhoi jets flew overhead as large numbers of red-clad government supporters marched through the streets.

Yesterday, the leaders of other members of ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance for Latin America and the Caribbean, also gathered in Caracas to celebrate the bicentennial. They included, among others, Raúl Castro of Cuba, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. One of ALBA’s main goals at present is the creation of a common currency. Beyond the formation of political alliances they are also working together on social issues including health and education. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, President of Argentina, spoke to a special session of the Venezuelan National Assembly, and described a second era of independence in Latin America.

What will be made of these statements in the coming years? Chávez has once again made his intentions clear: socialism will continue full-steam ahead. However, does ALBA represent an ideological coalition that acts as a counterweight to US influence in the region, or are its members merely held together by Venezuelan oil?

Beyond agreements related to oil, the relationship benefits both countries. It provides Chávez with a strong ally to counter influence by the United States in the region. If the US refuses to sell needed technology or spare parts for Venezuela’s military, then it can instead turn to Russia. In addition, Chávez continues his efforts to court cooperation and support for nuclear development from Russia (and Iran), something that surely raises eyebrows in Washington. However, any development of nuclear power would take years to implement and have no impact on the country’s current power shortages.

At the same time, Putin’s association with Chávez enables him to expand Russia’s influence in the Western Hemisphere. This has been years in the making. In December 2008 a joint military exercise between his country’s navy and that of Venezuela served as the first deployment of Russian ships in the Caribbean since the end of the Cold War.

Note: Although Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited Chávez in 2008, this is Putin’s first trip to Venezuela.

Why this change in Semana Santa? President Hugo Chávez declared that Monday through Wednesday would be national holidays in order to save energy. This all goes back to the Guri dam, which provides more than two-thirds of the country’s electrical power – a drought has reduced the hydroelectric plant’s power and water levels behind the dam continue to fall. Caracas and other areas of the country have suffered water and electricity outages for months.

Chávez also urged citizens to save electricity and water, but admittedly this is not a common characteristic among Venezuelans. The country boasts the highest consumption of energy per person in Latin America. Anecdotally speaking, my time in country showed a profligate use of resources, perhaps best exemplified by air conditioned storefronts with doors wide open in order to attract passers-by with a cool breeze.

Ultimately, in a country where the government is involved in all levels of society, it may take more regulation to reduce resource usage – it has fined and cut power at companies that do not sufficiently reduce their energy use.

For more information, please see the following article.

Frustration with a false report is understandable. Any broader move to limit news sources, however, appears to follow a pattern of restricting opposing views, such as those expressed through the TV channels Radio Caracas Television and Globovision.

What impact would any Internet restrictions have on personal Internet use? While Chávez spoke about news outlets, Manuel Villalba, a representative in the General Assembly and President of its commission on Science, Technology and Communication, described the use of social networks in spreading anti-government communications. He stated that the Internet required limits, but also emphasized that any action would result from a petition rising from the people. It appears that steps may be taken to put Chávez’s words into action.

An article in El Universal, a paper often critical of the government, discusses the possibility of greater restriction of personal expression via the Internet. There may be a legal approach, such as those inspired by Chávez’s public declarations, as well as less visible moves to block IPs or attempt to slow down the network. Blogs and sites like Twitter and Facebook are not controllable by the government at present, and are probably perceived as a threat.

An effort to restrict the Internet raises the question of how the Venezuela public would react. Regardless of their political leanings, Venezuelans are strong consumers of electronic products, including the Blackberry, which is considered a popular status symbol. The public would likely react strongly (and negatively) to any limits to their access to social networking sites like Facebook.

We will have to wait and see what happens next.

Further information about the situation can be found in El Universal, Ultimas Noticias, and El Nacional, all newspapers published in Caracas. Some information for this post comes from the Associated Press and Reuters.

In its overview, the Commission stated that the country experiences:
“political intolerance; the lack of independence of the branches of the State in dealing with the executive; constraints on freedom of expression and the right to protest peaceably; the existence of a climate hostile to the free exercise of dissenting political participation and to monitoring activities on the part of human rights organizations”.

You can find the report here.

According to the Washington Post, “the report praised Venezuela’s government for reducing poverty and illiteracy and increasing access to healthcare, but said that did not justify eroding civil rights”.

Not surprisingly, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez declared that the Commission’s report was biased, and he views the IACHR and its affiliation to the OAS as no more than a representative of US interests. Venezuela has not allowed the IACHR to visit since 2002, and so a large part of the report’s evidence was based on interviews with persons outside the country. Admittedly, any persons who left Venezuela over the past decade are much more likely to be opponents of the current administration.

The IACHR’s website states that it is an autonomous organization, and its members are said to “act independently, without representing any particular country”. Thematic reports include analysis of women’s rights in Chile (2009) and violence against children in Colombia (2006). Aside from Venezuela the most recent country reports are for Honduras (2009), Haiti (2008), and Bolivia (2007). There are not any reports directly focused on the United States, but in 2006 the IACHR released a statement calling for the closure of Guantanamo.

An already tense discussion appeared to blow up when Chávez raised the issue of Colombian paramilitaries.

The explanation of the words used is critical, since the meeting did not include tape recordings, video, or photos.

The Telegraph (London) and Noticias24 reported that Uribe called Chávez a “coward”.

On the other hand, El Tiempo (out of Bogota) reported Uribe as saying (my translation) “Be a man and stay here to argue in person”, and “Sometimes you insult at a distance, but when you are face to face we do not talk”. Chávez’s response was: “Go to hell!”

Ultimas Noticias, a pro-government newspaper in Venezuela put a different face on the exchange, with Chávez explaining that one has to respond when “they spit in your face”. He explained that he is open to talking to Uribe again and that “it is an obligation for the two” of them. In this version there was no mention of anyone going to hell.

This is a reminder of the spin that each side (and external parties such as papers in the UK or US) puts on the very same event. In the end, while translations may vary, what is not in doubt is that tensions between the two leaders – and their countries – remain high.