The Hero of Venezuela

by Irfan Ahmed

Revolutionists of the twenty first century are not ubiquitous , however they are truly quintessential to a countries growth. Without them, foundations weaken, power remains unchallenged and nationalism is buried alongside the dead of the past. However, in Latin America, this is certainly not the case. Power struggle and nationalism has been of key importance and the history behind it, is a staunch reminder of it’s uniqueness. Many figures have made their mark in the Latin America, such as Simon Bolivar, Fidel Castro, Ernesto “Che” Guverra and Josi Marti, to name a few. But, today, the most important and iconic figure of our time when discussing Latin America, is not only Fidel Castro (save him for a future article), but his main compatriot, the voice of the barrios, the great Hugo Chavez.

This is a man detested by the behemoth to the North, the United States, and has been the torch carrier for the Bolivarian Revolution, which would reunite Latin America as Simon Bolivar once did. But, sadly, this remarkable idea of Latin American solidarity has been flailing, and the visionary behind this, Hugo Chavez, has been become the victim of harassment, illegal military coup’s, and war mongering’ propaganda. A quick look into the history can literally show us how the hegemonic power had tried to overthrow such a great man, and failed to do so.

In 2002, Venezuela was on its way into the twenty-first century, led by their Bolivarian revolutionist, Hugo Chavez. But soon enough, 2002 was to be monumental for Venezuela, and remembered by all of Latin America and the neo-conservative hawks in Washington. It all begin with the creation of the National Endowment of Democracy (NED), whose mission is to “serve as the perfect conduit for U.S government funds to provide international political aid that would support it’s interests abroad and influence foreign and domestic policy in nations of strategic importance.” [1] ( Golinger 18 ) It was also considered to be a reflection of “the neo-conservative agenda the prioritized its global struggle against communism over democratic notions of sovereignty and self-determination.” [2] ( Golinger 18 ) . Soon enough, the NED was going become the antithesis of what they stand for. However, Venezuela allowed such a program to exist, even under the control of congress: “NED was established by congressional legislation, the National Endowment for Democracy Act (P.L 98-104), and congress authorized funding to ensure success.” [3] ( Golinger 18 ) This is becuase the Venezuelan government did not consider such a noble organization to be a threat and believed their purpose was essential. The United States and NED’s role in the coup d’état would soon be more transparent as the years climbed towards the initial subversion date of Chavez’s government. Nevertheless, “NED was pumping funds to key members of the opposition coalition” [4] ( Golinger 26 ), which had high ranking officers, and the illegal president who would temporarily relieve Chavez of presidency, Pedro Carmona.

General Gonzales of Venezuela, who was a clear dissident of the Chavez government, adamantly stated ”If the high command has to say to the president, ‘Mr. President, the cause of all of this is you, now leave,’ then the high command has to take that position,” [5] Chavez was soon to be blamed for everything, as the “exports of oil sagged” [6]. But, the general’s dream, as well as many others for the illegal take over, would come true on April 11th. “CTV, Fedecamaras, and NED-supported opposition parties held one of the largest rallies and marches Venezuela had ever seen” [7] ( Golinger 27 ) The opposition march began and it was thought to be a peaceful one. But that clearly became an overstatement as “midday on April 11, the opposition march unlawfully altered it’s authorized route and millions began storming toward the presidential palace, Miraflores.” [8] ( Golinger 27 ), where many pro-Chavez supporters were legally gathered. This altered route would clearly show the intentions of the protesters and those leading it. They wanted unrest, and thats exactly what they got. As clashes were occurring on the streets of Venezuela, “the military officers, who had already declared rebellion, together with opposition leaders stormed Miraflores and attempted to force President Chavez’s resignation. ” [9] ( Golinger 28 ) Since Chavez showed nothing but defiance in the face of adversity, he did not resign, but instead allowed himself to be “kidnapped and imprisoned ina nearby military base” [10] ( Golinger 28 ) The sub rosa plans of the opposition became quite clear to the people of Venezuela, and they weren’t going to stand for this.

Venezuela saw their democracy shredded apart, as Pedro Carmona “was sworn in as interim president, and in a sweeping first act, he issued a decree dissolving all of Venezuela’s democratic institutions.” [11] ( Golinger 28 ) This act vividly portrayed their underestimation of the people’s will, which would surely bring an unmitigated disturbance to their revamped “halcyonian” society: “in the streets of Caracas, thousands of demonstrators supporting Mr Chavez – or opposed to the way he was ousted – took over state TV to demand his return. Police fired water cannon and teargas. Agency reports claimed that dozens died in the violence.” [12] But that still didn’t stop the loyal supporters of democracy and Chavez, as they continued onward in a campaign to remove the true dictator, Pedro Carmona, and his camarilla’s. The protesters reached Miraflores palace, which was occupied by the dissenter’s of democracy, and declared that Chavez be returned to his rightful place, the seat of presidency and to the people of Venezuela. “The Presidential Guard, along with other fractions of the military that had remained loyal to Chavez, swiftly forced Carmona and his advisor’s into detention and returned the palace grounds to the Chavez cabinet, who then initiated the rescue of the constitutional president, Hugo Chavez.” [13] ( Golinger 29 ) The short-lived coup attempt brought a new sense of nationalism to the Venezuelan people and confidence in their true president. As Hugo Chavez triumphantly returned, he was greeted with cheers, songs and applause. People sung from afar, “He’s Back”, in the same fashion as the soccer tune of celebration, “Ole Ole Ole”. [14]

The miasma created by the NED and the United States was completely disintegrated, and Chavez humbly stated: ”I am here and I am prepared to rectify wherever I have to rectify,” Mr. Chávez went on, ”but I ask others to rectify, too.” [15] As Venezuela begins to convalesce itself, a new wave of propaganda is now being spread about Chavez. Currently, Chavez is being linked to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), who engages in “Bombings, murder, mortar attacks, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking, as well as guerrilla and conventional military action against Colombian political, military, and economic targets.” [16] Since these are the attributes that have placed FARC on the US terrorist list [17], I wonder if these attributes also apply to United States, who in 2002 supported several anti-Chavez organizations in the illegal overthrow. But, apparently not. To Venezuela, this form of propaganda of linking Chavez and his government to terrorists groups is nothing new: “The problem is that Chávez is supporting Hezbollah in the Middle East and will most probably support their criminal work in Venezuela.” [18]. But apparently, there is no evidence of this at all. Moreover, Roger Noriega, “the former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and longtime proponent of hardline U.S. policies in Latin America,” [19] had stated that : “Chavez is authoritarian/dictatorial; Chavez is a destablizing force in the region; and Chavez has links with terrorism.” [20] ( Golinger 53 )

If he only knew how wrong he really was. If you were to check the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s constitution, that was enacted in 1999, after Chavez replaced the Venezuelan dictator, you would know that it “is one of the most expansive documents on human rights known by international law” [21] ( Golinger 54 ). But to further refute this claim that Chavez is a dictator, you would just have to simply turn to the first two articles of the constitution, which states: “Article 1: The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is irrevocably free and independent, basing its moral property and values of freedom, equality, justice and international peace” and “Article 2: Venezuela constitutes itself as a Democratic and Social State of Law and Justice, which holds as superior values of its legal order and actions those of life, liberty, justice, equality, solidarity, democracy, social responsibility and, in general, the preeminence of human rights, ethics and political pluralism”. [22]

It is clear, that a democracy can exist in other parts of the world, only if it befits the interest of the United States. The legendary return of Hugo Chavez to power, through the will of his people as they marched from the barrios to the Miraflores palace, is a great example of democracy. Since Venezuela’s oil has been lionized by the United States, Hugo Chavez must do everything in his power to prevent the spread of corruption amongst the wealthy of Venezuela, and at the same time battle the hegemony to the north who believes “Latin America is it’s backyard”. Surely, the people of Venezuela will never stand for this and neither would Hugo Chavez. But as time progresses and we see changes in U.S and Venezuelan foreign policy, much more interesting times lye ahead. Chavez is the revolution, who the U.S foolishly tried to undermine, but democracy, in it’s truest sense prevailed, and the hero continues to reign.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

References:

[1] Golinger, Eva. Bush Vs Chavez: Washington’s War on Venezuela. New York: Monthly Review P, 2008. 9-175.
[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid
[5]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EED61F3DF932A25757C0A9649C8B63&scp=57&sq=Venezuela+2002&st=nyt

[6] Ibid

[7] Golinger, Eva. Bush Vs Chavez: Washington’s War on Venezuela. New York: Monthly Review P, 2008. 9-175.

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/15/venezuela.alexbellos

[13] Golinger, Eva. Bush Vs Chavez: Washington’s War on Venezuela. New York: Monthly Review P, 2008. 9-175.

[14] http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=97

[15]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E4D9103CF936A25757C0A9649C8B63&scp=10&sq=Venezuela+2002&st=nyt

[16] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/farc.htm

[17] http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2001/6531.htm

[18] http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200609010809

[19] http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1308.html

[20] Golinger, Eva. Bush Vs Chavez: Washington’s War on Venezuela. New York: Monthly Review P, 2008. 9-175.

[21] Ibid

[22] http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf

~ by quicksilva212 on May 19, 2008.