Anti-Americanism Alive and Well in Latin America

An e-mail in my inbox asked me to part with a few hours of my time last Wednesday, standing outside in the Autumn cold and picketing the US embassy here in London. US ambassadors to Bolivia and Venezuela were in the space of a couple of days sent packing amidst accusations of fomenting regional violence in Bolivia and plotting to overthrow Chávez. According to the protesters:

US President George W Bush has made it his top priority to overthrow the new left-wing governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and others before he leaves office at the end of the year (www.handsoffvenezuela.org)

Whilst I have no doubt that the US would shed no tears if either Evo Morales or Hugo Chávez were finally toppled, the recent expulsions of the respective US ambassadors has far more to do with Morales' and Chávez's populist support to a large extent consolidated by their anti-US positions.

With Russian battleships on course for Venezuelan waters for joint exercises, US may indeed have cause for concern regarding Chávez's strategic alliances - "Russian navy sails to Venezuela." Is this yet more evidence of yesteryear's Cold War battle lines being redrawn as Russia strengthens its ties in and increases its presence in Latin America - just as it did in Cuba in the 1960s? And then there are continuing anti-democratic measures taken by Chávez; the most recent being the expelling of human rights activists after having accused Chávez's government of "openly endors[ing] acts of discrimination" - "Venezuela expels two human rights activist" But are these legitimate causes for concern enough for the US to reattempt its misguided foray into overthrowing democratically elected leaders?

And what does the US gain from further destabilising Bolivia? Aside from the issue of Morales' government not doing enough to cut down on coca production, there is very little his government can be accused of that directly goes against US interests. The US has little interest in Bolivian gas reserves and their recent nationalisation. And surely they must realise that the toppling of a President that only weeks was strengthened his mandate with 67% of the popular vote in the recall referendum.

The history of US interventionism etched into the Latin American psyche, the extent to which it imbues populist rhetoric, ultimately renders the need for sound reasoning behind these anti-US conspiracies completely unnecessary. Even with George Bush at the helm, this mode of politics should not play a central role in any Latin American nations' foreign policy. Yes, the USA is by no means the 'Good Neighbour' it had once set itself up to be. But far more stands to be lost in the long-term by doing your utmost to strain relations with USA, merely for the purpose of short-term populist/nationalist gains.

This is not to say that the US are wholeheartedly innocent either. Failing to show strong enough support for the democratically-elected leaders of both countries is seen as a green light for opposition movements in Venezuela and Bolivia to challenge their Presidents in any way they see fit - as was the case with the failed coup in Venezuela in 2002 and with the violence in Bolivia right now.

Needless to say I did not spend last Wednesday afternoon picketing the US embassy.

Putting Those 1978 Ghosts to Bed

Whilst the Spaniards were ending 44 years of hurt with their victory over Germany in the Euro 2008 final this past Sunday, a different kind of ‘hurt’ was being put to bed in Buenos Aires.

30 years had passed since the Argentine national team lifted their first ever World Cup trophy. It was a tournament they hosted and should have gone down as a glorified moment in Argentine folklore. However it remains forever blighted by the dark military dictatorship and the so-called “Dirty War” it inflicted upon its people. The way in which the regime purposefully used the staging of the World Cup as propaganda tool, à la Hitler’s 1936 Olympics, and as to distract a population’s worries about the continuous desaparecidos has cast a black shadow over what was at the time Argentina’s greatest ever sporting triumph. Moreover, though slight in comparison, the military have been accused of bribing the Peruvian national side to lose heavily to Argentina, when the Argentines needed at least a 4-0 victory to guarantee their place in the final (they beat Peru 6-0).


This Sunday ex-members of the World Cup winning team, human rights activists took part in a memorial match - "La otra final: el partido por la vida y los derechos humanos" - for the 30,000 Argentines who lost their lives during this dark chapter of Argentine history. Many of the ex-players had wanted to put to bed once and for all that they in someway had been used by the military regime. As young football players they had little idea of the horrors being perpetrated by their leaders and little understanding of how their success was being manipulated to make a population turn a blind eye towards the atrocities.

Perhaps most chilling of all is the stories of the imprisoned opponents in the military detention and torture that was situated only a short distance from the main stadium in Buenos Aires during the World Cup. Here prisoners told how, chained to their beds, they could hear their guards listening to the game on the radio and the crowds celebrate as the goals went in. The 1980 Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, who was imprisoned at the time recalls how

En la prisión, cuando ponían el partido en los altoparlantes, era muy contradictorio. Porque los ejecutores, aquellos que nos torturaban, y nosotros, las víctimas, gritábamos juntos '¡Gol de Argentina!'. Y sabemos que sacaban afuera a prisioneros cuando había distracciones por la Copa Mundial y les disparaban (source BBC Mundo "A 30 años de un triunfo empañado" 30/06/2008)

When they played a game over the speakers, it was very contradictory - because the executioners, those who tortured us, and us the victims both cried 'Goal Argentina!' And we know that they took prisoners out when there were distractions caused by the World Cup and shot them (source BBC News, "Football match evokes Dirty War", 30/06/2008)

Thankfully for Argentine and Argentine football only a few years would have to pass before the dictatorship crumbled and Maradona could restore national pride with the his glorious one-man show in the 1986 World Cup in Mexico.

A Surprise Defeat

Perhaps unsurprisingly the first 15 minutes of class this Tuesday was dedicated to discussing the surprising constitutional defeat in Venezuela on Sunday. I don't think anyone really saw that one coming. With the well-oiled voting machine that makes up the Chavista movement, it seemed unfathomable that Chave would, come Monday morning, have to humbley admit defeat and congratulate the oppistion with their 'pyrrhic' victory. Chavez doesn't normally do humble and magnanimous. And I'm sure it's not going to last for no long either.

First of all what was the constitution all about? A series of amendments to the 1999 constitution which was also put forward to referendum by Chavez, but which one he was able to win convincingly. This constituion, through various amendments, was however to further set in stone some of the already highly criticised sections of the 1999 constitution along with further econimc and social reforms. One such amendment, and probably the most controversial, was the Presidents ability to be re-elected an endless amout of times and if that wasn't enough a Presidential term would have been increased from 6 to 7 years. The issue of presidential re-election in Latin America is always a touchy subject. In the acknowledgement of the region's tendency towards authoritarian, caudillo-style leaders in its past, constitutions have formally set to limit any single person's ability to stay in power for more than two terms. In Mexico, Presidents can only serve one term whilst other Latin American states in the belief that their democracies are maturing have allowed Presidents to stand for two terms. This was what Chavez was successful in doing back in 1999. But indefininte re-election? Perhaps this was a move too far by Chavez...


Other amendments included the demise of autonomy of the Central Bank (given the success of the Bank of England's autonomy here in the UK, I can only presume this would be a step in the wrong direction - but then things in Latin America aren't always that clear cut), the extension of social benefits to those who work in the informal sector (with the size of the informal sector being disproportionately large in Latin America this would have been a bold and progressive move), and most bizarrely of all the cut in maximum working hours per day from 8 to 6 hours (not even the French can manage that).


So why did he lose? Well supporters of Chavez are quick to point to the high abstention rate and the unwillingness of Chavez supportes to get out and back their man. Or perhaps it was a lack of urgency and lack of belief behind the sincerity and plausability of the social sweetners that the constitution would have allowed for. Or that despite Chavez's vocal pronouncements for the need of a yes vote to consolidate the "Bolivarian Revolution", supporters believed that the new amendments were mere sweetners as a means for Chavez to consolidate his own personal power.


So whilst the opposition were out on the streets celebrating victory, wasn't the real victor perhaps democracy itself? Whilst we had all been commenting on the gradual erosion of liberties in Venezuela and the move towards a centralisation of power, this vote and its acceptance, for now, by Chavez underlines that democracy has seemingly worked its magic and remains respected and guaranteed by both sides. Or am I just giving it the naive optimistic outlook. The 2002 coup saw how skin-deep the respect for democracy can be when push comes to shove. And perhaps Chavez was merely persuaded not to contest, or indeed fiddle with the numbers by the threat of a new coup by disgruntled military fractions.

So Chavez has no 'only' until 2013 to conclude his time as President. 'Lame Duck' presidency is not a term one could ever place on someone like Chavez even after such a setback. His supporters still control Congress, and many of the amendments will surely still be passed through those channels.

There is never a dull moment in Venezuelan current affairs and I'm sure the upcoming period will be no exception. Still it's very hard here in the UK, and never having been to Venezuela myself, to really be able to grasp what the atmosphere must be like, and how people see the future panning out. If nothing else, they can be sure the world will continue watching closely...hasta el fin.

There's Something Rotten in the State of Venezuela

So after yesterdays student protests, Hugo Chavez now slings out almost nonsensical allegations that fascist conspiracies are behind this increase in voiceful protests (Venezuela's Chavez Condemns Opposition). Certainly opposition is mounting against him, but at least these seem to manifest themselves in far more peaceful and lawful ways than when Chavez counters the opposition against him. The recent silencing of a nationwide TV channel that openly opposed him springs to mind. As much as I would like to agree or indeed sympathise with the social changes he is trying to implement, all this may soon come undone by the increasing authoritarian stance his Presidency is starting to take. Yes it may seem very Latin American to be ruled by yet another caudillo clad in a military uniform. But when we yet again have to witness the gradual dismantling of the democratic system and civil liberties one can only fear that in the end this could yet again set Venezuela down a course which it most definintely doesn't deserve. Chavez's goal of social justice is all very well, but not when forced through at the expense of all other civil and political rights. That's my humble opinion for now anway...