HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
|
Published on Tuesday, April 16, 2002 in the Washington
Post |
|
Bush's Betrayal of Democracy |
|
by Arturo Valenzuela |
| Had the armed forces and its allies
succeeded in forcing Venezuela's democratically elected president and
legislature out of office this past week, Latin America would have
experienced its first outright military coup in 26 years, with the notable
exception of the overthrow of Haiti's first-ever elected president in
1991. The collapse of democracy in Venezuela would have exacerbated the
sharp social tensions in a bitterly divided country that is the United
States' third-largest source of imported oil. It also would have seriously
undermined hemispheric efforts championed by three previous American
presidents to strengthen democracy and the rule of law and put an end to
military in politics. A successful coup in Venezuela was averted when it
became clear that President Hugo Chavez retained considerable support in
the country and the military belatedly realized that the provisional
government it had installed severely overreached in a misguided attempt to
dismantle the elected legislature and dismiss the supreme court.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration did not seem to understand what was at stake in Venezuela. Deviating sharply from the policies of its predecessors, and confusing the understandable dislike of a particular leader and his policies with the importance of supporting democracy, it publicly countenanced the military action. The administration was visibly out of step with other hemispheric leaders who condemned the military coup. It also stood in sharp contrast to the policies of the first President Bush, who vigorously opposed the overthrow of the leftist, anti-American Aristide in Haiti, sending an unmistakable signal of the U.S. commitment to upholding democracy in the post-Cold War era. As a result, the United States now risks losing much of the considerable moral and political leadership it had rightly won over the last decade as the nations of the Americas sought to establish the fundamental principle that the problems of democracy are solved in democracy, not through resorting to unconstitutional means. Rather than categorically condemn the military coup in Venezuela, official White House and Department of State statements appeared to justify military intervention by arguing that people were killed in anti-Chavez demonstrations, that the president had ordered the closing of television broadcasts, and had been acting in an increasingly authoritarian manner. Nor did the administration's spokesmen encourage the armed forces to avoid a disruption of the constitutional order or call for the restoration of Venezuela's elected authorities. Instead, they accepted at face value Chavez's purported resignation and did not question the legitimacy of the ad hoc "provisional government" blessed by the high command. Nor did the United States unequivocally call for the convening of an immediate meeting of hemispheric foreign ministers to address the crisis, as has been done repeatedly in the past under the provisions that mandate the Organization of American States to come to the defense of democracy. The silence of President Bush regarding events in Venezuela was particularly jarring. There is no doubt that Chavez's actions and rhetoric have contributed to aggravating the severe crisis of Venezuelan democracy. He is a demagogue, an instinctive authoritarian who has consistently squandered his chance to regenerate Venezuelan politics and address the nation's economic problems. He has also gratuitously antagonized the United States and his neighbors through his anachronistic embrace of the Colombian guerrillas, Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro. But whether we like it or not, Chavez is also a democratically elected leader who governed with an elected legislature and, for all of his antics, generally abided by the strictures of the institutional order. If he violated his oath of office or the law of the land, the proper course is impeachment, not a military coup. If he did resign his office, it should have been up to the legislature, not an unrepresentative body appointed by the high command, to determine his successor. A chastened Mr. Chavez has so far given positive signs that he wishes to avoid retribution and build bridges to other sectors of society. The Bush administration has admonished him to mend his ways and seek to abide by the rule of law, an exhortation that unfortunately has less credibility after it failed to call for upholding those same principles last week. The administration should also resist further temptations to demonize the mercurial Mr. Chavez and look for ways to work with the other countries of the hemisphere to support a constructive dialogue between his government and the opposition. Finally, it is time for the U.S. government to move beyond the rhetoric of making democracy, trade and security its top priorities in the hemisphere by addressing the severe problems of a region where democracy is in genuine peril. In a world fraught with uncertainties and risks, legitimate and stable democracies in our hemisphere are fundamental to the national interest of the United States. It should not take our hemispheric neighbors to remind us of that fact. The writer directs the Center for Latin American Studies in the Georgetown School of Foreign Service. He was special assistant to the president and senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs in the second Clinton administration. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ### |
--------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST
==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
