Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias

When I heard a rumor that Hugo Chávez, the infamous President of Venezuela, would grace our university with his presence, I had mixed feelings. Although I am quite fond of discourse and dialogue, my other half yearned to plan for actions that were less intellectual, and far less peaceful. Luckily for everyone, the Chávez rumor was false, and I could only imagine how his speech would have turned out. Would anyone have cheered him? Who would have protested? To be brutally honest, I have no idea how the majority of Brown students would have received Chávez. As Vice President of the Brown Model United Nations (MUN), I remember leading a discussion where some students were highly critical of Mr. Chávez, some were sympathetic, and the rest were apathetic. Although the opinions of Brown’s MUN members do not perfectly reflect those of the Brown community, I’ve realized many important concerns regarding this campus’ perception of Chavez. I fear foremost that many individuals see Chávez as a Latin American freedom fighter. I also worry that these individuals may be sympathetic to Chavez’s extremely socialist policies, and may subsequently view him as a champion of the poor. Ladies and gentlemen, these claims are absolutely fallacious. There is only one acceptable “opinion” of Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias: he is a scheming, Hitler-esque, power-hungry statist who will do anything and everything in his power to sully the image of the United States of America at the cost of his own nation’s well-being.

“We’re not perfect, but we do have democracy,” Chavez once said. While the first half rings true, the latter is highly questionable. Chávez uses the word “democracy” liberally in order to dupe his onlookers. When one looks past his rhetoric (an act that isn’t hard to do nowadays), it is clear that Chávez’s Venezuela is anything but democratic. The history of Chávez’s rule is marred with controversy, from his initial attempted ascension to power in 1992 (as a military coup leader) to this day. Much like Adolf Hitler, Chávez was democratically elected to power in 1998 on an agenda based upon helping the poor, improving the economy, and restoring some national glory. Instead of focusing on his campaign promises, however, Chávez spearheaded a constitutional reformation, which expanded his term to six years, but limited him to two terms. Chávez won re-election in 2000, but ruined his term by firing seven executive board members of the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (the state-owned oil company). This act crippled the nation’s most prominent industry, and caused rioting and striking, which ultimately deposed Chávez from power for a brief 47-hour period. Despite his restoration, one fact was clear: Chávez had failed. Although the military had officially conducted the 2002 coup, the intense rioting (and, ultimately, the coup) was caused by the same poor and middle class individuals who had elected Chávez in the first place.

In 2004, the Venezuelan people conducted a “Presidential recall” which would have formally deposed Chávez had it passed. Although the recall unfortunately failed 59% to 41%, the actual process was marred with controversy and potential corruption. The Carter Foundation claims the results were accurate, but many others disagree. A Penn, Schoen, Berland Associates (PSB) exit poll had initially predicted that Chávez would lose by 20%; this prediction was supported by US News & World Report, further affirming that there was “very good reason to believe that the [PSB] exit poll had the result right, and that Chávez’s election officials – and Carter and the American media – got it wrong.” Additionally, European Union officials were unable to observe the election due to stringent restrictions placed upon them by Chavez. Ultimately, the Center for Security Policy concluded, “the [Chávez] regime delayed and obstructed the recall referendum process at every turn. Once the regime was forced to submit to such a referendum, moreover, it used a fraud-filled voting process to ensure victory. The government did everything – including granting citizenship to half a million illegal aliens in a crude vote-buying scheme and ‘migrating’ existing voters away from their local election office – to fix the results in its favor.” Controversy, corruption, and fraud all run contrary to the principles of democracy. Chávez’s regime has displayed these elements since its inception, and he continues to sabotage the democratic process in order to bolster his own power.

More recently, in December 2007, Chávez pushed for a referendum that would propose more than 60 changes to the current Venezuelan constitution. Although Chávez claims his intent was democratic, this referendum would have curtailed democracy in every possible way. The passage of this referendum would have established state control of central banks and many other Venezuelan industries, and, most importantly, eliminated term limits. This referendum was to Chávez what the Enabling Act was to Hitler: with its passage, Chavez would have expanded the powers of the executive and the state exponentially. The referendum failed by a slim 51% to 49% margin; Chávez has maintained that he will continue to push for this referendum, and with only 2% separating either side, he just might succeed. Chávez’s undying fervor (with regards to this referendum) is the primary indication that his “democratic” promises are completely unreliable. Like Hitler, Chavez is simply exploiting already existing legal measures in order to ascend to a position of insurmountable power. This is why Chávez employs referendums instead of brute force. By legally obtaining his powers, Chávez can continually deceive the world with his “democratic” promises while fulfilling his own megalomaniacal desires.

As we have seen, Chávez’s domestic policies are atrocious, and he has yet to fulfill his promises of restoring the nation’s economy and establishing democratic reforms. His foreign policy actions further argue against his being a good-willed, democratic leader. Instead of using his power to further Venezuelan interests, Chávez uses the world as a stage for his antics. He thrives upon confrontations with the United States, often risking his nation’s welfare. Chávez’s overt threats to refuse exporting oil to the United States are primary examples of this odd behavior. The United States only imports 12% of its oil (1.23 million barrels per day) from Venezuela, while oil exports comprise 90% of Venezuela’s national revenue. Though oil prices would certainly jump if such an embargo were enacted (therefore hurting Americans), it is very clear that this policy would halt Venezuelan exports and jeopardize almost all of her national earnings. Further, the United States can opt to drill for more oil or purchase it from other sources; thus, this hubristic policy ruins Venezuela in the long run. Is it surprising that Chávez would support such foolish measures? Absolutely not.

Chávez has also promised “Latin American integration” to the people of Venezuela, and more importantly, to the South American region; approximately one decade later, Chávez has yet to fulfill his promise. Namely, his relations with Peru, Colombia, and even Mexico remain severely strained. For instance, back in 2001, Peruvian officials suspected that Chávez was protecting Vladimiro Montesinos on Venezuelan soil. Montesinos, the former head of Peru’s intelligence, was sought by Peruvian officials for various offenses, including bribery and fraud. After Venezuelan officials (acting on a tip provided by the FBI) captured and returned him to Peru, Chávez discredited Peruvian officials and the FBI while claiming full credit for Montesinos’ capture. This further deteriorated ties between the two nations, especially after Chávez recalled his Peruvian envoy. More recently, during Peru’s 2006 national elections, Chávez overtly endorsed Ollanta Humala and obnoxiously berated the other candidates. After accusing Chávez of meddling in Peru’s political affairs, Peru’s government recalled its ambassador to Venezuela, resulting in Chávez’s doing the same.

Similarly immature Chávez outbursts have also led to strained relations with Mexico. In late 2005, Chávez called Mexican President Vicente Fox the “puppy dog of the empire,” in reference to Mexico’s participation in certain U.S. trade deals. Further, on his weekly talk show, Chavez belligerently harassed Fox by claiming the Mexican president was “bleeding from his wounds”; he even warned Fox not to “mess with him.” Such public, inflammatory remarks were not taken lightly, and ultimately resulted in both Chávez’s and Fox’s recalling their respective ambassadors, severing diplomatic ties indefinitely.

Although Chávez’s track record in Peru and Mexico proves that he is incapable of working with other regional leaders, an examination of his “relationship” with Colombia further reveals his lack of commitment to Latin American integration. If Chávez has truly been “committed” to integrating his region for so long, why were Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela on the brink of war in early March 2008? Does this much tension normally exist in an integrated region? Absolutely not. The aforementioned March incident entailed Colombian military troops and policemen crossing Ecuadorian borders in pursuit of Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) rebels. FARC, a notorious terrorist organization of guerrillas committed to overthrowing the currently established Colombian government, is known to run in and out of Colombia, seeking refuge within either Ecuador or Venezuela whenever convenience dictates.

Ultimately, 22 people died after the incident Colombian army attacked, including FARC’s second-in-command. However, since the incident involved Colombian troops penetrating Ecuadorian borders without consent, both Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa and Chávez were outraged. This incident has since been resolved, and both Correa and Chávez certainly had reason to be concerned about their territorial security. However, were Chávez truly committed to his initial promise of enriching his region, it is likely that the incident would not have happened in the first place. Colombia’s FARC problem is really a regional problem; if Colombia falls in the hands of extreme leftist terrorists, the instability of such a regime change will negatively affect all members of the region. In essence, it is in Chávez’s best interests to assist his brother nation and to cooperate with attempts to mitigate, if not eliminate, FARC. However, this has rarely been the case. Earlier this year, Chávez was asked by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to act as a third party in a hostage negotiation involving FARC, the Colombian government, and hundreds of hostages. Instead of cooperating with President Uribe and fostering an environment of integration, Chávez superseded Uribe’s authority and the details of their agreement by directly contacting Colombian generals, subsequently halting the negotiation and further deteriorating relations between the two leaders. In an arrogant, entirely self-interested attempt to become a hero, Chávez disrespected his neighbor, crushed the hopes of families awaiting the release of their loved ones, and allowed FARC terrorists to win.

Like Hitler, Chávez is overly-conscious about his image, and uses dramatic, animated, and even flagrant rhetoric in order to ascend to positions of higher political power. Chávez has empowered the Venezuelan state in every respect, and there exist miniscule checks upon his power. Like Hitler, Chávez exploits the masses and already existing legal measures to legitimately (and almost underhandedly) obtain authoritarian powers. Keep in mind, the referendum which would’ve eliminated presidential term limits and tightened the grasp of the Venezuelan state only failed by a narrow 51 to 49 percent margin. Chávez continues to fight for this referendum, and only 2% of Venezuelan citizens need to be bribed, forced, or convinced to vote otherwise in order for Chávez to win. Internationally, Chávez has defaulted on his promise to bring unity and integration in Latin America; he is simply a pugnacious, unreasonably self-interested ego-maniac that has a proven track record for failure and controversy. Maybe he’s too busy calling President Bush “un pendejo,” calling Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad his “brother,” or chatting up Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, to become the democratic leader he claims to be. Regardless, if nothing is done to depose Chávez, the world will see the rise of yet another megalomaniacal despot. However, don’t complain to me when it happens; if you’re looking for me, I’ll be that unforgiving conservative muttering, “I told you so.”