As the world’s attention draws away from the Iraqi conflict, South America may loom large on the horizon for terrorist groups or other countries intent upon proliferating terrorism by strengthening their ties to certain political regimes on the continent. Allies of Saddam Hussein, Libya, Cuba, terrorist groups, or South American guerillas may use terrorism and political unrest to maintain power in 2003 and destabilize much of South America in the process.
Take the current political situation in Venezuela as an example. Since his election as president of Venezuela in 1999, Hugo Chavez took measures to expand his presidential powers by diluting the legislative and judicial powers of Venezuela. Despite an attempted military coup and a general, nation-wide strike lasting two months, Chavez maintained his control over Venezuela as his popularity plummeted along with the economy-his only support came from the urban poor, a relatively new and significant component of the electorate. His opponents are attempting to bring about a referendum on his rule this fall, and rather than face an election, Chavez may impose an autocratic rule on Venezuela and use his ties to hostile countries and terrorist groups as political leverage to remain in power.
The Venezuelan National Assembly started negotiations for an early recall election in November as a referendum to determine whether or not Chavez should remain in power; however, as the Wall Street journal reported this past March, many fear that “the debate could go on indefinitely, postponing hopes for elections.” While Grav Davis may have the Terminator to contend with in his own recall battle, the fragmented opposition in Venezuela has neither charismatic candidates nor a united front for future elections. Despite the seeming chaos unfolding in the California recall, Californians have an ultimate recourse absent in Venezuela, the rule of law. Chavez insists he won’t resign, regardless of the election’s outcome, and he claims his presidency advances a “Bolivarian revolution” that is a “military-civilian regime whose purpose is to break decisively with representative democracy.” Such ominous statements don’t bode well for Venezuelan democracy, but Chavez’s ties to terrorist groups and their sponsor states could prove dangerous to the United States and stability in the Western Hemisphere.
Chavez’s “Bolivarian revolution” employs “Bolivarian circles,” deadly paramilitary groups armed by Chavez. International terrorist groups also receive support from Venezuela; a Venezuelan tourist Island in the Caribbean, Margarita, may be used to shelter and raise funds for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, according to the Economist. Venezuela declared itself neutral in Colombia’s ongoing civil war with leftist revolutionaries such as FARC and ELN amid rumors such guerilla groups operate and train in Venezuela with little resistance from the military and intelligence services. Infuriated locals along the Venezuela-Columbia border make claims that, at best, the government turns a blind eye to nefarious activities along the border and, at worst, assists leftists revolutionaries against right-wing paramilitaries.
If Chavez resists both a referendum and calls to resign, he may implement his “Bolivarian revolution” to remain in power. Rather than following the example of a fellow leftist and peaceful reformer in Brazil, Lula da Silva, it is likely that Chavez may employ various military, intelligence and educational methods to transform his government into a despotic regime with help from agents of Cuba, Libya, and Iraq according to the Wall Street journal’s report. (With the fall of the Hussein regime, Iraqi agents may be welcome to stay in Venezuela indefinitely, teaching more lessons in brutal statecraft.) Cuban teachers, doctors, and sports instructors, sent by Castro in return for favorable oil exports, now “volunteer” around the country. In the face of large numbers of unemployed professionals, Caracas claims that domestic professionals lack the community spirit necessary to work among the impoverished. Community spirit aside, what Venezuela needs least is a tutorial in economics from the Cubans. Yet they are receiving just that. All economic indicators show a contracting economy, decreased oil exports, price and wage controls forcing business to sell at less than cost, and a miserable economy that only seems capable of declining into misery.
As discord and strife slowrly unfold into a human tragedy in South America, the United States must realize that threats to its security can arise anvwhere poverty, failed economic reform, and angry populist ideals flourish. Instead of viewing us as a nation of infidels, Chavez and his cronies typecast America as lousy imperialists. Unfortunately such attitudes have not gone unnoticed by groups with no qualms about violence or the American deaths. The proliferation of terrorism in South America, fueled by a lucrative drug trade, cannot be ignored as governments elsewhere attempt to hunt terrorists in collusion with American forces. If such groups follow the past of least resistance, they may take refuge in Venezuela. Just as the September 11 hijackers plotted in cities across Europe, the planning of future attacks could occur in Caracas. The possibility of such cannot be ignored by an American government claiming to be vigilant in the face of continued terrorism. Chavez could threaten to expand ties to terrorist groups and their state sponsors as leverage against diplomatic interventions by the United States in addition to any threats he could make regarding our oil supply from his country. Such actions would greatly complicate the United States’ war on terror beneath the equator and destabilize much of South America, now in a precarious financial and political situation, create an entire region of failed governments, and turn South America into a continent of chaos.
Further Reading
“Amazing Shrinking President,” Vie Economist, December 14, 2002 “Why Can’t the CIA Tell Us More About Hugo’s Plotting?” Wall Street Journal, March 14,2003
“A lack of clarity on terror,” Tlw Economist, March 15, 2003 “Another Cuba?” Tlie Economist, July 10, 2003
