Show of strength
Hugo Chávez says he wants to bring peace to the warring factions in Colombia's cocaine wars but his
By Martin Markovit... Published 07 February 2008Squinting into the glare of the late-afternoon Caribbean sun, hundreds of pleated khaki-dressed soldiers and military dignitaries form orderly rows facing their chief of staff and head of state, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez.
Positioned on stage and flanked by a few lines of tanks and helicopters in a military training ground in the provincial city of Valencia, western Venezuela, President Chávez waits for the roaring fighter jets to pass overhead before addressing the assembly.
"From Colombia, Venezuela is threatened," Chávez says, dismissing as "inventions" widespread allegations that his government has colluded with drug trafficking and arms sales to Colombian guerrillas.
The speech is being delivered to mark the 16th anniversary of the attempted coup led by the then-young Lieutenant Colonel Chávez on 4 February 1992. Although it ended in failure and Chávez and his cohorts were imprisoned, many believe the event - now commonly referred to as 4F - paved the way for his eventual democratic election to the presidency in 1998.
But while the Venezuelan president was commemorating his failed putsch, over a million protesters took to the streets in neighbouring Colombia and in cities across the world to voice their opposition to Chávez's hostage-taking rebel allies, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc).
In an almost implausible coincidence, anti-Farc campaigners chose 4 February to mobilise a global protest against the Marxist insurgents. They maintain that the event was entirely apolitical and directed only at the rebel fighters, but in a statement on their website they denounce Chávez's "interventions in the internal matters of Colombia and, particularly, his declarations which seek to justify the Farc as a representation of the Colombian people".
Chávez's inflammatory comments about the threat from Colombia came two days after he declared that the Venezuelan armed forces were "on alert" against possible aggressions from the neighbouring country. In a televised broadcast, the president had warned: "We don't know how far it could go. We don't want to hurt anybody, but no one should make a mistake with us."
He added: "One day things will change in Colombia," referring to the cocaine-fuelled civil war that has raged across the border for almost 60 years. "Theirs is a war in which we cannot participate except as peacemakers."
His words have further aggravated the deepening diplomatic crisis with Bogotá. After successfully negotiating the release of two hostages held by the Farc, he requested that these narco-rebels be removed from lists of international terrorist organisations and expressed an ideological affinity with their insurgent cause.
"The Farc and [National Liberation Army] ELN are not terrorist bodies. They are real armies that occupy space in Colombia. That must be recognised. They are insurgent forces with a Bolivarian political project, which here we respect," Chávez said in his yearly address to the National Assembly on 11 January.
As the anti-Farc movement gathered global momentum through social networking sites such as Facebook, it was quickly seized upon by the Colombian government. On the day of protest, Colombian president Álvaro Uribe even delivered a message of thanks to marchers in the city of Valledupar. "Our gratitude goes to all Colombians who today expressed with dignity and strength their rejection of kidnapping and kidnappers," Reuters reported him as saying.
Back at the Valencia barracks, Venezuelan officials reacted truculently. Jesús González, the strat egic commander of the armed forces, rejected it as a "political ploy to try to identify 4 February with opposition to the Farc".
President Chávez reminded his army and onlookers of the history behind the day's cele brations. "The events of 4 February [1992] swept Venezuela into the 21st century. It was when the Bolivarian revolution truly began," he declared.
In recent years, the flamboyant Venezuelan president has used 4F to demonstrate his increasing regional influence and to launch stinging verbal attacks on his enemies.
While critics maintain that it is hypocritical for a democratic country to celebrate a coup, albeit a failed one, Chávez's supporters see it as the day that planted the seeds for Venezuela's ongoing socialist transformation. Chavistas call it the "Dawn of Hope" and regard it as a stepping-stone to true democracy for the poverty-stricken masses.
"It was the lightning bolt that illuminated the darkness," Chávez said in an interview with the Chilean author Marta Harnecker in 2005.
Continuing his speech to the military, the president maintains that 4F is not finished. "It reminds us we need to be even more revolutionary. My government is a child of 4F," he says.
After two years in prison, Chávez and his allies were released by presidential pardon in 1994 and began a new effort to take over the government, this time through democratic means.
"We realised that another military insurrection would have been crazy," Chávez said in 2005. "A large part of the population did not want violence, but rather they expected that we would organise a political movement structured to take the country on the right path." He came to believe, he has said, that the Bolivarian revolution had to be a peaceful one.
However, some scholars consider the Venez uelan government's decision to actively celebrate 4F a rewriting of history intended to indoctrinate the population.
Néstor Luis Luengo, a professor of sociology and head of research at the Andrés Bello Catholic University in south-west Caracas, believes commemorating the failed coup is a key element in Chávez's broader socialist agenda. "There is an ideological battle taking place in this country. If [the government is] going to push for more reforms, they have to change the ideology of the country and the historical events celebrated." It is in their interests, he says, to make 4 February a patriotic day.
Opposition leaders also criticise Chávez for using the commemoration of the failed coup as an attempt to politicise the military. "For us, the important thing is to have an armed force that is apolitical, modern and at the service of the Venezuelan people, and one that does not become a political party," said Julio Borges, leader of the opposition party Primero Justicia.
Other Chávez opponents are concerned at the militarism: "This government prefers to celebrate a day of violence. They should instead be celebrating the day he was democratically elected president," said Armando Briquet, secretary general of Primero Justicia.
A violent act
Chávez's supporters obviously disagree. Cruz Elena Peligrón, a civilian participant in the 1992 coup and friend and neighbour of Chávez in the 1990s, says: "We have always celebrated our independence day and that was a violent act. The US military commemorates wars like Vietnam and the Second World War. They say you have to fight for peace and unfortunately that's true."
Since Chávez took office in 1999, he has survived an attempted coup, oil strikes and referendums on his presidency. Last December, a package of proposed reforms to the constitution, which would have allowed him to stand for indefinite re-election, was defeated at the polls - his first political loss in nine years.
With Chávez's opponents invigorated by their poll success, this year's 4F festivities were notably restrained, taking place in a small pro vincial barracks instead of the grand military base at Fuerte Tiuna.
Venezuela's ambassador to the UN and former coup plotter, Francisco Javier Arias Cárdenas, said political priorities have changed: "We are no longer going to support unconditionally any segment of the Colombian military that has the objective of destroying either the Farc or the peace process in Colombia. Venezuela is just a third party in the civil war."
He concluded: "Of course we don't support guerrilla warfare, kidnapping or drug trafficking. But to end the war you don't necessarily need to end the Farc - just end the poverty, misery and violence that occur in Colombia every day. Both sides should go to the table and talk peace."
President Uribe maintains an unwavering zero-tolerance stance against the Marxist rebels and has shown much support for paramilitary forces that have been responsible for a catalogue of human rights abuses throughout Colombia's intractable civil war.
Meanwhile, Chávez's flamboyant militarism and allegiances with the Farc make dialogue between Colombia's warring factions seem less and less likely.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


52 comments
It seems to me that the Venezuelan government is the one government not allowed to have a military presence on its border. The border with Colombia has 1400km not patrolled by Colombia. Chavez cannot win - if Venezuela attempts to stop the cocaine trail, he is condemned for being militaristic. If there is no military presence, he is supporting FARC.
Perhaps readers, should ask instead why Uribe pulled out of the peace talks that Chavez considered necessary to release hostages, rather than the heavy handed military approach approved by Uribe.
Also, if you would like a balanced view, visit the Justice for Colombia's camapign website and consider the real character of the Uribe regime in the persistent murder of trade unionists and other oppositionists.
Chavez and the FARC are one and the same. Make no mistake about it. That is the only reason why he was able to "broker" the release of the hostages. They were his hostages in the first place anyway! The international community cannot ignore the voice of 40 Million Colombians who demonstrated against the FARC. They are terrorists whose only aim is their personal economic gain through the trade of cocaine.
"Chavez has tried to make the situation a lot worse (at the same time as Uribe has made it a lot better)"
I'm not pro-Chavez by any means but that is a scandalously inaccurate remark. Uribe's support of paramilitaries has caused huge amounts of death, destruction and displacement of entire rural communities. Rural migrants fleeing from violence have nowhere to go so end up occupying land in shanty towns on the margins of Colombian cities like Cali and Medellin, where they have zero economic prospects and invariably end up getting involved in criminal activity.
Uribe's government has seen the security of inner urban centres in cities like Bogota grow whilst leaving the rural areas to rot at the mercy of murderous paras and hostage-taking rebels.
Uribe is more guilty than Chavez for the degree of human suffering in Colombia. It's a shame that Chavez has taken sides and used the situation for his own political ends rather than staying neutral like he has promised to.
"I'm not pro-Chavez by any means but that is a scandalously inaccurate remark. Uribe's support of paramilitaries has caused huge amounts of death, destruction and displacement of entire rural communities."
Ok then, lets look at how "scanalously innaccurate" my remark was. Look at the graph half way down the page here:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8892695
You see how the murder rate suddenly falls as Uribe gets into power? It goes from 28,000 to 17,000 in 5 years. Can you see how the GDP growth goes from around 1 or 2 percent to around 6 percent in 5 years? And the fact that gross fixed investment goes from around 15 percent to around 23 percent in 5 years? Is this a just coincidence? Or does it just not count?
Just to add to what I wrote above: Some more statistics from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6226649.stm
Highlights:
"Colombian police say the murder rate in the South American nation has fallen to its lowest level in two decades."
"Kidnappings also fell from 329 in 2005 to 200 in 2006"
What do you think, Ciclista?
I cannot agree at all with this very one-sided take on the subject.
Realistically the only way of solving this problem is to legalise cocaine. That would (a) stop one otherwise unstoppable growth factor for organised crime (OC) (b) stop the drift towards narco-states in the Andes and now in West Africa (Guinea-Bissau etc.).
The medical problems that might be caused by legal cocaine (much less sexy legal than now) would be much easier to deal with in comparison.
After the Rolleston report in 1926, in the UK cocaine and heroin were basically available on demand from GPs esp. in London. Yet by 1950 there were only 1,000 registered users...and no significant black /grey market. Compare that to the astronomical growth of addiction in the USA
Otherwise drug wars will never win especially as they are used by the USA for their own purposes, either with the dealers or against them. (See the work of Prof. Alfred McCloy or Peter Dale Scott for instance)
The blame should be laid more at the door of the USA--Pres. Uribe--AUC-- American Multinationals (backers of the AUC) axis who are simply using the cocaine issue as a pretext for massive military intervention in the Andes. (Cf WMD!)
I find it strange that the article does not mention the massive natural resources (including oil and gas!) in Colombia that are an obvious magnet for the USA.
Are you aware of the work of Narconews (published in the Net ...where else?) ? It doesn't seem like it.
Frankly I find it incredible that you blame Chavez for the situation in Colombia.
Get this fact...The "Foreign Minister" of FARC went to Caracas a few years ago to discuss releasing Ingrid Betancourt. Some Colombian gangsters (excuse me agents) then kidnapped him, took him back to Colombia and of course tortured him.
Uribe uses the guerrila war in order to get massive financial backing from the USA: he is the USA's 3rd largest beneficiary of foreign "aid" in the world.
I am Colombian and franky I am totally appaled by your comments. Visit our country and learn a bit before saying such stupid comments.
That's a good one - 'Colombian police say murder rate is at the lowest rate for two decades'. That's like saying a government spokesperson in Pakistan said Musharaff is has universal support.
If you saw the recent Panorama programme we were told there how wonderful things were under Uribe and strangely at the end many of the participants were dead before the programme was shown.
The murder rate for trade unionists has not gone down, it has only been due to protests here that any murder squads have been held back, not because of Uribe.
One second raysirotkin- did you look at both sets of statistics? And did you read the articles? You know, it's the bbcs job to give both sides to the story. The fact that they didnt contradict the government in this suggests it wasnt just propaganda.
This is rediculous! Im illustrating something that anyone with an ounce of real knowledge about the country already knows! Every Colombian knows that the murder rate has plummeted and that security has improved enormously! They know full well that kidnappings are down!!! Its not a debate at all!!!
Youre all just a bunch of armchair lefties who have clearly never been and only read an article once a year or so on the country in the new statesman- and yet you think you have all the answers!
I worked there for a long time- Ive lived in Bogota, Pueto La Cruz and Caracas. All this stuff is blatantly obvious to anyone that's been for anything other than a short tourist trip, or indeed read real articles. You just get your opinions from communists like pilger from the comfort of your living room, dont you? You dont have any idea what's going on! Honestly, Im writing a "colombia for dummies" collumn here and you still dont get it! Get back to reading pilger you bunch of armchair lefties- you have no idea.
You know, 'anti-left' your complete arrogance, your assumptions about other people who you don't know says it all. The naivety that the BBC gives 'both sides of the story' suggests a BBC that none of us know or recognise. There is no evidence that the level of repression by the regime in Bogota is down. Kidnappings are not a measure of that.
What would happen to a BBC crew who tried to investigate the link between Uribe, drugs and the death squads? Why are trade unionists routinely murdered or kidnapped? (Or is this a 'communist' plot?)
You know Uribe pulled out of the peace talks - BBC or otherwise. You should look at the way media portrays people - how Chavez is referred to as a 'dictator' even though he has been elected continuously (Whereas Musharaff who has never been elected is hardly ever.)
You haven't been to Zimbabwe, but you might have an assessment of the regime there - only people who have lived there etc. You assume people who go to Caracas only have your view.
There are many people who I do not agree with and am capable of having an honest discussion. You seem to be only capable of trading insults. Try dialogue.