Show of strength

Hugo Chávez says he wants to bring peace to the warring factions in Colombia's cocaine wars but his

Squinting 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.

52 comments

knave's picture

Isn't the role of journalism to challenge its readers - as well as educating, informing and entertaining them, of course?
So is to tell the truth. Which no NS journo is able to perform.

Ciclista's picture

@Knave

"Which no NS Journo is able to perform"

- If you really believe this then why do you visit the site and read the articles?

Go on then Knave, tell us: what's the truth?

Let me guess: Chavez really is a deity, and American scientists are being silenced in Guantanamo Bay after discovering that it is actually physically impossible for him to do any wrong?

I abhor Bush and Uribe but really don't think that Chavez is free from legitimate criticisms either. He is his worse own enemy: he actually did say all those things reported by the "lying" journos you refer to (which part of the article is untrue, by the way?) so how can his position be defended? He supports the Farc and has openly said so. What else is there to say?

Ciclista's picture

"So what politics we have might be genetically ordained" - I dont actually believe this but lets run with it for a second. How does it follow that these "genetically derived political opinions" should automatically be black and white? I know loads of people who have well thought-out erudite political opinions (you're not one of them, sorry) who presumably acquired these opinions this way. So why aren't they B&W like yours?

Sorry Knave, you can't blame the genes for your crazy ideas. Try blaming your parents instead.

harold53's picture

nawawimohamad seems to have got it in one. Armed insurgents only emerge if there is discontent, poverty and repression. Remember how the ANC were called terrorists? The IRA? Peace can be resolved by integration into the political system - repression does not work.
Knave is right about the role of the death squads who have murdered in areas where FARC do not exist.
However, just because 'antileft' is clearly a supporter of Uribe, it is wrong to call him a fascist - reserve that title for the death squads that he seems to wish would go (wrongly only after FARC). If you've done any work supporting Venezuela in Britain, you'd come across anti-Chavez people normally from a privileged background. It is better to discuss the issues than insult them.
He seems to be a patriotic pro-capitalist Colombian who believes Uribe's policies would work.
Venezuela has shown that it is possible to have far reaching democratic debate, that does get a bit heated, but nevertheless shows that the democracy in the country is quite robust.
The media though have some questions to answer.
All the evidence suggests that Chavez has stepped up the war on cocaine, there have been factories shut down, an increase in arrests, an increase in convictions through the courts.
NS suggests that Chavez is supporting FARC without any tangible evidence, either. That they tried to broker peace is no more support than the Irish government trying to broker peace when the IRA was active in Britain.
It seems parent though Uribe doesn't want peace, doesn't want a settlement and will rely on death squads to kill and torture. Or kidnap. It is worth remembering that in Chile with Pinochet the murdered was thought to be about 5,000. In Argentina, the 'disappeared' that is not on official records was upwards of 40,000. I'd say it is impossible to tell from official statistics if Uribe's claim that he is improving the situation has any merit.

Ciclista's picture

harold53: "NS suggests that Chavez is supporting FARC without any tangible evidence"

Article: "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.

I would have thought that a direct quote from Chavez to the effect that he is supporting FARC (at least ideologically) is evidence enough that Chavez is supporting FARC, isnt it? Or are you calling Chavez a liar??

genecrabtree920's picture

"According to the New Scientist we all vote due to genes. So what politics we have might be genetically ordained . So we all comment, vote and believe in a black andf white way. You sound like an authoritarian personality so therefore enjoy the company of right wing paras like tyhe two journos who wrote this article."

You know what? That said it all! I dont feel the need to reply to this- you already sound stupid enough! And as intelligence probably is genetic- its not really worth me trying to convince you one way or the other. Youre dumb as hell (probably genetically), you know NOTHING about Latin America, you cant see beyond the old fascist vs communist categories, and your posts are so badly written its sometimes hard to even see what youre trying to say. "Which no NS journo is able to perform." Time to go back to reading the daily mail, dont you think?

knave's picture

Time to go back to reading the daily mail, dont you think?
Nuffink rung with the mail "antileft".
I sense a lot of anger.
Use of a name "antileft" might show that you look at the world in simplistic terms as well my journo friend.
I forget thaere are only commies in south America no fascists. They are certainly minus one at the moment.

Raffique's picture

Did FARC not exist before Chavez came to power? Has FARC's activities intensified following Chavez's being voted overwhelmingly to lead Venezuela? The answer to both these questions must be a resounding:No! So why blame Chavez for something he did not create? Indeed, he should be praised for his efforts to bring peace to troubled Colombia, which neither its government/s nor the Americans seem capable of doing. Those who seek only to demonise this leader-among-leaders would have us believe that FARC, poverty, inequality, etc., started in Venezuela only after Chavez came to power. Total hogwash. If only they'd be honest to themselves, and to New Statesman readers.

Raffique

issak1's picture

Realistic article without any biasitc projection.But it also fails to appreciate the endless efforts carried by Mr Chavez to mediate in a 60 yr old civil war that does not seem to end any time soon , which proved fruitful in that the succesful release of the two hostages.The political defeat he concured last december proved to change a lot of priorites that Chavez's camp had in mind.

genecrabtree920's picture

^^ The idiot above doesnt have any understanding of the region at all. If he did, he would know of the constant backing and support by Chavez of the very nasty guerrilla/terrorist groups that make the lives of Colombians a misery. His "good work" is no more than attempt to make himself look good, and lefties here who seem to be impressed by his "kindness" should know better.

Latest tweets