Bush's Venezuelan Breakdown
By Marcela Sanchez
The Washington Post
Saturday, December 21, 2002
With so many in the Bush administration able to speak Spanish, the phrase no aprende ni a palos should have a familiar ring. If not, one need only examine the White House's recent actions regarding Venezuela to understand that the words refer to someone who never learns -- just doesn't seem to get it -- even when hit upside the head with a stick.
How else to explain why, for the second time in eight months, the administration recklessly threw its weight behind the political opposition in that very volatile country at a moment when choosing sides threatened to trigger an explosive reaction.
By forcefully calling on Dec. 13 for early -- and therefore unconstitutional -- presidential elections, the administration jeopardized the delicate balance developing in Caracas after weeks of negotiations between President Hugo Chavez's government and its democratic opponents. Facilitated by Cesar Gaviria, the secretary general of the Organization of American States, the talks have been the best hope for a peaceful solution to a long-simmering crisis.
Within 72 hours the Bush administration had modified its stance, calling for a referendum, something the constitution does allow. By then, however, Washington had again cast doubt on its commitment to democracy in the region.
The United States behaved similarly and with apparent impunity in April, when it prematurely recognized a short-lived government that ousted Chavez in a coup d'état. This reprise was unnecessary and not helpful.
Latin America would be better off if Washington could learn from its mistakes. The region needs the leader of the free world to be more patient and less willing to publicly air his likes and dislikes. It needs a White House that better understands that in situations such as the one in Venezuela, its actions -- or lack thereof -- send signals to both sides in the dispute.
Now, more than ever, such patience with evolving democracies is essential. Newly elected leaders in countries such as Brazil and Ecuador need assurances that the United States will stand up for democracy regardless of ideological differences.
That clearly has not been the case with Venezuela, where a striking lack of diplomatic finesse at a critical moment could have darkened the storm clouds still gathering over the presidential palace at Miraflores.
The call for early elections took many by surprise, including some at the State Department, where one official said the White House had gotten a "little in front of the curve." That was understandable, however, the official said, a case of human error, nothing more.
Another State Department official said the action was deliberate, a conscious "refinement" of the U.S. position that was warranted by a "heightened state of crisis" in Venezuela that Chavez persistently dismisses as "normal." Washington, according to this line of thought, was simply expressing what so many others in the hemisphere were thinking but were reluctant to say. Perhaps.
The White House statement, issued on a Friday and shamelessly revised the following Monday, came just hours before representatives of the 34 OAS member states met to consider Chavez's request for full support. That coincidence prompted some diplomats here to conclude that Washington was throwing its weight around, a scare tactic designed to preemptively quash pro-Chavez sentiments. If such was the intent, it is unclear how effective the strategy was.
Late Monday night, after nearly 30 hours of debate, the OAS issued a resolution backing Chavez only by implication. It called for supporting democracy in Venezuela, "whose government is headed by . . . Chavez."
With that oblique endorsement of Chavez as the coincidental status quo, the organization seemed to be hoping that neither side in Venezuela would interpret the resolution as a victory and use it against the other. Indeed, the risks were so high that for a time during the deliberations, some advocated that the organization say nothing rather than something it later would regret.
At the end of the debate, Washington advised Venezuela to look to others in the region for guidance. The exact reference was unspoken but obvious: Argentina. Faced this year with the prospect of an increasingly violent situation getting completely out of hand, Argentine President Eduardo Duhalde turned to an electoral solution. That move, perfectly legal under Argentina's constitution, helped reduce tension in the financially, politically and socially strapped nation, many said this week.
There is a key difference in these two cases. Duhalde's call in Argentina came from someone who had no direct stake in the election outcome, because he is not a candidate. The U.S. call echoed the position of Chavez's opponents, whose open agenda is to oust him.
The Bush administration was harshly criticized for a nearly identical mistake eight months ago. Sometimes even the mighty fail to learn from the stick.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
washingtonpost.com |
