Security and the Voice of the Populists: Latin America in the World

This past week has been filled with numerous interesting policy stories and interviews regarding issues that affect every nation in the world, focusing on those regions such as the Middle East and Latin America, which seem to be the source of much of the security tensions for the members of the UN Security Council.

First to address the return of Zelaya to Honduras, mind you within the legal jurisdiction of Brazil. Manuel Zelaya, the removed elected leader of Honduras finally returned to Tegucigalpa after several attempts. He arrived with unknown help, but ended up inside Brazil’s Embassy in the Honduran capital. Arrests were attempted and protests ensued, but he remains there for the time being as the OAS and US push for a meeting between Zelaya and the “new” leaders of Honduras. The reality is that Central America is often not a principal concern for many major powers in the Americas, but major powers often determine the outcome of politics in Central America as opposed to the people themselves. The role of Brazil, who many see as South America’s political giant is somewhat skewed in this incident, as often Central America is left alone to the sphere of the US. Brazil might unwillingly be dragged into the Honduran mess in a mediation role and since the US is surprisingly supporting Zelaya, Brazil may be the only country in the region who can be seen as somewhat impartial in this incident as is usually the case in the region. Even though the US and Venezuela are supporting Zelaya, the reason why Honduras has become for the first time in its history a subject of national interest is because Zelaya’s attempt to be elected indefinitely mirrors the populist approach Chavez has taken in Venezuela successfully. Obama’s support for Zelaya may be tantamount to his speech in Cairo, showing a new moderation towards past opposition, in this case leftists in the region, and a balanced approach to policy. It does not seem to be working all that well unfortunately, as possible interference by Venezuela in Honduran affairs cannot be balanced by an impartial Brazil and is not being critcised by the US in any substantial form. This leaves the “new” Honduran leadership with few options but to hold up a strong front against Zelaya, one that will remain at the doors of the Brazilian Embassy as not to cross into Brazil’s legal property inside Honduras. As long as Zelaya is accused by his opposition in the Senate and Judiciary of Honduras, the likelihood of allowing Zelaya to regain any position of power will result in more protests and cracking down of protestors. The only positive aspect of a likely messy outcome is that at least they are not in Iran.

Larry King on CNN brought two surprise interviews this past week with Hugo Chavez, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Fareed Zakaria will be interviewing Gadhafi this weekend. Gadhafi has received a lot of attention recently with his extended speech at the UN and the scandal in the UK regarding the release of a convicted terrorist and their return to Libya due to illness. Before that incident however the relations between Libya and the western world were luke warm. The issue that will likely have the largest impact long term is the open policy actions by the UK government mixing business interests with justice issues, as opposed to actions by Gadhafi himself which were most likely expected by anyone who knew anything about Libya. The view of the British people shows that their government might be doing something which many in developing regions have accused western powers of doing for decades, placing oil before rights, and this will bring down the Labour Government and tarnish Mr. Blair’s reputation and keep Mr.Brown in the political crosshairs where he essentially has always been. Like Honduras, Libya’s issue will die out with a lengthy investigation or the death of the Lockerbie bomber, and the world will refocus on the major players, which brings us to King’s interviews.

The first one I was able to see was the one with Hugo Chavez. It was an interesting interview, but no new information came out of it that Chavez did not speak about in length whenever he had the opportunity. Three comments stood out as one’s of interest in my opinion. Chavez compared his military spending as being one-tenth of that of Colombia. Documented information makes his claims quite puzzling, as Venezuela has purchased and continues to purchase a great number of top of the line Russian military equipment. Compared to similar equipment in Colombia there is no threat from the Colombian army technologically. Colombia also has internal security issues, claimed by Colombia as supported by Chavez himself and would be able to justify large amounts of spending. Chavez’s fear was that Colombia could attack Venezuela as was done briefly two years ago against Ecuador when raiding a FARC encampment seems to the root of his security concerns, but with people dying in Colombia possibly due to arms coming from Venezuela, he might not be the innocent party between the two countries.

Chavez also spoke about his past detention and referring to Bush as the devil. He is convinced that in his past detention in Venezuela and afterwards that US agents were trying to kill him. He didn’t explain how he knew this was the case, but there will be an Oliver Stone movie coming out about Chavez soon that will likely explain as little as Stone movie about Castro did.

The issue that caught my attention was King’s question on why Chavez is supporting Iran’s government, despite the popular protests taking hold there. Chavez noted that internal issues of a state are internal, mind you Chavez often involves himself in the issues of other countries, but for some reason when blood is spilled for a similar cause he stands for in Venezuela and is crushed in Iran, then it seems to be allowed. This is nothing less than disgraceful to those in Latin America who had to endure real threats to their lives and those in Iran who peacefully protest and are cut down in the streets while Chavez ignorantly tours the Middle East. They both shared the perspective that Israel’s “genocide” was the issue that dominated internal issues in Iran and Latin America, although I am unsure why possible crimes in another city gives the right for someone to kill their neighbours in their own city. Chavez did acknowledge the Holocaust unlike Ahmadinejad. He also said he was a friend of the Jewish people and even said he was a Colombian himself. Previously he also said Colombia was Latin America’s Israel; maybe he is an Israeli too?

In the interview with Ahmadinejad, the issue of Venezuela did come up. Two points were addressed by King that were related to Venezuela. One was the fate of the young girl Neda, who was shot during a protest. Ahmadinejad supposed that in Venezuela a similar incident took place where two cameras were fixed on the victim before they died in a protest in Caracas. He didn’t say much after that, but it hinted that the death was arranged somehow, and they left it at that. The second issue that was asked by King of both leaders I believe was the growing ties between Iran and Venezuela, especially ties to nuclear energy. While both countries are energy giants with vast oil reserves, the persistent development of nuclear energy and ties with Iran and Iran’s aggressive stance in the region might turn Chavez from Castro minus the wit into a major security concern, or another “missile crisis” with Iran and Venezuela pressuring western powers in Europe and the US with ballistic missile threats in both the Middle East and Latin America. With the discovery of a new secret nuclear plant in Iran and a cohesive stance being built in the Security Council, it is likely that sanctions will not be seen as sufficient in dealing with Iran, and any nuclear activity in Venezuela may be swiftly dealt with by the US itself. The reality is that a minimal percentage of people in Venezuela and Iran would give their lives in a war to keep either leader in power. Both claim the right to any activity they wish as a sovereign state, but when other states are affected by their actions, a right to respond is also within reason. It could be that Zelaya is returned to power and Gadhafi simply retires as their allies enter into armed conflict over issues that do not need to exist. King’s interviews did not bring to light anything new, but his great questions did confirm the worst expectations most have of leaders who wish to define their destiny as populists who do not mind claiming sovereignty over local jurisdiction while involving themselves aggressively within their regional issues.