As the Honduran situation creeps forward (see, for example, the LAT), I continue to be amazed and confused (if not a bit disturbed) by the number of people who are so fearful of Hugo Chávez that they are both supporting a military coup and also making Chávez into a far greater threat than he is.
For example, the NYT has a piece (Leader Ousted, Honduras Hires U.S. Lobbyists) on the lobbying effort that the Honduran government is undertaking in Washington which includes quite about about fear of Chávez. For example:
“The current battle for political control of Honduras is not only about that small nation,” Mr. Reich testified in July before Congress. “What happens in Honduras may one day be seen as either the high-water mark of Hugo Chávez’s attempt to undermine democracy in this hemisphere or as a green light to the spread of Chavista authoritarianism,” he said, referring to the Venezuelan president.
I am not a fan of Hugo Chávez’s brand of populism and have repeatedly noted that I think he has damaged Venezuelan democracy and I believe that his main political goal is staying in power. However, turning him into some sort of übervillian who threatens to conquer and control the region is simply fiction. Without a doubt he opposes elements of US policy in the region and says means things about the US government, but I have never seen anyone actually detail what the exact threat to the US is supposed to be.
The main thing that Chávez could do to the US would be to stop selling us oil, and that isn’t going to happen for a variety of reasons. Trying to turn him into a one-main Soviet Union for the 21st Century is absurd.
Indeed, while the spread of Chávezesque populism in the region is not healthy for democratic development, the fact of the matter is that there are far more complex reason for the ability of populists to function successfully in places like Ecuador and Nicaragua than simply the nefarious and Svengali-like powers of Hugo Chávez. Also, caudillismo, populism, and constitution re-writing to serve narrow political self-interest are not new to the region (not by a long-shot). Indeed, the desire for presidents in the region to extend their time in office is not as exclusively a leftward trend as many (who really don’t know the region) think. It happened in Argentina, Brazil and Peru without any linkage to Chávez and is currently happening in the least Chávez influenced state in the region, Colombia. The issue of presidential re-election as a major political issue in the region dates back to at least the Porfiriato, the extended rule of Porfirio Díaz in Mexico (1876-1880, 1884-1911) that helped lead to the Mexican Revolution.
In regards to Honduras specifically, it is the case that exactly what Zelaya was trying to do is far less clear that his critics claim. See, for example, here. And even if he was trying to do precisely what they claim, the Honduran government still acted outside the law by summarily dismissing the president from office and exiling him (see, also, here). This should not be as difficult to understand as it appears to be for some people (including members of the US Congress like Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)). The main thing that allows for people like DeMint and Ros-Lehtinen (as well as Roger L. Simon, Mary Anastasia O’Grady, and people who think that we are facing a Venezuelan Missile Crisis) is the Chávez link. If Zelaya was not considered to be pro-Chávez (whatever that means), these people simple wouldn’t care. Indeed, if the story was otherwise the same and Micheletti had ties to Venezuela, then all the pro-coup types in the US would be screaming about how Chávez was subverting Honduran democracy.
At a minimum it would be quite helpful if analysis of the situation would try and look at the specific facts of the ground instead of trying to make Honduras into some sort of proxy-war with Venezuela.
Sphere: Related Content
