The Progressive Response

The Progressive Response (PR) is a weekly service of Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF)—a "Think Tank Without Walls." A joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies, FPIF is an international network of analysts and activists dedicated to "making the U.S. a more responsible global leader and partner by advancing citizen movements and agendas." We encourage responses to the opinions expressed in the PR and may print them in the "Letters and Comments" section. For more information on FPIF and joining our network, please consider visiting the FPIF website at http://www.fpif.org/.

Tom Barry, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) www.irc-online.org and codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be contacted at lt;tom@irc-online.org>.

We Count on Your Support!

Editor: Tom Barry (IRC)

Table of Contents

I. Updates and Out-Takes

U.S. SHADOW OVER VENEZUELA
By Conn Hallinan

FINDING AMERICA'S VOICE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
By R.S. Zaharna

II. Outside the U.S.

OBSTACLES TO CHANGE IN AFRICA: NEPAD, ZIMBABWE, AND ELITES
By Ian Taylor

III. Letters and Comments

GOING BACKWARDS

COLLECTIVE EFFORT NEEDED

SHADOW OVER VENEZUELAN FACTS

TO THE WINNER GO THE SPOILS

BUSH HAS NO CLOTHES

I. Updates and Out-takes

U.S. SHADOW OVER VENEZUELA
By Conn Hallinan

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary available in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0204venezuela2.html .)

Regardless of the final outcome of the recent military coup and counter-coup in Venezuela, two things are clear: Venezuela is not just another banana-oil republic; and the United States has, once again, deeply damaged itself in Latin America.

For months, a Venezuelan coup had seemed almost inevitable. Media images were of a pro-Cuban "strongman" whose undemocratic and authoritarian rule had brought the country to the edge of chaos, and who had finally gunned down peaceful demonstrators. But image and reality, as in the novels of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, are fluid concepts in Latin America.

President Hugo Chavez, overwhelmingly elected three years ago, took on one of the most entrenched oligarchies in Latin America--and made some mistakes in the process.

Part of his problem is the reality of Venezuela: an oil-rich nation where 80% of the people are officially designated "poor," where 2% of country controls 60% of the land, and where virtually none of the $30 billion in annual oil revenues trickles down to the vast majority of the population. Changing those demographics would be daunting under any circumstances.

On occasion, Chavez' photo ops with Castro and Ghadafi and his long-winded rhetoric got him in trouble. His reform promises sometimes outran what he could deliver, and cabinet turnover was constant, making policy implementation difficult. Former Chavez supporters joined the oligarchies, the church, and the old guard of the trade unions in opposition.

At the same time, Chavez added one million children to the nation's schools. He increased economic growth by 4 percent. Infant mortality and unemployment dropped, and literacy and minimum wages increased. He also rewrote agreements with Phillips Petroleum and Exxon/Mobil to give Venezuela a bigger slice of its oil revenues, and appointed new directors to the state-owned oil company to keep prices in line with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies. Venezuela has long been a "ratebuster," pumping more oil and selling it for less that OPEC did, thus denying the country the income from higher prices. Of all his accomplishments, this may have been the fatal one. Mess with big oil under the Bush Doctrine at your own peril.

A lot remains unclear. The circumstances surrounding the shooting of demonstrators last week are murky at best. It appears, for instance, that more Chavez supporters might have been shot than anti-Chavez demonstrators. But what most Latin Americans will see in all this is the hand of Washington, and it is hard to argue with them.

Last November, the National Security Agency, the Pentagon, and the State Department held a two-day meeting on Venezuela. Soon afterwards the administration began accusing Chavez of supporting "terrorism" in Colombia, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Being accused by Washington of supporting terrorism is a pretty scary business these days. It certainly gave a green light to elements in the military and the opposition to foment the coup. According to the Washington Post, dissident leaders were repeatedly received at the U.S. Embassy, where they sought support for toppling Chavez. If most Latin Americans see a link between the November meeting and the White House's endorsement of the takeover, one can hardly blame them.

While Washington's meddling fell short of gunboat diplomacy, the signs of interference remain all too clear. For now, democratic institutions have been returned to Venezuela and Chavez has taken the high road, offering conciliation and dialogue with his opponents. The Bush administration should reciprocate.

(Conn Hallinan is an expert with Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org) and a journalism lecturer and provost at the University of California, Santa Cruz.)

Other FPIF analysis on Venezuela:

**Venezuela Not an Oil-Banana Republic After All
By Gregory Wilpert
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0204venezuela.html

Excerpt:
The coup leaders against President Chavez made two fundamental miscalculations. First, they started having delusions of grandeur, believing that the support for their coup was so complete that they could simply ignore the other members of their coup coalition and place only their own in the new government. The labor union federation CTV, which saw itself as one of the main actors of the opposition movement to President Chavez, and nearly all moderate opposition parties were excluded from the new "democratic unity" cabinet. The new transition cabinet ended up including only the most conservative elements of Venezuelan society. They then proceeded to dissolve the legislature, the Supreme Court, the attorney general's office, the national electoral commission, and the state governorships, among others. Next, they decreed that the 1999 constitution--which had been written by a constitutional assembly and ratified by vote, following the procedures outlined in the previous constitution--was to be suspended. The new transition president would thus rule by decree until next year, when new elections would be called. Generally, this type of regime fits the textbook definition of dictatorship.

**Military Coup in Venezuela
By Margarita Lopez Maya, Luis Lander, and Edgardo Lander
http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0204venezuela.html

Excerpt:
The events leading up to the April 11 military coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez can be traced back to the worsening political climate evident since the end of last year. The conflict between forces loyal to President Hugo Chavez and those opposed to him heated up particularly after November 2001, when Chavez, using new powers granted him by the National Assembly, passed 49 laws, some of which were extremely controversial--such as the Land Law and the Organic Law of Liquid Hydrocarbons. Each of these laws was annulled on Friday, less than twenty-four hours after Chavez was ousted from power by the military in alliance with business elites and the top managers of Petroleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa), the state-owned oil company.

FINDING AMERICA'S VOICE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
By R.S. Zaharna

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary available in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0204usmideast.html .)

Since the start of the recent hostilities back in September 2000, America's central message has been "stop the violence." Stopping the violence is key to America's longstanding desire for peace and stability in the troubled region. Opinion polls in both the Palestinian and Israeli societies show a strong and consistent desire for peace. More compelling still is that both peoples want peace for the same reason, a better life for their children.

The problem is not that America's message lacks merit, but rather that the U.S. lacks credibility. There is a mismatch between what America says and what America does. As the sole remaining superpower in the world, America's words and actions are monitored closely by all nations. When America says it is against violence and then appears to condone the violence, America has a credibility problem.

As Zbigniew Brzezinski pointed out recently, failure to see the victims of the other side is symptomatic of the conflict. One might add that the failure to see the violence of both sides is equally symptomatic. America's message of "stop the violence" has been further eroded by lack of clarity, and some would say, political courage. The same level of clarity that the U.S. has been demanding of Arafat, and now other Arab leaders, has been missing from Bush's own message.

The deliberate, targeted killing of women, children, and other noncombatants is strictly prohibited in the Quran, the Bible, and other sacred texts. As one Islamic scholar noted, no religion of any weight could sanction the taking of innocent lives. While the label of terrorism has become emotionally charged and highly political, the prohibition against killing civilians is a powerful message that would have little moral or religious grounds for contention.

If terrorism is universally condemned, resistance against oppression, even armed resistance, is an internationally recognized right. For American officials to call Israeli military actions defensive and label the Palestinians' as irrational violence, misses the point. The Palestinian intifada, or national uprising, has not been without context or meaning but represents years of Israeli economic, political, and military control of a people who can no longer tolerate such control.

Hence, the repeated American demands of Arafat to "stop the violence" equates to calling on the Palestinian leader to stop the national uprising of his people against the Israeli occupation. No Palestinian leader, indeed no Arab leader, can demand this and remain in power.

Since September 11, countries around the globe have jumped on the war-against-terrorism bandwagon, Israel included. Sharon has likened Arafat to Osama bin Laden and the Palestinians to the Taliban. Every time Israeli spokespersons make this analogy, America's own war on terrorism is questioned. If the U.S. is supporting Israel's efforts to subdue an oppressed people in the name of terrorism, is the U.S. war on terrorism also an effort to silence other oppressed people? The power of Israel's analogy is backfiring on the U.S. regional and global interests.

Against this backdrop, Secretary Powell's words--and actions--will take on particular significance. America has lost its voice in the Middle East. However it is not because of the validity of what the U.S. has to say, but rather because its message has been diluted and its credibility questioned. It is time for America to find its own voice, again.

(R.S. Zaharna <zaharna@american.edu> is an assistant professor of public communication at American University and served as a media analyst for the Palestinian Delegation to the Washington peace talks (1991-93).)

Also see:

**One Path to Peace: Kofi Annan's Multinational Force
By Jeremy Brecher
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0204mideast.html

Excerpt:
As war rages in the Middle East despite Colon Powell's mission, there is one hope for peace: The whole world, including the U.S., must support UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's proposal for an impartial international force. All other options look catastrophic for Americans, for Israel, and for the peace of the world.

Israelis and the Palestinians are so enraged at--and fearful of--each other that they cannot possibly make peace or even negotiate a cease-fire. The U.S. by itself can't do it either--Israelis have refused President Bush's demand that they withdraw from the West Bank and Palestinians have refused to declare a cease-fire until they do. The Powell mission, whatever fig leaf it produces, has shown that the United States is unable or unwilling to impose peace. The only solution is for the whole world to join together and force the two sides to back off.

II. Outside the U.S.

(Editor's Note: FPIF has a new component called "Outside the U.S.," which aims to bring non-U.S. voices into the U.S. policy debate and to foster dialog between Northern and Southern actors in global affairs issues. Please visit our Outside the U.S. page for other non-U.S. perspectives on global affairs and for information about submissions at: http://www.fpif.org/outside/index.html.)

OBSTACLES TO CHANGE IN AFRICA: NEPAD, ZIMBABWE, AND ELITES
By Ian Taylor

(Editor's Note: The following is excerpted from a new Outside the U.S. Global Affairs Commentary, available in its entirety at http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0204nepad.html .)

As the fallout from the blatantly rigged elections in Zimbabwe began to make themselves felt throughout Africa and the international community, John Makumbe, a respected professor of political science at the University of Zimbabwe, remarked: The election was more than about "just Zimbabwe's future. What's at stake here is whether Africa is willing and able to police itself and is able to show the world that it is able to take that step forward to democracy and stability, rather than remain mired in the muck of autocracy and stagnation."

African elites fell over themselves in talking up the legitimacy of the elections. An observer team from the Organization of African Unity (OAU) said the elections were "transparent, credible, free and fair," while Nigerian observers in Zimbabwe endorsed Mugabe's victory, saying they had "recorded no incidence that was sufficient to threaten the integrity and outcome of the election." The South African observer team blamed the long lines of voters unable to vote despite waiting many hours on "administrative oversights," drawing audible laughter from journalists and diplomats attending their press conference in Harare.

The political situation in Zimbabwe serves in many ways as a test case for evaluating the credibility of the New Economic Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) and as a clear opportunity for African leaders to signal that they had changed their ways. It is quite clear that this has not happened, and questions now arise over the value of the document as a real program for change rather than yet another official declaration. When discussing such issues, accusations of "Afro-pessimism" or even "racism" inevitably seem to creep in. But these accusations often fail to address the issues at hand but rather serve to muddy the waters. It must be a strange mind that thinks defending Mugabe's tyranny is defending Africa's integrity. In my observation, he ordinary person on the street here in Africa seems to have absolutely no time for misplaced solidarity with someone widely regarded as an embarrassment to the continent. Those who try and advance the idea that Mugabe is an African hero who enjoys popular (as opposed to elite) support are mistaken--or don't live in Africa. But be that as it may, the fall-out from the Zimbabwe elections and their impact on the NEPAD need further discussion.

Indeed, the collective response to Zimbabwe's crisis raises a raft of difficult questions about the pivotal position that the NEPAD affords African elites in the regeneration of the continent. The document's commitment to democracy and peace--signed by African elites themselves--has unfavorably contrasted rhetoric with action and even though the NEPAD proclaims that "development is impossible in the absence of true democracy, respect for human rights, peace and good governance," it appears that there is, sadly, little real commitment to these standards. But why should this matter? Surely the NEPAD is an Africa-originated document and should not depend on the vagaries of the West? As the South African Minister of Trade and Industry Alec Erwin angrily said, the West "should not hold the NEPAD hostage because of mistakes in Zimbabwe." "If NEPAD is not owned and implemented by Africa it will fail and we cannot be held hostage to the political whims of the G8 or any other groups."

But here lies the rub: While the document may have been written in Africa, it most certainly is not "owned" by Africa. Instead it depends on massive injections of aid, and it is difficult to see how it can be "implemented" if the West ever decided to pull the plug. This issue is of major relevance as the NEPAD requires an injection of $64 billion a year to meet commitments outlined in the document. It is all very well for African elites to try and reject linkages between Zimbabwe and the NEPAD, but as one diplomat was quoted in the South African Mail and Guardian, it was "unrealistic to expect the developed world to separate NEPAD and the Zimbabwe elections...Zimbabwe--and the African response to it--[was] an acid test of the continent's commitment to democracy." If the elites have failed this test, what if any contingency plans exist for advancing the NEPAD without huge donor support? The fundamental issue is this: If African elites voluntarily commit themselves to certain conditions, and hinge their entire renewal project on a quid pro quo (in essence, we'll behave, and you pass us the cash), then these same elites are rather hypocritical to turn around and lament that their agreed conditions are now being held against them.

This of course leads us to the very heart of the matter: what exactly is the NEPAD and who is it for? The attempt to penetrate the shield of sovereignty behind which too many corrupt leaders have hidden for too long holds potential for advancing the interests of the ordinary African, but beyond that the jury is very much out. Notably, civil society in Africa has been extremely critical of the total non-consultation that went into the drawing up of the document. Although Alec Erwin might talk of "ownership," the lack of consultation is eerily reminiscent of that other vision dreamt up by one of the very same African leaders, namely the "African Renaissance" of Thabo Mbeki. Although the prawn cocktail circuit still speaks of this, it has generally slipped from view as, predictably, it had absolutely no foundation in civil society and beyond the media glare had no real presence. Until a strategy is grounded not in the elites but in the ordinary citizens and is based on basic human needs, then any project for renewal is subject to a wide variety of destabilizing forces, not least when elites seek to duck out from the commitments they themselves have made. To return to John Makumbe, Africa is indeed willing and able to police itself and to show the world its readiness to move towards democracy and stability. Whether the elites are prepared to follow--or indeed allow--their citizens to achieve this is one of the major questions facing the continent today.

(Dr. Ian Taylor <tayloric@mopipi.ub.bw> teaches in the Department of Political & Administrative Studies at the University of Botswana.)

III. Letters and Comments

GOING BACKWARDS

Thank you Arun Swamy for your article: "Is Indian Going the Way of 1930s' Germany" (online at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0203indhind.html). Same problem in Bangladesh. Both the Indian and Bangladeshi people should understand that they are our brothers--no matter what religious background they have. Lord Rama (with respect) is a mythological character We don't know for sure where he was born. The instigator of this division (the British) are now out of the scene. .But we are sucking our own blood. While others are going forward, we are going backward. I feel sorry for both Hindu and Muslim brothers and sisters. May Allah or Vagoyan help them to overcome this crisis.

- Kazi Faruque <shaheen2k@aol.com>

COLLECTIVE EFFORT NEEDED

Unfortunately India is going the way of 1930s Germany. Unless there is a collective effort from all those who value peace and justice, there will be more gruesome violations of human rights in India.

- A. Moinuddin <ahtes@hotmail.com>

SHADOW OVER VENEZUELAN FACTS

I am surprised on the lack of information in the international community. I have only read 2 articles published through FPIF ("Shadow Over Venezuela" by Conn Halliran, and "Venezuela Not Oil-Banana Republic" by Gregory Wilpert) and I have seen some serious flaws. You are correct to say that the days of military coups a la the 60s and 70s are over. However, there is no denying on the illegitimacy of the Chavez regime. Are votes and ballots the only definition of a legitimate? Saying that a tidal wave of Chavez supporters, or cacerolazos are for Chavez, etc. is just plain wrong. Don't tell that to all those people who have been banging pots against Chavez over many months, including the one that was heard on April 13 (after the counter-coup). Finally, please double check the public announcement by a high commanding officer of the armed forces on the Chavez relations with the Colombian guerrillas. Was that suddenly forgotten by the international press and analysts?

- Eduardo Bello <eduardo.bellosalas@yale.edu>

TO THE WINNER GO THE SPOILS

To further your point on Palestinian justification under international law ("Talking Points on Israel-Palestine," by Stephen Zunes with Chris Toensing at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0204israeltalk.html ) to attack occupying forces on their land, I have two additional points. It has always been accepted (until now it seems) that land occupied within the scope of a war belongs to the taker. From the time of the creation and recognition of the Israeli state (by the UN as well) they have been attacked from the lands they now "occupy." The Israelis did not start these wars. The Arabs did. And from land that rightly belonged to the Palestinians. If Arafat has any complaints he should take it up with the Arabs that occupy the true (1st) Palestinian state: Jordan. If they hadn't been part of the coalition bent on the destruction of Israel in the first place, they wouldn't be whining so much about land lost in a legitimate way because they lost the war. Think of Alsace-Lorraine in 1870-71. Prussia was the aggressor, but also the recognized winner. Israel was not the aggressor.

When the Palestinians attack the Israeli Army in "occupied" territory, then by international agreement (Neuremburg War Crimes trials for the German occupation of Italy) it is acceptable to execute 5 civilians for every soldier killed where the perpetrators of the attack are not turned over to the occupying commander. How would the world like that one? Second point: Arafat is no different than the leaders of the other 24 Arab states, a despot. There is no freedom in the Middle East. Just a bunch of tin-horn dictators with oil. Arafat speaks for no one. Too bad you have to be a suicide bomber to get support from your Arab brethren.

- Robert Childs <robert.c.childs2@boeing.com>

BUSH HAS NO CLOTHES

Re: "Enough is Enough" by Tom Barry and Jim Lobe at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0204pnac.html
I applaud your continued "the emperor has no clothes" observations. Bravo. It's American journalism at its finest.

- Christine Meisenheimer <qrms@aol.com>

Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a new kind of think tank—one serving citizen movements and advancing a fresh, internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although we make our FPIF products freely available on the Internet, we need financial support to cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly, FPIF depends on you and other individual donors to sustain our bare-bones budget. Click on https://secure.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm to support FPIF online, or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the mail.

We Count on Your Support. Thank you.

Subscribe to The Progressive Response!

To subscribe to The Progressive Response, send a blank email to:

To unsubscribe from The Progressive Response, send a blank email to:
lists-unsubscribe@irc-online.org

Simply click the appropriate hyperlink above, or send a blank email to the appropriate email address above.

The Progressive Response aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about U.S. foreign policy issues. The content does not necessarily reflect the institutional positions of either the Interhemispheric Resource Center or the Institute for Policy Studies.

We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so let us know how we're doing, via email to irc@irc-online.org. Please put "Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies you may receive.

IRC
Tom Barry
Editor, Progressive Response
Codirector, Foreign Policy In Focus
Email: tom@irc-online.org

IPS
Martha Honey
Codirector, Foreign Policy In Focus
Email: ipsps@igc.org

This page was last modified on Monday, April 22, 2002 4:06 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.