Frontline Venezuela
Ibrahim Nafie in Caracas interviews Venezuelan Vice-President José Vicente Rangel
Tuesday's summit meeting in Puerto Ordaz has issued a very significant joint declaration dealing with the international order as a whole; yet the nature of the participants (presidents Chavez, Lula Da Silva, Alvaro Uribe and Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero), seems to suggest that the armed conflict and drug problem in Colombia may have been the real focus of the meeting. Would you explain the rationale behind the summit, and elaborate on its results?
Columbia received no more than a small share of the Puerto Ordaz summit's attention. Its problems were not the major focus, although the participants did discuss them in passing. Certainly, the issues you mentioned are of great concern to the region, but they were not the purpose for this conference. The reason for the summit was a subject of greater importance, which is the strengthening of ties between Latin American countries and the European Union. This summit marked the first time an institutional bridge was established between a representative of the EU and the Southern Cone Common Market (MERCOSUR). Economic cooperation and integration were the major issues on the summit agenda.
The Colombian government of President Uribe has been accused of committing human rights violations in its fight against the armed insurgency. Has the summit resulted in commitments in this respect by Colombia in return for assistance in dealing with the armed insurgency and drug trafficking?
Let me stress again that this was not an item on the agenda of the conference. Naturally, Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero is ready to play a key role in mediating between the government of Columbia and the rebels. But this was not a focal point in the summit.
The Joint Declaration issued by the Puerto Ordaz summit was a clear challenge to the global policies of the United States, though it does not mention it by name, and offers an alternative perspective on the global order asserting multilateralism, international law, and that the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking must be in strict adherence to international law, human rights and international humanitarian law. How far is this part of a larger effort to create a bloc of nations committed to such an alternative perspective on the international political order?
As you pointed out, the United States was not explicitly mentioned in the summit declaration. However, it is patently obvious that it was worded as an implicit response to the US's global policies. The declaration took as its central premise the aspiration to a multipolar world. We know that every mention of global diversity and plurality brings to mind the US, because of its drive to monopolar hegemony. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the summit was that it had its sights set on a new global order that brings on board all the international community's constituent elements. The policy towards this multipolar world is still in the making. However, the starting point is to rehabilitate international legitimacy. In other words, no nation must be allowed to attack another and no nation must be allowed to impose its will on others by force of arms.
The forthcoming Arab-South American summit dialogue is expected to issue a final declaration. Do you expect that the principles outlined in the Puerto Ordaz summit will be reflected in that declaration?
I hope so. The summit meeting between the Arab world and South America is extremely important, politically, geo- strategically and economically. This is the first meeting of its kind. As you know Latin America has a large number of inhabitants of Arab origin, which is one reason why it is particularly important for Latin America to interact more closely with Arab culture. This is why this summit will not only discuss political issues but also address cultural and ethnic issues that are generally not on the agendas of conventional summits.
The fight against terrorism is one of the items on the agenda of the Arab-South American summit. There are indications that there is disagreement on the definition of terrorism in a way that distinguishes clearly between it and legitimate armed resistance to foreign occupation. What is Venezuela's position on this issue?
Venezuela's position on terrorism is totally different to that of the US and some other countries. To the current US administration there are good terrorists and bad ones and good terrorism and bad terrorism. Good terrorism, of course, is the kind that benefits American interests. To us when one country occupies another that is a terrorist act, not to the US. To us when one country blockades another for more than 40 years as the US has done to Cuba that is a terrorist act. Clearly the US does not think so. Nor do we believe that it is terrorism when people fight foreign aggression. The French resistance against the Nazi occupation, for example, was not terrorism. We regard any terrorist type of action as repugnant, but we cannot condemn acts committed by a people in self-defence against outside aggression as terrorist. As for terrorist acts perpetrated on the pretext of fighting terrorism, that is totally unacceptable.
There is a very large community of Arab origin in Venezuela, as in other South American countries, which is highly integrated in the societies they have made their home. What, in your view, are the reasons that contributed to such a high level of integration, in contrast to the increasing ghettoisation of communities of Arab origin in the US and Europe? And in what way could communities of Arab origin in South America act as a cultural bridge between their current homelands and their mother countries?
You are absolutely right. In Venezuela it is even difficult to speak of an Arab community since people of Arab origin are fully assimilated into society. The same applies throughout the rest of Latin America. As for why it should be so different for Arabs in the US and Europe I believe comes down to racism. There, a new type of racism has been on the rise. This racism stems from a militarist ideology that justifies its global expansion by force by tainting the Arabs as terrorists; indeed, almost intrinsically so. This is why the Latin American model is so important. Racism against Arabs does not exist here, nor does so-called Arab terrorism. Nor will we permit for this kind of racism to take root here.
Both Venezuela and Brazil have insisted on many occasions that the real threat to world peace and security is not terrorism but poverty and hunger. And while many in the South may agree with this proposition, the world's sole super power and the greater part of the rich nations of the North continue to identify terrorism as such a threat. What, in your view, needs to be done to make the fight against hunger and poverty the world's first priority?
To begin with, this has to be the position of a larger number of Third World countries. Capitalism is an inherently distorted system that will always foster hunger, poverty and deprivation. The general structure of capitalism perpetually reproduces misery, and this is particularly the case with the current neo-liberal phase of capitalism. The battle against poverty and deprivation, therefore, is connected with the battle to establish a just and deeply democratic order that guarantees the effective participation of the people in the decision-making processes of government. In fact, here is where we find the real roots of anti-Americanism in Venezuela. We have never done anything against the US. We have never invaded it or taken any form of hostile action against it. We never nationalised US companies or deliberately antagonised the US in any way. So why has it been so hostile towards us? For the simple reason that it cannot accept this type of government: a government that is working to transform Venezuela into a just and humane society.
Venezuela has accused the US administration of continuous attempts to destabilise and even overthrow its democratically elected government. Are these attempts still taking place, and if so, what form are they taking?
Yes it is. As you know, they were directly involved in the 11 April crisis (the attempted coup against Chavez in 2002). They were complicit in the attempts to sabotage our oil industry in 2002 and 2003. It is an ongoing policy. They are still funding the opposition and waging a campaign against Venezuela internationally. They want to get rid of Chavez by any means possible, even assassinating him if necessary. However, we have learned valuable lessons from this confrontation. The first is how powerful the people's voice is; the second is that the Venezuelan armed forces are deeply loyal to the Constitution; and the third is that Venezuela cannot easily be put in an economic stranglehold -- we are not a banana republic.
In addition, we are fully convinced that the democratic process is the government's greatest safeguard. Chavez won nine elections in six years, which is why Venezuela has won increasingly widespread international support and why US has failed in its attempt to pressure other countries into isolating us. We are poised to enter any debate with the US without fear. If they want to talk about human rights, we are fully prepared to talk about human rights. If they want to talk about the separation of powers, we are fully ready for that too. In short, our democracy is deeper and more advanced than democracy in the US. We have not unjustly attacked another country in the world. Our Supreme Court is appointed by parliament and not by the president, as in the US.
There are those, however, who charge that the Chavez administration deliberately provokes the US for domestic political purposes. Would you comment?
We don't need to play that kind of game. The latest opinion poll conducted in Venezuela shows that President Chavez has the support of 75 per cent of the people. In the referendum held over his presidency in August last year Chavez won 60 per cent of the votes. In other words, since then his popularity has risen by 15 per cent. But not only do we not have to play that kind of game to win popularity, we truly want to have good relations with the US. We do not want bad relations with any country in the world. We have not, nor will we, touch our petroleum exports to the US. The problem between us is political: they want to force their policies on us. We have repeatedly asked them to sit and talk with us calmly and rationally. But they don't want that. They don't want to understand. Still, they cannot accuse us of refusing to supply them with petroleum. On the contrary, whenever they have a deficit in their reserves we increase our exports to them until the crisis is over. Nor can they accuse us of being lax in the fight against drug trafficking, because this government has done more than any other in that battle. The problem is that they don't like Chavez. However, they should respect him because he is the democratically elected president. I personally do not like Bush, but that doesn't mean that I will set out to get rid of him.
How successful have the government's efforts been in achieving its declared goals of empowering the dispossessed sections of society, who form the majority of the Venezuelan people, and would you elaborate on future plans in this respect?
We have made numerous inroads in this domain. By the end of next month we will have succeeded in eradicating the illiteracy of 1,300,000 Venezuelans. In previous years, the figure was 17,000 per year. In three months, we will be able to announce that not a single illiterate is left in the whole of Venezuela. We succeeded in bringing school dropouts back into the educational system. Some 600,000 children and adolescents have re-enrolled in the schools. In health we have succeeded, with the help of Cuba, in bringing healthcare to poor districts that had no services of this kind before. We have also raised the minimum wage and set up a network of cooperative societies.
What is important to stress here is that the government has worked to reach out to the deprived and forgotten and bring them back from the darkness into the light. In the past, no one would remember them until elections time. But it was one thing to get them to vote and another thing to let them take part in the social, economic and political decisions that affected their lives. During the feverish activity of the opposition, the people said, "now they remember us. But if they succeed in getting rid of Chavez they'll soon forget us again."
The great achievement is that for the first time those people have become real citizens, with the power to take part in making the decisions that affect the various aspects of their lives. They are still poor. They are getting a better education, better healthcare and a higher minimum wage. But they are still poor. However, the difference between the poor under the fourth republic and the poor under the fifth republic is that in the latter they have had their dignity restored, and that is extremely significant.
In view of the Venezuelan experience, could you explain the challenges of balancing a socially-oriented policy under a democratic political system and a largely free market economy?
We are in a transitional phase. Our major challenge right now is to be able to maintain the harmony between democracy, equality and social change. We can never sacrifice democracy and the values of liberty in favour of social change. We hope that the experiment that failed in Chile will not fail here. We believe that we will succeed.
Recommend
Comment
Printer-friendly
