Antony Loewenstein

FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, recently released two hostages held for years in captivity (then promptly kidnapped tourists days later.)

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has called for the group to be removed from the global terrorist list, but unsurprisingly the US isn’t biting.

Paul Wolf is an an attorney based in Washington, DC. He is currently representing Colombian victims of paramilitary violence and argues that FARC is not in fact a terrorist organisation:

Amid the jubilant press reaction to the freeing of Clara Rojas and Consuelo Gonzalez, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez has made the surprising announcement, almost immediately ratified by the Venezuelan Congress, that the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army (FARC-EP) is a legitimate belligerent force, and not a terrorist group. Although I have been criticizing Chávez of late, I have to say that I not only agree with this, but also think that America’s official “terrorist list” and “war on terrorism” have an extremely destructive impact on efforts to resolve conflicts all over the world.

While assassination, kidnapping, and the use of indiscriminate weapons are barbaric, they are used in one form or another in virtually every conflict, including by the United States. Just ask the estimated 10,000 people in Iraqi prisons—held without any legal process on the suspicion that they are insurgents—if they have been kidnapped. Or a “high value al-Qaida operative” impacted by a missile on the basis of “actionable intelligence.” Or go to the morgue in Fallujah and ask about people killed in the incendiary bombing a couple years ago.

It’s not a question of accepting the FARC-EP’s goals and methods as legitimate. It’s about resolving a conflict through negotiation, rather than trying to demonize and exterminate an enemy. In Colombia, numerous illegal groups have demobilized and successfully entered into politics. The practical effect of recognizing the FARC-EP’s belligerent status—which of course Colombia will never do—would be to force the Colombian government into negotiations. Also, people like FARC commander Simón Trinidad could not be put on trial for acts that are not war crimes, such as taking enemy combatants as prisoners.

The Centre for Media and Democracy has issued its annual Falsies Awards, a worthy collection of the “cynical, manipulative and just plain anti-democratic pollution of our information environment.”

There are countless examples of journalists, politicians and businesses using spin as a substitute for reality.

The Israel/Palestine conflict (like this) and American/Venezuelan relations (such as this) are merely two examples.

Latin American expert Justin Delacour explains the significance of the electoral defeat of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela:

I think Chavez’s defeat yesterday will encourage an introspection in the Chavez movement and a critical debate which is long overdue for them. Obviously errors were committed, otherwise the dramatic decline from 63 percent of the vote just 12 months ago in the presidential elections to 49 percent would be impossible to explain.

I think the same goes for foreign relations. Chavez’ s foreign policy had two aspects. The confrontation rhetoric and the agreements with other third-world countries designed to achieve diversity in commercial relations. The rhetoric tended to eclipse the concrete economic objectives of diversification. Chavez’s defeat yesterday may encourage him to tone down the rhetoric and put the emphasis on commercial agreements that benefit the nation’s economy.

Of course, if you’re the New Times Times editorial page, you’ll simply portray Chavez as a dictator and use terms like “strongman” to describe him. The Venezuelan leader is many things – and growing sizes of authoritarianism are highly concerning – but he was democratically elected many times.

During my visit to Iran in June this year, I noted the unhealthy relationship between the Latin American left and the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The international Left have remained generally quiet on this issue, refusing to chastise Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez for cosying up to the Islamic Republic.

My friend, journalist Rodrigo Acuna, has expanded on this argument:

Although it might be natural for Venezuela, as a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries , to have political and trade relations with another OPEC country like Iran, awarding Ahmadinejad the Collar of the Order of the Liberator — Venezuela’s highest honour for visiting dignitaries — as Chávez did in September last year, is not only embarrassing, it is shameful.

Last year, groups on the Iranian Left — like the Iranian Revolutionary Socialists League (IRSL) — criticised the Chávez-Ahmadinejad relationship as one that would ‘boost the [Iranian] regime and weaken the mass movements in Iran — particularly the struggles of workers for their basic trade union rights.’

Even if Chávez feels Iran needs strong diplomatic support to stave off a possible US attack, the collateral damage from such moves is extensive — not least for those on the Left who would prefer to support Chávez more.

For Venezuela’s hard-core supporters in the international Left however, the singing President can do no wrong. The words ‘contradictions’ and ‘inconsistencies’ are not a part of their vocabulary.

It is possible, as I have done for years, to celebrate the rapid democratisation that has occurred under Chavez and also express disquiet about his growing authoritarianism and love affair with a dictator like Ahmadinejad.

The current crisis and violence in Venezuela – protests against President Hugo Chavez and his constitutional reforms – have received a lot of coverage in the West. But what is the real story there? A good friend and Latin American expert emails:

Regarding the current crisis in Venezuela, I think the political right knows there will be a lot of media attention around the referendum to change the constitution. They are milking it for all its worth and worse, I suspect are killing their own kind just to blame it on Chávez. This has happened before as was the case when roughly a dozen Salvadorian mercenaries where bought into the country to shoot at anti-Chávez protesters. This was then used as a pretext to carry out the 36 hour coup, which then saw some 100 Chávistas killed and the big H himself kidnapped.

While some Chávistas have certainly used violence, this is mostly done by the opposition and there are other examples like the above – in fact, it is a tactic often used in Latin America by the hard core political right.

Chávez, as Gregory Wilpert though points out in his excellent new book, is centralising power in the executive. Paradoxically, power is also being de-centralised through the community councils. As Wilpert argues, time will tell if Venezuela under Chávez will transform itself into something new, or look somewhat like the old Soviet states.

According to this article, Venezuelan Jews are worried about the current situation.

Murdoch’s Australian newspaper proves the seriousness of its reporting on foreign affairs:

The Government of international pariah Hugo Chavez has signalled a challenge to Australia’s influence in the Pacific with an aggressive diplomatic push based on cheap fuel for island states. Speaking on the sidelines of the 38th Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga yesterday, Venezuela’s Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs for Asia, Middle East and the Pacific, Vladimir Poljak, said his Government was ready to help end the West’s “domination” in the region.

“International pariah”? Get real. Chavez may be increasingly authoritarian and spending far too much time cozying up to Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but this report could have been written by the US State Department. If anything, the Bush administration is the pariah, loathed the world over, including in Australia.

But that would actually take some independent thinking.