Venezuela and Libya: An Interview with Gregory Wilpert

[Bacchus39]

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6044

Greg Wilpert, co-founder of Ven Anal interviews himself.

Venezuela and Libya: An Interview with Gregory Wilpert
By Greg Wilpert and Venezuelanalysis.com, March 6th 2011

Venezuelanalysis.com conducted the following interview with Gregory Wilpert. Wilpert is a sociologist, freelance journalist, co-founder of Venezuelanalysis.com, and author of the book, Changing Venezuela by Taking Power.

To what extent has Chavez really taken sides in the conflict in Libya?

Chavez seems to be torn on the issue of Libya. On the one hand he has declared that Gaddafi is his friend and that he trusts Gaddafi. On the other hand he says he does not know what is happening in Libya today, that one cannot trust the international media on this issue, and that he cannot support even a friend on everything they do. So, while Chavez has taken a fairly cautious approach with regard to Libya, he has in effect taken sides with Gaddafi to the extent that he has cast doubt on news reports about atrocities being committed by Gaddafi in Libya.

Chavez often states that what each country does internally is their business, and that it’s important that other world leaders not comment on such things, in order to respect the sovereignty of that country. He made such comments regarding the recent popular rebellion in Egypt. Why then do you think he has taken sides, even if in a limited way, in this issue?

I think Chavez has taken sides because he bases his foreign policy to a large extent on personal relationships. Once he establishes a personal rapport with a foreign leader he trusts that leader implicitly and negative news reports about that leader leave him completely unimpressed because he knows only too well from personal experience how biased international media can be.

[bemildred]

1. It is the first time I can remember where I think Mr Chavez has made a mistake.

1.) The only sensible thing to do is to stay out of it. Venezuela can have little at stake, for good or ill. Certainly whatever happens in Libya, it is no real threat to Venezuela, if anything it should improve oil revenues (higher prices, more unstable supply); and it should distract Chavez' enemies..

2.) The notion of actually being "friends" with Ghaddaffi also calls into question his judgement, suggests a bit of provincialism or lack of clue. If I found out that he was really "friends" with Ahm-an-idjit in Iran too, I would start to worry. Becoming emotionally invested in the welfare of assholes is not a good sign. If Chavez has a weakness, it is the tendency to run off at the mouth, which since he is a smart man must be a personality issue.

3.) Nevertheless, is seems unlikely to have much effect. I read a lot more about Chavez' being Ghaddaffi's buddy these days than his "mismanagement of the economy", which is a refreshing change, but similarly unlikely to have any effect on future events.

[Bacchus39]

2. the first time??? lol n/t

s

[bemildred]

3. Take it or leave it, I don't care.

I thought I'd offer my views in case anyone was interested, I well realize that you don't like Mr Chavez, and that nothing I say will change that. My view is more historical than ideological, so I find him an interesting figure, as any at least somewhat successful revolutionary is.

[joshcryer]

7. I appreciated your comment.

I don't really agree with Chavez keeping his mouth out of it either way, I think that all national heads of states should be allowed to express their opinion on these matters. What is unfortunate is the content of Chavez' opinion.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Good comments, bemildred. But I think your point that Venezuela has nothing to gain from

the Libyan situation needs discussion. I've been mentioning this in my comments over the last week. It is quite obvious that Chavez/Venezuela have nothing to gain from Chavez's peace/negotiation proposal (which resulted from his having befriended Gaddafi--he was in a unique position to make the proposal). If anything, Venezuela GAINS, monetarily, from Libya's civil war (high oil prices). So why did Chavez befriend Gaddafi in the first place, and, now that this civil war has broken out, why has he made the only proposal thus far to stop the fighting and get the parties to the negotiating table?

Our typical rightwing, anti-Chavez DUers immediately started trying to equate Chavez with Gaddafi, though Chavez has harmed NO ONE, and is objectively (i.e., if you bother with FACTS) a democrat with a small d. And I will mention once again that none other than Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, has said, of Chavez: "They can invent all kinds of things to criticize Chavez but not on democracy!" --because it is very pertinent to understanding Chavez and Gaddafi. Chavez, Lula da Silva and other Latin American leftist leaders have developed a COMMON policy of pursuing world peace and reaching out to other countries in the "global south" because they believe that world peace is essential to Latin America's future and so are economic/political alliances first of all within Latin America and then across the "global south" to Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Chavez, da Silva and other leftist leaders are of one mind about this. This is why BOTH Chavez and da Silva invited Iran's president Ahmedinejad to their countries, and why da Silva went to Turkey and Iran trying to broker a deal on Iran's fissionable material (to try to get Iran off the U.S. hit list). This does NOT mean that Chavez or da Silva approve of Iran's government shooting protestors or restricting women's rights. They are both champions of women's rights and neither has ever harmed protestors. Their goal is world peace.

Yes, Chavez befriended Gaddafi--a dubious ruler, a sort of monarch, with a past of championing African unity--and Chavez has a personal style (obvious from his dealings with Alvaro Uribe, whom he tried for years to befriend, only to be betrayed time and again). And this put Chavez in a prime position to STOP Libya's civil war. He could call Gaddafi and propose talks. And that's what he tried to do--and probably is still trying. Though Libya's civil war benefits Venezuela monetarily, it is a catastrophe for the world peace policy that he holds in common with da Silva and others.

So, as to your comment that Chavez has made a "mistake," it was not a mistake as to general Latin American policy. It was/is a "P.R." mistake (because the media is so hostile). It was not a policy mistake. And if he can get Gaddafi and his military faction and the rebels and their military faction to agree to an armistice and get them to the negotiating table, it may turn out for the good. An armistice is badly needed. Nothing could be worse than what is happening right now. That's another thing rightwingers have been saying--that Chavez is trying to "save" Gaddafi. I don't believe that for a minute. Chavez is a realist. He knows Gaddafi must go. He is trying to stop the slaughter--and the rebels, very unfortunately, apparently think they can draw the U.S./NATO into it and defeat Gaddafi militarily. (I do think the rebel forces may be infiltrated, in this respect.) They have turned down the first Gaddafi offer to resign and have opted for continued slaughter--a very bad decision.

As I've felt compelled to say before, in this forum, Libya is not a football game, where you can cheer those you think of as "the good guys" and boo those you think of as 'the bad guys." There may be "bad guys" on the rebel side, angling to become to the next Gaddafi. There may be "good guys" on Gaddafi's side who think they are defending Libya's sovereignty. And there are all kinds of tribal conflicts involved. This is not Egypt, where the military quickly sided with the protestors, removed Mubarak and it was over (at least for now). This is a very complicated situation--and, above all, a CIVIL WAR--an armed conflict among Libyans with heavy casualties. This is no good for anybody--for Libyans and for anyone who wants peace in the world.

The U.S. and other western powers have armed both sides of this civil war. They have a responsibility to try to stop it and they have not done so (as far as what can be perceived in the news). Chavez is the only voice calling for what should be FIRST on everyone's lips: peace. Stop the fighting. Talk! This failure of the U.S. and other western powers (mainly England and Italy) is shameful--and one can only guess from it that they want a piece of Libya, and maybe even had a hand in instigating this rebellion prematurely. War machines profit from war. That is the ugly truth.

[bemildred]

5. A reasonable argument.

1.) I think, on the one hand, that one can make a good argument that facilitating a "negotiated transition" in Libya is a right and moral thing to do, violence is as you say a bad thing, "kill all the other guys" isn't really much of a strategy, so I'm OK with that, and I understand the "Realpolitik" reasons for LA alliances with other nations, so it is not that I can construct no acceptable rationale for Chavez actions. So the question there would be whether it is in fact realistic or not to think that Ghaddafi can be brought to an orderly departure without violence, or at least less violence than the present situation suggests.

2.) At the same time, it seems to me that if I am to criticize Obama for an undue affection for autocratic regimes, I must be free criticize Chavez for the same reasons.

3.) It also depends on the frame one chooses, I tend to think about these things in the frame that a leader's primary responsibility is to that which he leads, so I consider that Chavez' job is to pursue the self-interest of Venezuela. It is true that that is not a simple thing, that the welfare of Venezuela could well be tied up with what happens in the Middle East, or whether the situation there is resolved with more or less violence. However, I am persuaded for the moment by two ideas: first that Chavez had little chance of success, and second that Ghaddaffi really is nuts, and in such situations, one does well to wait and watch.

4.) Which leads to another line of argument that I think deserves consideration: the revolution in Libya is still in it's very early stages IMHO, we hardly know who is on which side, one can see that it is much less coherent than in Egypt, and therefore nobody is going to be willing to commit to some negotiated transition until it becomes clearer what the balance of forces is. One might wish it were otherwise, but I don't see that it is, neither side is looking to deal at present. So it appears to me that Chavez' involvement was premature.

5.) And finally, I have some fear that Chavez insertion of himself into the situation could encourage Ghaddafi to stay and fight it out, i.e. that the result will not be less violence, but more; whereas if he spoke out against Ghaddafi, that might just be the thing to get him to see reason, to take his winnings and leave. It is true that that is only speculation.

So it's less than clear, it makes me long for a nice algebra problem, something well-defined, but on the whole this business does not feel right to me, as I said, it feels like a mistake, and that is unusual, in my view of Mr Chavez, with all due respect to Mr Critic and the others who despise him.

[bemildred]

8. WRT point #4, this is where we are now:

http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE7290KJ20110310

I.e. beginning to consider whether to talk about talking.

[joshcryer]

6. Ignoring the untrue comments about the Libyan revolutionaries:

I do agree that if somehow Venezuela can bring about an armistace that it would be a positive thing. However, the article in question was relatively soft on Chavez being so quick to call down the media. Indeed, the mass media has by large margin coddled Gaddafi and given him interviews and attempted to "be neutral." For every rebel story they'd report pro-Gaddafi spin. Only two major media companies have done a good job telling the real story in Libya (Al Jazeera and Sky News) and since the BBC reporters were given mock executions the rest of the mass media will stop playing the "neutrality" game. If Chavez and others really think the "western media" was lying before, with their Gaddafi coddling and sipping tea, they're going to be hilariously pissed off with how the uprising will be reported in the future.

[ChangoLoa]

10. Indecent. nt

[ChangoLoa]

9. When Chavez condemned so strongly the post-election demonstrations in Iran

saying Ahmadinejad was his brother and a true revolutionary while declaring that Iranian students were like Venezuelan students (a bunch of spoiled brats infiltrated by the CIA), you didn't find that he was "really "friends" with Ahm-an-idjit in Iran too"?

[bemildred]

11. You expect sincerity from political leaders?

I assume they are always putting on a show.