NEWS,05.10.2012

Venezuela's Chavez faces cliffhanger election

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez faces the toughest election of his 14-year rule on Sunday in a vote pitting his charisma and oil-financed largesse against fresh-faced challenger Henrique Capriles' promise of jobs, safer streets and an end to cronyism.Chavez, 58, staged a remarkable comeback from cancer this year and wants a new six-year term to consolidate his self-styled socialist revolution in the OPEC nation.Capriles, a boyish 40-year-old state governor, has run a marathon eight-month campaign of house-by-house visits that have galvanised the historically fractured opposition and set up its best shot at the presidency since Chavez's election in 1998.Defeat for Chavez would defenestrate Latin America's leader of anti-US sentiment while potentially boosting oil companies' access to the world's largest crude reserves.Victory would allow Chavez to continue a wave of nationalisations and consolidate control over the economy, though a recurrence of his cancer would weaken his leadership and possibly give the opposition another chance.In torrential rain, red-shirted supporters of the president filled much of downtown Caracas on Thursday for his final rally."Chavez will not fail the Venezuelan people," the president said, soaked to the skin in a dark raincoat, on a stage before a sea of fans. "You know that my loyalty to the people almost brought me to the point of death. This is my path."The former military officer, who survived a short-lived coup in 2002, has developed a near cult-like following by casting himself as a messianic reincarnation of 19th century liberation hero Simon Bolivar while pushing billions of dollars in oil revenue into social programmes.Most best-known pollsters put Chavez in front. But two have Capriles just ahead, and his numbers have edged up in others.The opposition leader has had more momentum in the final days of the campaign and he is confidently predicting victory."The time has come to leave the past behind," the opposition leader told a cheering crowd on Thursday, wrapping up a grueling months-long series of rallies across the country.The vote is also a cliffhanger for other left-wing governments in the region, from Cuba to Ecuador, who depend on Chavez's discounted oil sales and generous financial assistance.Emotional ties Seamlessly flipping from jocular prankster to blustering anti-capitalist crusader, Chavez's stories of his poor but happy childhood in a small village have helped him create an emotional bond with poor Venezuelans who see him as one of the family.For nearly a decade, he has won over voters with free health clinics, subsidized groceries and new universities.Over the last year he launched programs to give pensions to the elderly, stipends to poor mothers, and tens of thousands of new homes were handed over on live TV to tearful supporters.Everywhere Chavez has gone on the campaign trail, supplicants have shouted to him asking for help getting a home or a job, or thrust hand-written letters at his staff."I work for the state and I'm offended that the loser (Capriles) says we're made to attend and made to wear red!" said Paulo Garralaga, at Thursday's giant rally in Caracas. "I came to support Chavez and to tell him I'm going to vote for him."Yet day-to-day issues are overshadowing ideological fervor.Nationalisations have weakened private enterprise and given party apparatchiks growing control over jobs. Weak law enforcement, dysfunctional courts and plentiful arms have made Venezuela more violent than some war-zones. Frequent blackouts are an annoying reminder of squandered oil income."Each one of you should make a list of the problems that you have, and ask yourself, how many of those problems has this famous revolution solved for you?" the wiry and sports-loving Capriles intoned at one of his final rallies.The business-friendly law graduate easily won an opposition primary election in February and has united anti-Chavez parties like no one before him. His rallies have been notably more energetic and swollen with ecstatic fans in the final weeks.Sporadic violence has dogged the campaign, with three Capriles activists shot dead last weekend, demonstrating the volatile atmosphere and potential for violence around the vote.Capriles has promised to shed Chavez's doctrinaire vision of a state-led economy for a pragmatic balance between social welfare and free enterprise. He calls himself an admirer of Brazil's market-friendly left, which has pulled close to 35 million people into the middle class over a decade.Chavez has made ample use of state resources to bolster his campaign, speaking for hours about the virtues of socialism in "chain" broadcasts that all public access channels are required to run. The electoral authority has demurely declined to regulate such broadcasts, calling them "institutional" messages.Despite complaints of Chavez's advantages, opposition leaders say they see little risk of fraud during the electronic balloting itself. There will be no formal international observation of the vote, though local groups will be present and voting centers will have witnesses from both sides.Chavez's frequent vote victories over the last 14 years have undermined shrill opposition criticism that he is a dictator.But he has never had to hand over power. Though he accepted defeat in a 2007 referendum on his proposed overhaul of the constitution, in less than a year he used special decree powers to make many of the changes that voters had rejected.A win for Chavez could prompt a sell-off of Venezuelan bonds, which have risen steadily since June and jumped in recent weeks as investors bet on a possible Capriles win.Venezuela's heavy borrowing has made its debt among the most actively traded emerging market bonds - creating an odd romance between Wall Street and one of the world's most virulent critics of capital markets.Capriles is promising to improve the country's finances by cutting wasteful expenditures and halting politically motivated gifts to allied left-wing and anti-American nations."President Chavez, I thank you for what you have been able to do," the opposition leader said at his final campaign rally, in Lara state, in a rare direct use of his opponent's name."With the greatest respect: the time has come to move forward, and you will not be able to stop the people's advance."

Washington Doesn't Like Democratic Elections in Venezuela, Because of the Result

On May 30, Dan Rather, one of America's most well-known journalists, announced that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez would die "in a couple of months at most." Four months later, Chávez is not only alive and campaigning but widely expected to win re-election on Sunday. Such is the state of misrepresentation of Venezuela it is probably the most lied-about country in the world  that a journalist can say almost anything about Chávez or his government and it is unlikely to be challenged, so long as it is negative. Even worse, Rather referred to Chávez as "the dictator"a term that few, if any, political scientists familiar with the country would countenance.Here is what Jimmy Carter said about Venezuela's "dictatorship" a few weeks ago: "As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world."Carter won a Nobel Prize for his work through the election-monitoring Carter Center, which has observed and certified past Venezuelan elections. But because Washington has sought for more than a decade to de-legitimize Venezuela's government, his viewpoint is only rarely reported. His latest comments went unreported in almost all of the U.S. media.In Venezuela, voters touch a computer screen to cast their vote and then receive a paper receipt, which they then verify and deposit in a ballot box. Most of the paper ballots are compared with the electronic tally. This system makes vote-rigging nearly impossible: to steal the vote would require hacking the computers and then stuffing the ballot boxes to match the rigged vote.Unlike in the United States, where in a close vote we really have no idea who won (see Bush v. Gore, 2000), Venezuelans can be sure that their vote counts. And also unlike the U.S., where as many as 90 million eligible voters will not vote in November, the government in Venezuela has done everything to increase voter registration (now at a record of about 97 percent) and participation.Yet the U.S. foreign policy establishment (which includes most of the American and Western media) seethes with contempt for Venezuela's democratic process. In a report timed for the elections, the so-called "Committee to Protect Journalists" says that the government controls a "media empire," neglecting to inform its readers that Venezuelan state TV has only about 5-8 percent of the country's television audience. Of course, Chávez can interrupt normal programming with his speeches (under a law that pre-dates his administration), and regularly does so. But the opposition still has most of the media, including radio and print media -- not to mention most of the wealth and income of the country. The opposition will most likely lose this election not because of the government's advantages of incumbency  which are abused throughout the hemisphere, including the United States. If they lose, it will be because the majority of Venezuelans have dramatically improved their living standards under the Chávez government. Since 2004, when the government gained control over the oil industry and the economy had recovered from the devastating, extra-legal attempts to overthrow it (including the 2002 U.S.-backed military coup and oil strike of 2002-2003), poverty has been cut in half and extreme poverty by 70 percent. And this measures only cash income. Millions have access to health care for the first time, and college enrollment has doubled, with free tuition for many students. Inequality has also been considerably reduced. By contrast, the two decades that preceded Chávez were one of the worst economic failures in Latin America, with real income per person actually falling by 14 percent from 1980-1998.In Washington, democracy has a simple definition: does a government do what the State Department wants them to do? And of course here, the idea of politicians actually delivering on what they promised to voters is also an unfamiliar concept. So it is not just Venezuela that regularly comes under fire from the Washington establishment: all of the left and newly independent governments of South America, including Argentina, Ecuador, and Bolivia are in the cross-hairs (although Brazil is considered too big to get the same treatment except from the right). But the State Department tries to keep its eyes on the prize: Venezuela is sitting on 500 billion barrels of oil, and doesn't respect Washington's foreign policy. That is what makes it public enemy number one, and gets it the worst media coverage.But Venezuela is part of a "Latin American Spring" that has produced the most democratic, progressive, and independent group of governments that the region has ever had. They work together, and Venezuela has solid support among its neighbors. This is Lula da Silva last month: "A victory for Chávez (in the upcoming election) is not just a victory for the people of Venezuela but also a victory for all the people of Latin America . . . this victory will strike another blow against imperialism." South America's support is Venezuela's best guarantee against continuing attempts by Washington - which is still spending millions of dollars within the country in addition to unknown covert funds to undermine, de-legitimize, and destabilize democracy in Venezuela.

The Lifeline for Damascus and Tehran Is in Putin's Hands

The collapse of the Iranian currency by one-third of its value over a week will leave an impact on Iran's nuclear and strategic ambitions - especially through the gateway of Syria. Russia may thus find itself in need of salvaging its Iranian ally for numerous reasons, among them, its need for Iran in its battle against the United States in its Muslim neighborhood, in the wake of the American withdrawal from Afghanistan. There are three schools of thought on where things are going in the relationship between the United States and Iran, and what it entails in terms of indications and repercussions in the Middle East and for Russia.The first states that President Barack Obama - who is likely to win a second term  will not bomb Iran no matter what and that the Islamic Republic of Iran will therefore obtain military nuclear capability, and perform a nuclear test within a year or two.The second states that there is no escaping a military confrontation between the United States and Iran, which would start with an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites, followed by Iranian retaliation against economic locations in Arab countries in the Gulf region. Finally, the third states that sanctions are leading Iran to collapse from within, and that the deterioration in the value of the currency and the economy at large will lead to reducing Tehran's ability to fund the regime in Damascus and Hezbollah in Lebanon. At the end of the day, it is purported, Russia will not be able to bankroll Iran and save it at the economic and nuclear levels.Each of those schools of thought advances detailed and noteworthy scenarios. What they have in common is that the Russian-Chinese-Iranian alliance with the regime in Damascus will not be able to maintain President Bashar Al-Assad in power, no matter how long it takes. In addition, prolonging the conflict in Syria will lead to a war of attrition, in a civil war that could lead to dividing Syria in a manner similar to what took place in the former Yugoslavia. Yet opinion is divided over this scenario, with some considering it possible, while others believe otherwise. Another common denominator is the assessment of both US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, as both lacking in strategic visions and thinking into long-term interests. Obama is, in the view of some, arrogant and stubborn, as well as an isolationist who lacks the courage to take the initiative and prefers to hide behind the American aversion to further interventions, instead of being a leader who knows where the interest of the United States lies in these times of transitions and new strategic equations. As for Putin, he is, again in the opinion of some, aman of posturing and excessive Russian nationalism, who values himself highly and considers himself to be the leader of a superpower - while Russia remains at the level below. He adopts revenge as a policy in the face of offense, and does not care for the price paid by innocent civilians in return. Vladimir Putin exploited the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) in Afghanistan, then rebelled against it in Libya and is now taking revenge against it over the dead bodies of innocent Syrians. Former US President George W. Bush did favors to both Russia and China in Afghanistan, in his war against terrorism and Islamic extremism. The aim was to eradicate Islamic extremism in Afghanistan before it spreads and reaches the five Muslim republics that surround Russia and come near to China, without Moscow and Beijing participating in covering the exorbitant cost. Barack Obama made the mistake of not satisfying Putin in a so-called "Grand Bargain", including by not granting Russia the port of Tartus. Yet what he is preparing to do in Afghanistan may well unintentionally represent a lethal blow for Vladimir Putin. The withdrawal of the United States within the framework of NATO's withdrawal from Afghanistan may well represent the tipping point for Russia to slip into a war against Islamic extremism on its home soil and in its immediate neighborhood in the five Muslim republics. Vladimir Putin will find himself alone in such a confrontation, of which he has sowed the seeds himself in Syria, when he could have done the opposite if he had not made use of his veto for a third time, committing a major strategic blunder in the process.Vladimir Putin may well be forced to wage his own war on terror as George W. Bush had done in the past - and in fact probably believes himself to be doing just that in Syria. Bush summoned Al-Qaeda and groups like it to Iraq and waged the war there in order to keep terrorism away from American cities, as he said. Similarly, Putin contributed to the arrival of jihadists to Syria through the series of vetoes he made use of at the Security Council, in revenge for what NATO did in Libya. He thus encouraged the rise of extremism in Syria, while demonstrations had at the beginning been secular and only demanded reform in Syria. Bush entered into a war with his troops in Iraq. Putin is gathering a budget of around 70 billion dollars to confront the Muslim extremism arriving at his gates. Bush offered Iraq to Iran and played the Shiite-Sunni card based on the fact that the 9/11 terrorist attacks had been the work of Sunnis. Putin is allying himself with Iran on the same confessional basis, but also for reasons connected to his hatred of the United States on the one hand, and of the Arabs on the other. He respects Iran's arrogance and despises the weakness and fragmentation of the Arabs. He also finds a common denominator between himself and Tehran's mullahs in their absolute hatred of the United States and their need to confront it - yet only through proxy wars. This kind of thinking reveals Vladimir Putin's ignorance of both the Arabs and Iran, and it will lead him to take Russia down a slippery slope to collapse, if he does not correct his course quickly before it is too late. What he is doing in Syria is investing against himself in the Muslim republics and in Chechnya. And if he is to correct his course, Syria is the place to start, as it would improve his relations with the leaderships of the Arab Maghreb and would lead him to partner with them, with the Gulf countries and with the United States to eradicate the Jihadist extremism that is spreading in the Arab Maghreb. The interviews conducted by Al-Hayat last week with Libyan President Mohamed El-Magariaf and Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki, show the extent to which this trend has proliferated. There is no use for Russia to be alone in the forefront, and this is what will happen after the withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan, the stronghold of jihadists, as well as the base from which this new jihadist action will be launched against Russia as a result of the stances taken by Vladimir Putin and of his short-sightedness. He will come to regret it. So will China, if it continues to follow the direction into which Putin is taking it. Indeed, it in turn is exposed to this, particularly in Turkestan (Xinjiang), and will suffer after the Western withdrawal from Afghanistan, which will become the center of Russia and China's entanglement with Jihadistextremism. China in turn will foster enmity with the Arabs because of Syria, and will not benefit from allying itself with the losers in Damascus or perhaps in Tehran. Iran will not be among the losers according to the first scenario, adopted by the school that states that it will obtain nuclear capabilities after performing a military nuclear test some say will take place within a year or two. After the test, it will be too late. Then, an arms race will begin in the Gulf region, and there are indications that serious precautionary preparations are being made by some Gulf countries capable of obtaining nuclear capabilities. Then, it will be too late for the United States and for Israel, as they will not be able to rein in Iran or the nuclear arms race in the Arab region. Yet this will not mean salvation for the regime in Damascus, because Iran moving to the level of a nuclear power will make it, in the opinion of some, more cautious and careful not to get implicated in confrontations. Indeed, it will not make use of nuclear weapons even if it obtains them - it will behave like a nuclear power and will avoid proxy wars because it will have no need for them. Thus, according to those who are of this opinion, Tehran will adopt of policy of neglecting the regime in Syria as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon, because it will stabilize and position itself at the nuclear level, and rein itself in at the regional level.As for Israel, what is referred to as the "weakness" of its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will lead Iran to move forward at the nuclear level, according to an opinion held by some, especially as the US President will not let himself be dragged into bombing Iran on behalf of Israel. The second scenario is based on the assumption that Israel will direct a military strike against Iranian sites that would implicate the United States and force Obama to intervene militarily, if Iran were to respond to Israel at the military level. Yet there is information indicating that Iran will not take revenge on Israel directly or on American troops in the region, but will rather respond by striking against vital economic locations in Arab countries in the Gulf. Then too, some deem it likely that the United States will not be able to stand idly by and will be forced to strike against Iran, because directing military strikes against such vital economic locations would represent a blow to interests essential to the United States. Thus, according to this scenario, a war between the United States and Iran will take place either way.It is unlikely for Iran's leadership to remain completely silent in the face of an Israeli strike, because this would represent a national offense and would be perceived as weakness at the domestic level. If it does remain silent, this could be because it would have come very close or even become ready to perform a nuclear test. Matters developing in the direction of a war between the United States and Iran will lead to a quicker collapse of the regime in Damascus. Hezbollah could get implicated by using the Lebanese scene as an arena for Iran's revenge on Israel, and thus in turn quickly collapse. Or it could disassociate itself from the issue and choose to reform its ways.The third scenario is based on economic collapse within Iran, which would start with the sharp devaluation of its currency and would go through an economic crisis that would turn the Iranian interior against the leadership in Tehran. Such decay will lead to Tehran being forced to seriously lower the support it is extending to its ally in Damascus, which in turn has entered the cycle of economic erosion and decay. It will also lead to reducing Iranian funding of Hezbollah in Lebanon as well. Indeed, the three of them are subject to economic sanctions that will become increasingly stifling, even if they have tremendous reserves of weapons. No matter how arrogantly they behave, these sanctions will weaken and besiege them. Their lifeline to salvation rests in Putin's hands alone, but he in turn is besieged, after having allowed himself to commit strategic mistakes he may well sorely regret.