Showing posts with label press release. Show all posts
Showing posts with label press release. Show all posts

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Press Release: NEW PUBLICATION BY COHA SENIOR FELLOW W. ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ: PERU’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS




 NEW PUBLICATION BY COHA SENIOR FELLOW W. ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ: PERU’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs is pleased to highlight the most recent work of one of its most active young scholars, COHA Senior Research Fellow W. Alejandro Sanchez.
His most recent essay is: “Misiones Singularmente Complicadas: El Rol del Peru en las Operaciones de Paz de las Naciones Unidas.” Sanchez’s work was initially published in Perspectivas, a journal by the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies of the National Defense University. (Vol. 2, July 2014, P. 7-19).
To access a free PDF copy of this essay click here.
Sanchez’ analysis discusses Peru’s contributions to over a dozen UN peacekeeping operations since 1958 to the present. In order to advance his argument, he carries out case studies of Peru’s role in two particular missions: the “Batallón Peru,” which participated in the peace missions after the 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict, and the “Compañia Peru,” which currently forms part of MINUSTAH, the ongoing UN peace mission in Haiti. Finally, COHA’s analyst carries out an in-depth discussion of Peru’s present political, security, and economic situation, pondering the question whether Lima could realistically increase its contributions to UN peacekeeping missions in the near future.
W. Alejandro Sanchez is COHA’s dedicated specialist on geopolitics, military and cyber security issues in Latin America and the Caribbean. He regularly appears in a variety of media outlets and is a regular contributor to publications such as VOXXI and Blouin News. He is also an alumna of the Perry Center. You can follow Sanchez via his Twitter at: @W_Alex_Sanchez.
Sanchez has published various articles on Latin America contributions to UN peacekeeping missions:
“Brazil’s Grand Design for Combining Global South Solidarity and National Interests: A Discussion of Peacekeeping Operations in Haiti and Timor.” Globalizations. 2012 Special Issue. Volume 9, Issue 1. Pages 161-178http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14747731.2012.627719(contact COHA via e-mail if you would like a PDF of this essay)
“Contributor Profile: Peru.” Providing for Peacekeeping Project. October 21, 2013.  http://www.providingforpeacekeeping.org/
“Peacekeeping and Military Operations by Latin American Militaries: Between Being a Good Samaritan and Servicing the National Interest.” Report. Council on Hemispheric Affairs. January 22, 2010. http://www.coha.org/peacekeeping-and-military-operations/
If you would like to contact Mr. Sanchez regarding his latest analysis, or with the offices of any other of our other specialists, we invite you to do so via e-mail at coha@coha.org or by calling our offices at +1.202.223.4975. Also, be sure to follow us via our free e-newsletter and social media accounts.
 -----------------
 NUEVA PUBLICACION POR EL ANALISTA W. ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ SOBRE LAS CONTRIBUCIONES DE PERU EN LAS OPERACIONES DE PAZ DE LA ONU
El Consejo de Asuntos Hemisféricos se complace en infomar a nuestros seguidores el reciente artículo de uno de nuestros jóvenes investigadores, W. Alejandro Sánchez.
Su ensayo más reciente es: “Misiones Singularmente Complicadas: El Rol del Perú en las Operaciones de Paz de las Naciones Unidas.” y apareció en Perspectivas, un magazine especializado en temas de seguridad y defensa que es publicado por el Centro de Estudios de Defensa Hemisféricos William J. Perry,  de la National Defense University. (Vol. 2, July 2014, P. 7-19).
Para ver una versión gratis en PDF del artículo haga click aquí.
El análisis de Sánchez discute las contribuciones de Perú a las operaciones de paz de las Naciones Unidas y  recapitula la historia de la participación de las fuerzas armadas peruanas en más de una docena de misiones de la ONU desde 1958 hasta el presente. Para ilustrar su argumento, el autor lleva a cabo dos casos de estudio: el rol del “Batallón Perú” en la misión de paz después del conflicto Árabe-Israelí de 1973 y la participación de la “Compañía Perú” hoy en día en MINUSTAH, la misión de paz en Haití. Finalmente, Sánchez discute la situación de Perú hoy en día en términos políticos, de defensa y económicos. El objetivo es discutir si es realmente posible que Perú incremente en forma significativa sus contribuciones a las misiones de la ONU en el futuro cercano.
W. Alejandro Sánchez es el experto de COHA que se concentra en temas geopolíticos, militares y de ciber-seguridad en Latinoamérica y el Caribe. Él ha aparecido varias veces en diferentes medios de comunicación y también escribe para VOXXI y Blouin News. Sánchez es también un ex alumno del Centro Perry. Les invitamos a que sigan a nuestro analista vía Twitter:@W_Alex_Sanchez.
Sanchez ha escrito varios artículos sobre el rol de Peru y Latinoamérica en general en las misiones de paz de la ONU:
“Brazil’s Grand Design for Combining Global South Solidarity and National Interests: A Discussion of Peacekeeping Operations in Haiti and Timor.” Globalizations. 2012 Special Issue. Volume 9, Issue 1. Pages 161-178 (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14747731.2012.627719– por favor manden un e-mail a COHA si desea una copia de este artículo en PDF)
“Contributor Profile: Peru.” Providing for Peacekeeping Project. October 21, 2013.  http://www.providingforpeacekeeping.org/
“Peacekeeping and Military Operations by Latin American Militaries: Between Being a Good Samaritan and Servicing the National Interest.” Report. Council on Hemispheric Affairs. January 22, 2010. http://www.coha.org/peacekeeping-and-military-operations/
Si le gustaría contactarse con el Señor Sánchez sobre su más reciente análisis, le invitamos a enviar su mensaje a nuestro correocoha@coha.org o llamen a nuestras oficinas al +1.202.223.4975. También le recomendamos de subscribirse a nuestro boletín electrónico y seguirnos vía nuestras cuentas sociales.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Costa Rica: An Army-less Nation in a Problem-Prone Region





This analysis was prepared by by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sanchez
June 2, 2011
http://www.coha.org/costa-rica-an-army-less-nation-in-a-problem-prone-region/

The Central American nation of Costa Rica is one of the few countries in the world that does not possess a standing military. Nevertheless, Costa Rica, like other Latin American countries, faces a variety of security threats that test the country’s security capacity. Major national security issues include border control, drug trafficking and the expansion of international criminal organizations into the country, like for example, the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel. On the international front, Costa Rica is currently involved in a border dispute with Nicaragua, which includes the occupation by a contingent of Nicaraguan army troops of disputed territories along the San Juan River since last year. The river traditionally has served as a natural border between the two countries, but Nicaragua altered the river’s course last year, resulting in a newfound control of the disputed Calero Island, at least for the time being. In response, San José has created a new elite border unit. The combination of rising criminal activity and the current border dispute with a state that possesses a relatively strong standing military means that Costa Rica will have to develop a stronger defense capacity to tackle growing security-related issues.

The History
Costa Rica’s revered president, José Figueres Ferrer, abolished the country’s military on December 1, 1948. The following year, Article 12 of the new constitution codified the abolition of the military. The armed forces’ budget was then shifted to internal security goals by redirecting funds to the police force, education, environmental protection and cultural preservation.

As a result, the country became known as a ‘civilized nation’–a label that it could not have claimed before the abolition of the armed forces. Prior to Figueres’ landmark initiative, Costa Rica, had suffered from a series of unstable governments. From 1917 to 1919, the country was under the dictatorial grip of General Federico Tinoco Granados, until he was overthrown and forced into exile. Figueres himself came to power through an armed insurrection that pitted him against Rafael Ángel Calderón Guardia, a former president (1940-1944) who was trying to regain power through fraudulent elections and, ultimately, violence. Some 2,000 people died during the 44-day uprising, and it has been argued that Figueres abolished the military in order to avoid a future potential military coup against him. Today Costa Rica, considered by some, perhaps naively, as the “Switzerland” of Latin America, serves as the host for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the United Nations’ University for Peace, and is a member of other organizations related to international justice and human rights, including the International Criminal Court.

The Equipment and Organization of Costa Rica’s Police Force
Even though it does not possess a standing military, Costa Rica does have extensive security forces meant to tackle internal issues of law and order. With a population of around 4.5 million, the country has a police force of approximately 10,000 officers, as well as a Civil Guard consisting of 4,500 troops. Compared to other Central American police units, Costa Rica’s police establishment appears to be fairly well-equipped and trained. However, this comparison might be somewhat deceiving, since Costa Rica’s police reportedly have insufficient training, a shortage of service men, and a lack of resources (including vehicles, weaponry, etc).

Without a formal military force, Costa Rica had no need to regularly invest in naval vessels, warplanes, or tanks, which typically make up the heavy equipment of any traditional armed forces. Hence, in theory, the country could focus its financial resources on developing the best possible police force to maintain internal order, at the lowest cost. In fact, in early 2008, as reported by the Spanish defense-news agency, Infodefensa.com, the Spanish company, FEDUR S.A., was awarded a contract by the Costa Rican Ministry of Security to provide new equipment to the nation’s police force. The total bill for the upgrade was close to €2.1 million (almost USD 3 million). The contract included 5,000 bulletproof vests, 10,000 police sticks, 1,000 helmets and 1,000 shields. However, more acquisitions are badly needed, According to an April 2011 report in The Economist, the country has only two helicopters, and the Coast Guard has only a dozen World War II-era patrol boats to police Costa Rica’s two coasts. In an interview with COHA, Mr. Kevin Casas-Zamora, former vice president of Costa Rica and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, explained that the country has not spent enough of its resources on security for the past forty years.
However, San José has made efforts to improve the training of its police force. For example, in November 2010, after the 12th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Mechanism of Tuxtla Dialogue and Agreement, Costa Rica and Colombia signed an agreement whereby Colombian authorities would train and advise the Costa Rican police in order to improve its capacity for fighting drug trafficking. Costa Rican president Laura Chinchilla insisted that the police force was not being militarized. She emphasized to the press that “the Colombian police are a civilian police; we are not asking for assistance from the Colombian Army, or from any Central American army.” In addition, the country has a special elite police unit known as Unidad Especial de Intervencion (Special Forces Unit).

In March 2011, President Chinchilla announced the creation of a special unit of the border guards. Several reports, including an article that appeared in the Nicaraguan daily El Nuevo Diario, reported that the elite guards would be financed by USD 1 million, and would soon be equipped with automatic rifles. The first unit will consist of 150 police officers and will be deployed along the country’s borders with Panama and Nicaragua. In statements made to the media, José María Tijerino, a former Minister of Public Security, explained that the elite guards will be provided with 18 “pickup” vehicles, speedboats, communication equipment and other high-tech gadgets.

In terms of political developments, this past February, President Chinchilla and the heads of the country’s judiciary and legislature agreed on a 10-year plan to tackle Costa Rica’s internal crime. The plan itself was created by the United Nations Development Program and other experts. According to reports, the goal is to improve the training of the police forces and the creation of new prison facilities. Opposition parties have criticized the plan, claiming that it offers generalized goals instead of concrete solutions. There are also concerns that, in order to carry out these objectives, the legislature will have to approve of new taxes. As part of its strategy, the Costa Rican government has created the position of Drug Czar (Comisionado Nacional Antidrogas), and appointed lawyer Mauricio Boraschi as its new head.

In spite of improvements in training and equipment, there are other problems that have yet to be tackled, including police corruption, alleged human rights abuses and low wages for police officers. In 2008, 11 officers in the city of Heredia were arrested for drug trafficking. At the time, local media reports explained that the salary of a national police officer was about USD 328 a month, a modest salary which barely allows for maintaining a family, but is not enough to protect an officer from the temptation of possibly accepting bribes. In addition, in 2009, there were also accusations that members of the Dirección de Inteligencia y Seguridad (Intelligence and Security Directorate – DIS), the police intelligence unit, had been spying on anti-government political groups.

The latest development regarding Costa Rica’s security situation was the mid-May approval of a USD 132 million loan from the Inter-American Development Bank to improve the country’s security. According to a report by Associated Press reporter Luis Alfonso Lugo, the goal of the loan is to build 2,700 cells in Costa Rican prisons and hire new staff for the national police academy.

The Costa Rican Police: Better than its neighbors
With that said, the Costa Rican Fuerza Publica, is seen as being better trained and equipped than the police forces of other Central American states. In an interview with COHA, Dr. John Booth, a regents professor at the University of North Texas, said that “I’d rather be arrested in Costa Rica than anywhere else in Central America because the general human rights climate is much better– there is less abuse by the Fuerza Publica.” Former Vice President Casas-Zamora believes that, despite the bad image the Costa Rican security forces may be experiencing, they are not perceived as a threat by the local population; “they are not regarded as a predatory police,” he explained to COHA.

Other Latin American police forces do not enjoy such a positive perception. El Salvador, for example, carried out a major crackdown on gangs through an operation known as Mano Dura (Strong Hand), which has been widely condemned by human rights organizations as being too violent and ineffective. The Guatemalan police also suffers of a bad name, particularly after the country’s chief of national police and the country’s top anti-drugs official (Baltazar Gomez and Nelly Bonilla), were arrested in March 2010 over drug trafficking connections.

U.S. Offers Support to Costa Rica
The U.S. military has recently taken a keen interest in Costa Rica’s war on drugs. In July 2010, a fleet of U.S. warships and 7,000 servicemen arrived in Costa Rica. The American naval deployment included the carrier USS Making Island, several frigates, submarines and a hospital ship. Costa Rican opposition parties like Partido Acción Ciudadana (PAC), Unidad Social Cristiana and the Frente Amplio objected to the port call, stating that “the destructive force of the ships, helicopters and marines is disproportionate to combating drug trafficking.” The Chinchilla administration was quick to respond that the U.S. forces would not be permanently deployed on Costa Rican territory or take part in security operations beyond traditional policing. However, it is worth mentioning that the close relations between Washington and San José have attracted criticism. In September 2010, outspoken Bolivian president Evo Morales quipped that Costa Rica does in fact have an army, referring to the U.S. military. The Andean president eventually issued an apology and retracted his comments.

In fact, Anne S. Andrew, U.S. Ambassador to Costa Rica, has asked that the Costa Rican legislature allow U.S. warships to make a port call. So far, the local legislative body has only allowed U.S. Coast Guard vessels to dock in Costa Rican ports. Juan Carlos Mendoza, an opposition deputy for the PAC, stated that his party opposes the docking of American naval warships because “it is not clear what other strategic military goals they have, besides combating drug trafficking.” In comments reproduced by Infodefensa.com, Paul Trivelli, a consultant for SOUTHCOM, stated that the Pentagon wants to repair Costa Rican patrol boats so they can be used in drug trafficking operations. Trivelli stated, “it is necessary to take into account that drug traffickers are now paying with cocaine and creating problems in many countries. Colombian and Mexican drug cartels are here and they must be combated [by the U.S.] as partners of Costa Rica.” San José signed a defense agreement with the U.S. in 1999, but many opposition factions would like to see it voided.

Internal Security Issues
Today, the Costa Rican police force faces several difficult dilemmas. Because of its geographical location, the country is part of a transit corridor (via land, air and sea) of drugs coming from South America to North America and, more indirectly, to Europe. In addition, an April 2011 article by Time reporter Tim Rogers explains that a booming tourism industry and immigration by Americans and Europeans have raised local consumer demand for drugs. Futhermore, there is a growing concern about the presence of Mexican cartels and even the possibility of the Colombian FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) operating within the country, which in fact, had an earlier presence in the country in the 1990s.

The December 21, 2010 edition of the highly regarded defense e-newsletter Southern Pulse quotes a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) representative, Phillip Springer, as confirming that the Mexican Sinaloa cartel had established control over drug trafficking in Costa Rica. Springer also predicted that other organizations would expand their networks in the country because of Costa Rica’s lack of a standing army and its sub-par police force. For the Costa Ricans, the major fear is that other groups like the Zetas cartel will try to enter their country and begin a turf war with the Sinaloa cartel, bringing about major levels of inter-cartel violence. This has already happened in Guatemala and the fear is that the situation will repeat itself farther south.

In recent months, there have in fact been a number of indications of a growing presence of transnational criminal organizations in the Central American country. The accurate daily publication, Latin News, has reported that Costa Rican security forces carried out several major raids in late February 2011 in Alajuela, Cartago and San José. Three Mexican citizens were arrested and up to 319 kilograms of cocaine were seized. Costa Rican officials believe that the three foreigners are members of the Sinaloa Cartel. Also in February 2011, local police found the bodies of a couple known to be drug dealers in the neighborhood of El Progreso, in the Pacific port of Puntarenas. It is believed that they were killed over a debt owed to their Mexican bosses.

Security experts explain that the flow of drugs partially operates like this: the drugs originate in Panama, go up the Pan-American Highway through Costa Rica, and enter Nicaragua through a number of remote crossings. In addition, Puntarenas port has become a major stopover for drug shipments by sea.

External Security: The Border Dispute with Managua
Costa Rica’s border dispute with Nicaragua, in one sense, has been going on for over a century, although the present conflict erupted in October 2010 when Nicaraguan workers began a dredging operation in the bordering San Juan River. This resulted in the flooding of Costa Rican territory, which effectively moved the border into Managua’s hands. In addition, several Nicaraguan troops (reportedly less than two dozen) have been stationed on a narrow stretch of the disputed land near Calero Island, whose ownership is also in dispute. Meanwhile, San José has dispatched its police to the border and raised protests to the Organization of American States (OAS) as well as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague. As the plaintiff, Costa Rica has a December 5 deadline to present its case to the ICJ, while Nicaragua will have until August 6, 2012 to present its counter-arguments.

Somewhat ironically, the Nicaraguan government has taken advantage of some errant Google Maps to justify its altering of the disputed border. While utilizing data from the U.S. State Department for its global mapping, the internet giant mistakenly transferred 2.7km of Costa Rican territory to Nicaraguan jurisdiction. In November 2010, Google apologized for the incorrect cartographic projections and has since corrected the original error. Nonetheless, in early February 2011, the Nicaraguan Institute of Territorial Studies published a new “official” map of the country, with the boundaries of the disputed territory reflecting its own cartographic interests.
In early March, in a preliminary ruling, the judges of the ICJ decided that neither country should send military or civilian personnel into the disputed zone until the ICJ gave a final ruling on who has jurisdiction. However, it allowed Costa Rica to send civilian personnel to “protect the environment.” Each country has claimed the interim ruling as a diplomatic victory. Although Costa Rica remains reluctant to give up any of the territory, President Chinchilla declared that she is willing to “normalize” relations with Nicaragua. Meanwhile, President Ortega stated that the resolution is positive and that there are no hard feelings towards the neighboring state. The resolution, from Nicaragua’s point of view, means that it can continue to divert some of the water of the San Juan River. Nevertheless, the presence of Nicaraguan troops on disputed soil remains an issue, as Costa Rica continues to demand that Nicaragua remove its troops. At the same time, Managua argues that its military is there to fight drug trafficking and organized crime. Both countries appear to want to normalize relations, but neither seems willing to give in to the other’s demands.

In early May, delegations from the two countries met in La Antigua Guatemala, Guatemala, to discuss inter-state police cooperation and how to combat drug trafficking across their borders. As reported by The Costa Rican News, the agreed protocol permits Costa Rican police boats to cross the maritime border while chasing drug-laden vessels without violating Nicaraguan sovereignty, and vice versa. The agreement states that the police forces on each side should notify the other side of pursuits across their common border. Such meetings and agreements are positive steps.
Not all of the developments for a peaceful solution have been positive, however. In early April, Nicaragua denied an international environmental commission (part of the Secretaria de la Convención sobre Humedales – Secretariat for the Convention on Wetlands) permission to assess potential environmental damage as a result of Nicaraguan dredging. As previously stated, the ICJ ruling said that Costa Rica could access the disputed area if it provided Managua with notification. Nicaragua argued that Costa Rica requested the authorization only two days in advance and did not sufficiently explain the reasons for the mission. Meanwhile, in Costa Rica, the PAC opposition party has complained to President Chinchilla about statements offered by now former Costa Rican Minister Tijerino, which insinuated that Nicaragua might resort to laying mines along its strategic delimitation and utilize its air force in order to more effectively secure the disputed territory. Such comments did not go over well with some Costa Rican politicians, as they did not help to improve relations between the two countries.

At the end of January, the results of a CID-Gallup poll showed that Costa Ricans were more worried about the incident than the citizens of Nicaragua were. According to Insidecostarica.com, 91 percent of Nicaraguans believed that the conflict was over nothing more than unclear border limits, while 73 percent of Costa Ricans were convinced that their neighbor wanted to invade the country. Interestingly, most Nicaraguans believe that Costa Rica has an army and it could invade their country, even though the “tico” security forces lack warplanes, tanks, or naval vessels to be a worthy foe.

A Regional Perspective
Costa Rica is trying to cope with several internal security issues in addition to the increased tensions with neighboring Nicaragua. It is important to consider that a state that has no military is by nature nonviolent. Simply put, it is hard to regard the country as aggressive, given its lack of traditional arsenal or weaponry and trained personnel. Should the Costa Rica-Nicaragua border dispute escalate (which is considered highly unlikely by most experts), it could be difficult for Nicaraguan President Ortega to not appear as an aggressor; considering that he has a relatively professional standing army behind his rhetoric. In December 2010, President Chinchilla declared that “I want to remind ‘esos señores del norte’ (the gentlemen of the north) that only ‘cobardes‘ (cowards) are courageous against the defenseless.”
A Costa Rican lawyer interviewed by COHA explained that the Costa Rican-Nicaraguan diferendum is very old and that he is confident that in no way is there any degree of realistic prospects for a violent confrontation to take place between the two countries. He explained that the border dispute is a historical one and both sides already know what diplomatic parlance to use without it affecting overall inter-state relations. This is particularly true for Nicaraguan President Ortega who is up for re-election and appears to be using the issue with Costa Rica to rally support for himself and divert attention from some of his unpopular domestic policies. Dr. Booth explained to COHA that, “the country that has most threatened Costa Rica in the past is, in fact, Nicaragua, but the incidents [were] in 1948, 1953, and again during the Nicaraguan insurrection in 1978-1979 when Somoza was still in power.” So far, for all the tensions in 2010 and the presence of Nicaraguan troops in the disputed territory, all experts interviewed by COHA agreed that the ongoing situation will be solved diplomatically.

The Costa Rican lawyer concluded by explaining that the Iraq War showed that in modern times, even a global power needs to provide the international community with justifications for going to war with another country. In any case, there is no justification for Nicaragua to invade an army-less state. By abolishing its military and carrying out a pacifist international role, San José has almost a bulletproof national security strategy at its disposal.

Conclusions
Synchronizing the country’s peaceful persona with its purportedly “friendly” diplomacy, helps portray Costa Rica as one of the countries least likely to act aggressively towards another neighboring state. Certainly, the Costa Rican security forces with their present armaments and training arrangements cannot be regarded as an army. So far, the Central American state has not considered re-instituting its military, although the creation of its special border guards does suggest that San José recognizes additional highly-trained security forces may be a necessity. While a re-militarization is generally not desired, it is clear that the police, border guard and other security departments of this de-militarized state have their work cut out for them.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Press Release: A Suggestion to President Hugo Chávez–Reevaluate Your Alliances by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sanchez

Press Release: A Suggestion to President Hugo Chávez–Reevaluate Your Alliances

by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sanchez
http://bit.ly/gXAhvl

March 7, 2011

As strife heated up in Libya by the end of February, rumors surfaced that long-time leader Muammar Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela. While this development later proved to be inaccurate, it is worth mentioning that one of Gaddafi’s former cabinet ministers (now part of the opposition) suggested that the Libyan head of state should leave the country for Caracas in search of asylum. As the situation in Libya deteriorates and the opposition’s military deployment seems to be foundering, Latin American scholars have openly wondered whether Hugo Chávez will offer asylum to his close Saharan ally, and if so, whether the latter will accept.




Although Caracas was unusually quiet during the early phases of Libya’s rapidly growing anti-Gaddafi manifestations, Chávez eventually declared his full support for his embattled ally. Chávez’ loyalty to Gaddafi and his rejection of calls for intervention against the Libyan leader by the U.S. may be commendable. However, the Venezuelan leader would be wise to reevaluate the basis and quality of his friendships given the recent bloodshed visited upon Libyan civilians, Gaddafi’s poor human rights record, and his bleak long-term prospects of survival.

On March 3, Chávez made a minor departure from his earlier support for Gaddafi when he expressed interest in helping mediate the conflict between the Libyan government and the insurgent regions of the country. Chávez’ vacillation between a hard and soft stance on the justice of Gaddafi’s cause can be interpreted as a turn from a pragmatic to an ideological position. However, the offer to mediate has been rejected by the Libyan opposition as well as members of NATO. The Arab League is still considering the proposal. On March 5, Venezuela’s allies in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) expressed support for a peace mission, which Chávez now suggests might be led by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter or former Cuban President Fidel Castro. Brazil, while not explicitly endorsing the ALBA proposal, has said that it favors a “negotiated solution” over the prospective military action under consideration by the U.S. and its NATO allies.

The diplomatic and military situation regarding Libya is becoming more complex by the day. But regardless of the outcome, Chávez’ early comments in support of Gaddafi served to remind the international community that—while he is the author of social visions and some beneficial programs that have served his people well—the Venezuelan leader has a history of joining up with unsavory allies who do not share his humanitarian concerns.

Chávez and Gaddafi

Chávez has maintained a strong relationship with Gaddafi both personally and at the inter-governmental level for over a decade, and has made numerous diplomatic visits to his counterpart in Tripoli. In 2004, Libya awarded Chávez with its annual Gaddafi International Human Rights Prize for “resisting imperialism.” In addition, Gaddafi named a new soccer stadium near the city of Benghazi after Chávez in 2006. In return, the Venezuelan leader presented Gaddafi with a replica of the sword of South American independence hero Simón Bolivar following the 2009 Africa-South America Summit.
Analysts have compared both Chávez and Gaddafi’s attempts to exert greater influence over their respective continents. In December 2004, Christian Science Monitor journalist Mike Ceaser argued that “Chávez’ regional push is similar to an effort by Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi in the late 1990s in Africa. The Libyan leader had visions of creating a sort of United States of Africa and spent billions of dollars in oil money to garner the support of African nations. But while the governments gladly received his cash infusions and cheap oil, his vision was never realized.” There is an undeniable parallel between the two leaders’ use of oil profits to achieve greater regional authority.

During this period of great popular upheaval throughout North Africa, Chávez is one of few heads of state, joined by Cuba’s Raúl Castro and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, to take the controversial position of backing Gaddafi. The Venezuelan leader has been quoted in the Latin News as stating “[W]e do support the government of Libya, the independence of Libya…we want peace in Libya and we are against the possibility of [foreign] intervention.” Rather than addressing the mounting bloodshed inflicted by pro-Gaddafi forces, Chávez has resorted to his usual rhetoric of criticizing “Yankee hegemony” and its ongoing military involvement in foreign states’ domestic affairs.
Chávez’s offer to assemble a so-called “Committee of Peace” to mediate the Libyan crisis has been declined by the Arab League, the international community, and the opposition forces in Libya. Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, former Libyan justice minister and head of the opposition based in Benghazi, argued that he had not been consulted regarding the initiative. Both the U.S. and France rejected the proposal due to their unwillingness to accept any diplomatic accord that leaves Gaddafi in power. It seems Gaddafi may grow more inclined to engage in negations as the looming threat of civil war eats further into oil revenues.

Chávez’ Other Controversial Friends

Gaddafi is one among several controversial heads of state who enjoys friendly ties with Chávez—Iran, Syria, and Belarus are all close Venezuelan allies. Chávez’ avowed support for these nations is often couched in language declaring a right to political self-determination, and a desire to stand together in resistance to Western dominance. The Venezuelan president opposes any and all economic sanctions levied against Iran to curb its nuclear aspirations.

Statements made on all sides show an overall air of bonhomie and Western defiance among the heads of these nations—all which have questionable human rights records. In an October 2010 visit to Venezuela, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made his admiration for Chávez known when he noted that “there are few politicians who are courageous to speak out when it’s necessary…Chávez has projected the image of a resistant Venezuela.” Chávez reinforced the mutual goodwill, stating that the “Arab civilization and our [Latin American] civilization…are being summoned in this new century to play the fundamental role of liberating the world, saving the world from the imperialism and capitalist hegemony that threaten the human species…Syria and Venezuela are at the vanguard of this struggle.” Aside of shared political support, Venezuela and Syria have joined forces in a number of joint oil-related ventures, including the Petrolera BeloVenezolana partnership under which the two nations will develop two new oilfields in Venezuela.




In addition, Chávez enjoys a vibrant friendship with Alexander Lukashenko, the Belarusian president popularly known as “Europe’s last dictator.” Over the years, Lukashenko has succeeded in crushing opposition groups and remained in power through questionable landslide reelections. In a 2006 visit to Belarus, Chávez clearly liked what he saw in Lukashenko’s government, proclaiming that “we see here a model social state like the one we are beginning to create.” After the heavily disputed December 2010 Belarusian presidential election where Lukashenko won with a dubious 79% of the vote, protests broke out and resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of over 580 individuals. Chávez declared his support for the reelected Lukashenko, describing the electoral victory as “[an] an extraordinary day for democracy…Lukashenko knows how to lead the glorious motherland to independence, putting the sacred interests of his people ahead of the narrow-minded intentions of the world powers.”

Having Friends in Low Places—Not the Change that Chávez Foreign Policy Needs
Chávez has made a career of critiquing Washington, which he defines as “imperialistic and interventionist.” While Chávez’ critiques are often unwelcome in the international community, the targets of his comments are not entirely beyond reproach when it comes to supporting foreign nations with poor human rights records. The U.S. and the EU maintain close ties with several states that can be labeled as repressive—enormous trade exists with China despite the country’s repressive internal policies. Another example would be Washington’s decades-old friendship with the recently-deposed Hosni Mubarak, an alliance based on mutual interests despite a sad history of repression in Egypt.

Yet, in the end Washington often makes good on its avowed commitment to human rights throughout the world—the U.S. ultimately changed its policy toward Egypt and called for Mubarak to step down. While a certain level of hypocrisy can undeniably be attached to the U.S. or Venezuela in lauding democracy while maintaining unsavory friendships, Chávez seems to be particularly bold in his support of nations that have been brutally repressive with their populaces—Libya, Iran, and Belarus serving as prime examples. Friends of the Bolivarian revolution have tirelessly urged Chávez to focus more on domestic affairs and tone down his attempts to play a greater role on the world stage. Such requests seem to go unheard as the Venezuelan leader continues to exert greater influence in international affairs and foster alliances against the perceived Western hegemony.

It is hard to believe that Chávez could be so blind as to truly believe that an individual like Belarus’ Lukashenko could possibly win with 79% of the popular vote, despite the ensuing nationwide protests. Perhaps Chávez is comparing other such heads of state to himself; the Venezuelan leader remains very popular in his country and may be naïve enough to believe Lukashenko enjoys such a wide margin of political support. Perhaps it could be argued that Chavez is turning a blind eye to the grave human rights concerns in his allies’ countries in order to pursue important geopolitical influence. The U.S. has certainly done the same throughout history by propping up despotic leaders who were sympathetic to U.S. interests.

Currently, an opposition in Venezuela is mobilizing to protest Chávez’ support for Gaddafi despite the brutal repression in Libya. Factions of the Venezuelan opposition have cautioned that Chávez is putting Venezuela in the uncomfortable position of being an apologist for governments repudiated by the international community.

Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics

The suggestion that Gaddafi might choose to flee to Venezuela to seek asylum is not particularly far-fetched, considering Venezuela’s history of harboring ousted politicians. Vladimiro Montesinos, former Peruvian intelligence chief under the Alberto Fujimori, fled to Venezuela when Fujimori’s government was crumbling. Chávez publicly claimed ignorance to Montesinos’ whereabouts until international pressure forced the Venezuelan leader to extradite him after hiding for eight months in that country.

Although extending asylum to his international brothers-in-arms may sound like a good idea, Chávez’ government will find itself progressively more isolated if it continues down this path. Venezuela’s oil reserves will guarantee business ties with a multitude of nations in need of oil, but Chávez may end up in a scenario of dwindling political allies. Chávez’ offer to play mediator is an interesting sidestep after his initial comments of seemingly unconditional support for Gaddafi. Nevertheless, his diplomatic capital seems to be low considering the rejection of his offer.

For a leader like Chávez, whose political career has featured a valid emphasis on South-South cooperation, his choice of allies, and his willingness to defend even those currently committing human rights violations like Libya’s Gaddafi, show a dubious commitment to basic human rights standards. Despite some episodes of blatant authoritarianism in Venezuela, such as censorship of independent TV stations, Chávez has not become the full-scale, oppressive dictator that his foes often characterize him to be. Nevertheless, continued ties with the likes of Belarus’ Lukashenko and Libya’s Gaddafi will inevitably curtail any expansion of Venezuelan diplomatic influence.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sanchez
Posted 07 Mar 2011
Word Count: 1900