Sunday, October 4, 2009

There Is Much to Do: Interview With Hugo Chavez

There Is Much to Do: An Interview With Hugo Chavez

 

By Greg Grandin

The Nation

September 27, 2009

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091012/grandin

 

Three years ago, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez

caused a stir when, in a speech to the United Nations

General Assembly, he called then-US President George W.

Bush a "devil." "I can still smell the sulfur," he

said, standing at the same podium where, a day earlier,

Bush had given his own address. Last week, Chavez once

again followed a US president in the UN podium, but

this time he caught a whiff of something

different--"the smell of hope." In the following

interview--conducted at Venezuela's mission to the

United Nations in New York--Hugo Chavez talks about his

relationship with Barack Obama and what his election

could mean for the United States, as well as about the

Honduran crisis, plans to extend the Pentagon's

presence in Colombia, domestic successes and

challenges, and the legacy of Brazilian president Luiz

Inacio Lula da Silva.

 

Greg Grandin: I'd like first to ask you about the

Honduran crisis. Manuel Zelaya--the president

overthrown in a coup on June 28--is currently in the

Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, having returned to

the country in secret. What happens next? What can be

done to force those who carried out the coup to negotiate?

 

Hugo Chavez: It's not for me to decide what the next

step is. Zelaya has called for dialogue. That was the

first thing he did as soon as he entered the Brazilian

embassy. The coup-plotters have responded with

repression, death and terror. I believe that the brutal

nature of this coup will lead to its failure.

 

GG: But how do you explain the intransigence of Roberto

Micheletti, the president installed by the coup? There

is about a month to go before the scheduled November 29

presidential elections, and whether Zelaya is returned

to office or not, we know that one of two candidates

from either the National or Liberal parties--both

conservatives--is going to win. So why wouldn't the de

facto government want a negotiated solution, allowing a

symbolic return of Zelaya to the presidency for a short

period in order to legitimate the outcome of the election?

 

HC: Noam Chomsky has a book, which I read for the first

time when I was in Spain, called Fear of Democracy.

There is your answer. Fear of democracy. In Honduras,

they had a sham democracy. It was run by elites, what

was called a liberal democracy but in reality was a

false democracy. Honduras has been governed by a small

group that for a long time has been supported by the

United States, which used Honduras as a military base

against other countries of Central America, against

Cuba, turning the country into a colony. Manuel Zelaya

came from the ranks of the Liberal Party, he entered

the government as an intelligent young man, breathing

in the new winds blowing from South America, the winds

of change, I would say even winds of revolution. It is

different from the revolution of the 1970s. This one is

carried out not with rifles but by a peaceful people,

it is a democratic revolution. Montesquieu said that

men needed to be able to ride the wave of events. And

that's what Zelaya did. With his cowboy hat he climbed

up and rode the wave. And as soon as he broached the

question of convening a constitutional assembly to

consult with the people about refounding the republic,

the political class that has governed all this time,

the Honduran bourgeoisie, became frightened. That is

the fear of democracy.

 

GG: What is the importance of events in Honduras for

the rest of the continent? There are signs that the

right, the transnational right, is regrouping, and that

it sees Honduras as the first battle in a larger

struggle to roll back the left.

 

HC: They are going to fail. Of course, it is important

not to underestimate the continental right. It has gone

on the offensive in many places. They attacked

Venezuela, hard, with the support of Bush, as you know.

They attacked in Brazil, trying to destabilize Lula so

the Workers Party couldn't govern. They failed. They

attacked Bolivia, hard, with all the venom of a

serpent, in an effort to overthrow Evo Morales. They

failed. They attacked Ecuador, and Rafael Correa is

still there. Then, in Honduras, they attacked what they

believed to be--and in a way was--the weakest flank.

But they were in for a surprise. For three months, the

Honduran people have been in the street, with

unprecedented strength. That's what they found on the

supposed weak flank. So I think the continental right

should well consider its next step. They haven't even

been able to consolidate their power in Honduras,

notwithstanding that they enjoy the monolithic unity of

the Honduran bourgeoisie and the support of the

military, so if they decide to attack again in South

America, they will fail. It is a battle, a game of

chess, that we are fighting everyday. But the

continental right has lost its way, it doesn't have a

project for governance. In the United States, the

government is bailing out banks, intervening in the

economy, yet in Latin America, the right continues to

talk about "free markets." It's totally outdated, they

don't have arguments, they don't have any sense.

 

GG: But they will have seven US military bases in Colombia.

 

HC: It seems as if there are two Barack Obamas. And

hopefully, the Obama who spoke today at the United

Nations will win out in the end. But it was Obama who

also approved the seven military bases in Colombia.

Nobody can think otherwise, because who is the

president, who is the commander-in-chief of the

military if not Obama? If Venezuela decided to send

troops to another country, or to set up a military base

in Puerto Rico, it would be me, as president, making

the decision. So Obama is full of contradictions, and

hopefully the people of the United States, you, the

thinking public, need to push your president. If I were

I New Yorker, I would say, Mr. President, why are you

putting military bases in Colombia? I said to Obama in

Trinidad [at the Summit of the Americas in April] what

I said to Bill Clinton ten years ago--one could at

least talk to Clinton--and the same I told George W.

Bush--only one time, because one couldn't talk about

anything with him--"let's look for peace in Colombia."

Hopefully the people of the United States will demand

from its president, and its government, and its

congress, to stop with the politics of war throughout

the world. Obama said some troublesome things today,

veiled threats. I have the phrase here, if I am not

mistaken, that the US "will know how to defend the

interests of all." Does this mean that tomorrow Obama

is going to be able to say that he has invaded Iran in

order to defend the interests of Venezuela, or of

Mexico, or of Algeria? No, Venezuelan interests are to

be defended by Venezuela. The US should defend the

interests of the US. Where are the US people, where are

the intellectuals, who could put limits on their government?

 

GG: Since President Obama has taken office, has US

policy toward Venezuela changed since the Bush years?

 

HC: Yes, for the worst.

 

GG: For the worst?

 

HC: Yes, for the worst. The seven Colombian military

bases. They are a threat to Venezuela. Why hasn't

Obama--and today at the UN he listed all the steps he

has taken [to improve relations with the rest of the

world]--eliminated the Fourth Fleet? It was Bush that

re-established the Fourth Fleet, a threat to all of

Latin America, with the commander of the fleet saying

that its purpose was to patrol South America's rivers.

We are all worried about this in Latin America, and

each country has expressed concern in its own way,

Venezuela, Bolivia, even Brazil. Now with these seven

military bases, the Colombian conflict is going to be

spilling out across South America. Hopefully Obama will

listen to other voices, and not just repeat what the

Pentagon says, those same advisers of Bush, the war makers.

 

GG: Do you think it ironic that the Right in the US now

uses the same tactics and rhetoric to attack Obama that

the Venezuelan right uses against your government? Did

you follow what happened just two weeks ago, with

Obama's planned address to schoolchildren, when they

attacked him in terms very similar to the criticism

used against your education reform?

 

HC: Ah, yes, I read about that, that it was socialist indoctrination.

 

GG: Exactly.

 

HC: If only it were socialism! I believe they are

scared. And this fear is dangerous. Because independent

of whatever reasoned criticism we might have of Obama--

such as that concerning the Fourth Fleet, which is an

effort to make his actions be coherent with his words--

here within the United States, the recalcitrant right

is scared. And they hate him. First, because he is black...

 

GG: This is a debate now within the United States...

 

HC: Jimmy Carter is saying it. And hopefully Obama

won't be assassinated because of it. But Obama has also

taken up the theme of social reform almost as if it

were a point of honor, because he made the pledge

during the campaign. And also, as Obama knows, out of

necessity. Everyday there is more poverty in the United

States, everyday there is more uncared-for people who

don't have medicine, doctors, or even education. This

country is eating itself from the inside. What's

happening to the American, how do you say it, Dream [in

English]. I believe in the American Dream, but the

dream of Martin Luther King Jr., not the dream of

consumerism, unbridled capitalism or individualism,

that craziness, that's not a dream it's a nightmare.

Now, the recalcitrant right attacks Obama hard, calling

him a socialist...

 

GG: Even a Nazi.

 

HC: Yes, a Nazi! When we met in Trinidad and shook

hands, the right roasted him here for doing so:

"Chavez! Why are you greeting Chavez?!" Imagine the

craziness just for saying hello. It's irrational. The

right here is scared that Obama is awakening a popular

current in the people of the US, and they are trying to

stop it. Where it is going to wind up, who knows? But I

have a question, where is the US people? Where are the

people, when their leader tries to propose something in

benefit of the people? The people need to go out into

the streets, not just to vote but to passionately

protest, to support the president, so he can fulfill

his promise. Where are the people?

 

GG: It is the right that is in the street.

 

HC: Yes, the right has taken over the street. There is

much to do. Those who represent progressive thought--

and I include you--need to know that without the

people, there is no democracy. The people of the United

States need to wake up, wake up and help construct a

new country, a great nation, a true democracy. Obama

can be an opportunity, and you need to support him with

great force, in order to contain those that ferociously

oppose whatever change. Like in Honduras. It's the same

situation. The progressive community of the United

States needs to support Obama to achieve change, and

then it has to demand more change, and more change, and

more change.

 

GG: There is a sense among progressives in the US that

the Bolivarian Revolution has reached its limits, at

least domestically. They have heard much about your

anti-imperialism and your efforts to form a multipolar

world, but they know less about what is happening in

the country, the successes and failures in advancing a

"protagonist democracy."

 

HC: Many political analysts--the majority of them

spokespeople for the right--along with the media--also

dominated by the right--go around creating the idea

that the government of the Bolivarian Revolution is on

the point of collapse. The fall of the price of oil

affected us in a way, but not fundamentally, not at the

roots or the base of the process. We are passing

through stages. We are starting the second decade of

the revolution, and are now approaching a new political

horizon. The communal councils for example, continue to

extend, continue to grow, and they have evolved into a

more ambitious project, a socialist commune. We are

leaving behind--slowly, but steadily, not in a day, a

year or five years--oil dependency, advancing the

industrialization of the country. If some people here

believe--people of good faith, readers of The Nation--

that the Bolivarian Revolution is exhausted, tell them

that it isn't. You can tell them to come and see for

themselves. Venezuela is of course a country that has

problems, and its revolutionary government has

failures, and has made mistakes, but it is an ongoing process.

 

GG: Venezuela has impressively reduced poverty, inequality, unemployment...

 

HC: We have achieved nearly all of the Millennium

Development Goals. I was here almost ten years ago, in

the Millennium Summit, and they even assigned me the

task--I wasn't yet considered the devil, though they

were undoubtedly still evaluating me--to coordinate one

of the roundtables. I was there for a few days, day

after day working and talking with Clinton, Fidel was

there too. I remember the day Fidel shook Clinton's

hand, Clinton and Fidel, and I was witness to their

short conversation. We had meetings with delegates from

Africa, Asia, from China, Russia. Now, we proposed some

goals [to reduce poverty]. But today, at the global

level, we are poorer than ten years ago. And not only

in absolute numbers but relative numbers. But in

Venezuela, poverty continues to go down. Unemployment

continues to go down. The minimum wage is the highest

in Latin America. Social security continues to reach

more and more people. The standard of living has risen

in Venezuela and according to the measures used by the

United Nations Development Program we are in the top

rank of human development. We are far from our goals,

but we have left the inferno. Attention to the

excluded, literacy, Venezuela is now a territory free

of illiteracy. Poverty has been halved from it was ten

years ago, which was one of the Millennium Goals.

Access to potable water, we passed that Millennium goal

a long time ago. In education, we have doubled the

number of children going to school. It is possible to

leave poverty, it is possibly to pull people out of

misery. We call this socialism. In Obama's

reflections--the ones I have heard--there are elements

of this thought. We don't call it socialist, but it is

a revindication of public policy.

 

GG: What you have achieved inspires many. But can you

talk about the failures, or the concrete plans you have

to address ongoing problems, such as inflation, crime

and insecurity?

 

HC: On every front, there are failures and still much

work to be done. Right now we are in the process of

what we call the three Rs: revision, rectification and

re-starting. In health care, in education, improving

services, correcting mistakes. We are increasing

participatory democracy, protagonist democracy.

Delinquency is a global problem, not an exclusive

Venezuelan one. Corruption is hurting us. I believe

Obama talked this morning of the problem of corruption

in developing countries. But here, in the US, there is

a lot of corruption. In Europe there is corruption.

Capitalism is the reign of corruption. Everything that

happened with the big corporations, the big banks, the

big insurance companies. What is it? Corruption.

Corruption of values, fraud against the people, theft

from the citizenry. Now, when I mentioned earlier about

a new stage, 2010 to 2020, I was talking about above

all a project that had to solve these problems, this weakness.

 

GG: But how, exactly? Can you give some concrete

examples, say, in reference to violence and public

security? One recent report identifies Caracas--in

terms of homicide rates--as the second most violent

city in the world, after Ciudad Juarez.

 

HC: Ciudad Juarez?

 

GG: Ciudad Juarez.

 

HC: I think there are cities in the United States that

are more violent. I don't want to minimize the problem.

Look, we are attacking the problem with a lot of

energy, with distinct programs. For example, a little

while ago we enacted legislation restructuring the

National Police, because historically, going back many

years, the police department was penetrated by

delinquents. So we are trying to cleanse the police.

But at the bottom of this is a cultural problem. Out-

of-control crime, in all these countries, is part of a

moral crisis. Ask yourself, how many children right at

this moment are watching violence on TV, on the

Internet? Music that encourages drug use and

irresponsible sex? This is a product of the capitalist

model, the culture of capitalism, hyper-individualism.

 

It's part of the great crisis of the time. It requires

a new world, with new values. As Jesus Christ says,

"love others as yourself." If you love others as

yourself, you are incapable of hurting others. GG: One

last question. Since 2003, the relationship between you

and Brazilian president Luiz InA¡cio Lula da Silva has

been fascinating. Working together in the field of

international relations, you have led what some have

described as South America's second independence, or at

least have brought about the end of the Monroe

Doctrine. But in about a year, that relationship is

going to end, when Lula's second, and last,

presidential term expires. We are going to be in a

"post-Lula" world. Have you given any thought how this

is going to affect your foreign policy, since you have

worked together in a very...

 

HC: Closely.

 

GG: Yes, closely.

 

HC: Coordinated.

 

GG: Yes, coordinated.

 

HC: Lula is a great person, a great compaA±ero. They

tried to create a rift between us, but it failed. I

have the hope that after Lula comes someone who will

continue along the same path. Lula has managed to put

his own stamp on Brazil. Brazil had lost its way, it

had fallen into the hands of, well, neoliberal

governments. It lacked leadership. About four or five

years ago, Brazil was at the point of losing its

petroleum reserves. But no longer. Lula rescued [the

state oil company] Petrobras, he invested resources,

and recovered the independence of Brazil. The country

no longer depends on the International Monetary Fund.

Brazil's monetary reserve has grown exorbitant due to

exports. The attitude of Brazil toward its small

neighbors has greatly changed, toward Paraguay,

Ecuador, Bolivia, the smallest and weakest countries,

and above all because of Lula. This is Lula's great

legacy, and it is going to be difficult to change. Many

things will change. Someone will take office with his

or her own stamp, own style. But Brazil is now

standing. With Venezuela, there will be changes, in the

relationship we have, in the strategic alliance. But I

have much faith that the person who comes next will be

a man or woman of the left, from the Workers Party, who

will continue to try to meet the challenge presented by

Lula at his inauguration.

 

Remember, the 2002 coup in Venezuela was not just

against me but against Lula, who was a presidential

candidate at the time. It was meant as a demonstration

effect. They were telling the Brazilian people, look,

if you elect Lula, this is what could happen to you.

So, when Lula was inaugurated on January 1, 2003, I

went. I'll never forget it. We were in a terrible

battle at home, of destabilization, economic and

petroleum sabotage, terrorism, threats of more coups.

But I wanted to go to Brasilia. There, Lula told us

that we needed a project that covered all of South

America. He knew that this challenge needed to go

beyond Lula, beyond Chavez, and beyond Evo. When each

of us are gone, the people are left standing, and South

America is South America, with its own voice.

___________________

 

Greg Grandin, a professor of history at New York

University, is the author, most recently, of

Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford's Forgotten

Jungle City (Metropolitan). He serves on the editorial

committee of the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA).

No comments: