The End of Chavismo

by Carlos L. Diaz

Living conditions in Venezuela have been on a steady decline since the death of caudillo turned demigod, Hugo Chavez. Apparently the statements made by Diosdado Cabello, the gang’s head minion and president of the National Assembly, were spot on. Back in March, a few weeks before the elections,  Cabello warned the opposition about their prospects after the death of “El Comandante,” he told them that Chavez was the “retaining wall” for his “crazy ideas.” Now that the wall is underground and Cabello’s puppet, Nicolas Maduro, is president the “crazy ideas” and their consequences can be seen in action everywhere.

We have learned that basic products like eggs, sugar, milk, flour, and, most recently, toilet paper have become scarce in the country with the world’s largest oil reserve. The cause for this scarcity is simple, the government has implemented price controls on the price of goods. Many times the price is below that of production and producers refuse to lose money. Now the Catholic Church is saying that it is having a hard time finding the wine it needs to perform mass, this time the scarcity lies solely on the government’s shoulders again.

It turns out that other things are rapidly vanishing as well. Since Chavez took power in 1998, the Venezuelan press has been losing freedom and today it has lost most of it. The last bastion of anti-government rhetoric was Globovisión, but that changed recently. The sale of Globovisión to investors with close ties to the regime was the coup  de grâce to the opposition. Friday night one of the network’s hosts was fired after transmitting a speech by opposition leader Henrique Capriles–yes, broadcasting Capriles is now a crime. When political tactics have failed in silencing different opinions, Cabello has turned to techniques that are more fitting to his bully personality. There have been various reports and videos of members of parliament being physically assaulted inside the assembly for speaking against the regime. When it comes to silencing voices, the current Venezuelan government even attacks its own. Recently a video was released in which Mario Silva, Chavismo’s favorite journalist, is heard talking ill of Cabello with a Cuban intelligence officer. On his next appearance Silva claimed that his show would not continue, citing a health problem as the cause.

This state of affairs gives hope to many that Chavismo will finally die and democracy will be established, or reestablished, depending on your view of the past. It is true that the leadership of the government is in disarray and some fault lines seem to be emerging, but there is no clear sign that the end is near. The death of this regime will probably come, but in a slow manner. Popular support has been dwindling and the recent shortages only contribute to this trend. Other indicators which hit people where it hurts most, like crime, inflation, and corruption, have also been on the rise.

All of us who promote and support the virtues of pluralism and liberal democracy should pay close attention to the developments in Venezuela. Nicolas Maduro’s six year term seems to be headed for an early end. What or who replaces him is the key to knowing what the future of Venezuela will look like. I think that Venezuela can come out of this looking like other Latin American countries, such as Peru, Uruguay, Brazil and Chile. In those nations the link between the left and totalitarianism has been erased. They have elected leaders who are avowed leftist but have no dictatorial aspirations, as a matter of fact they are defenders of democracy and even free market policies.

Whether the U.S Intervenes or not Syria is Doomed

by Carlos L. Diaz

  For over two years there has been a civil war going on in Syria. This war is being fought between the brutal and ruthless regime of Bashar al-Assad and various groups of rebels with different ideologies and goals. The diversity of these groups is easily seen by looking at two of them, the Free Syrian Army – a group with ideas for a new Syria that are democratic and somewhat secular – and Jabhat al-Nusra – a rebel group with close ties to Al-Qaeda whose idea for Syria is to reestablish the Caliphate and Islamic law. The bloody conflict has taken the lives of more than seventy thousand people and has produced more than three million refugees. These two atrocious numbers along with claims that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons have restarted a debate in the United States. At the center of this debate is a key question: What should the United States do? There are different answers to that question. Some, like United States Senator John McCain have said that airstrikes, arming the rebels, and creating a no-fly zone are the answer. President Obama has been quiet and cautious on this issue and seems to be reluctant to intervene. The American public seems to be taking the president’s position. In a recent poll by the Huffington Post and YouGov, support for any kind of military action by the United States in Syria is extremely low.

John McCain’s position in this issue seemed somewhat appealing to me at first, but I was not convinced. The Senator claims that what he is asking the administration to do is not unprecedented. He points to the examples of Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya, as instances in which no-fly zones and U.S airstrikes helped end conflicts and saved lives. McCain also supports his argument for intervention by reminding us that a blow to Assad will be a tremendous blow to the Iranian government. When asked about putting troops on the ground, the senator answered by saying that this was a bad idea because it could create a backlash. He cites the recent airstrikes carried out by Israel in Syria as evidence that the country’s defenses are not as strong as they seem. He also supports arming the rebels and claims that if the chemical weapons are not secured they could end up in the hands of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.

People like John McCain are telling the President to do something which can produce a completely different outcome than the one they intend. The indiscriminate targeting of civilians, the use of chemical weapons, the ethnic cleansing experienced in some areas, and the threat of transfer of weapons to Hezbollah are good enough reasons to intervene in the Syrian conflict. What advocates of military intervention are missing is the reality that there are very few positive outcomes for this conflict, as a matter of fact, things could get even worse after Assad falls. In an article in the New Yorker, Dexter Filkins talks about some of these outcomes. If Assad falls, fighting will continue among rebel groups who have conflicting ideologies, religious beliefs, and ethnic loyalties. This point is illustrated by the militias which exist in Syria, there are Druze militias, Islamic militias, Christian militias, Kurdish militias, and the government is controlled by Alawites. Toppling the Syrian regime could lead to ethnic cleansing by the Sunnis, which are the majority, this could then lead to refugees fleeing to Lebanon or Jordan- a large number of refugees could have destabilizing effects for the entire region.

On the other hand, inaction on the part of the United States is already having serious consequences and as time goes by the situation worsens. If President Obama does not act, no one knows how many more innocent people will die, or how many chemical weapons will make their way to Hezbollah’s arsenal. In the case of Syria, some experts agree that only a full-scale military invasion can do the job. The U.S did execute a full-scale military invasion of Iraq and shortly after it left, the country seems to be in the brink of another civil war. This means that if the U.S were to invade Syria and avoid another Iraq, it should leave a permanent force in that country- a very unappealing idea.

What has been happening in Syria for the past two years is nothing less than heartbreaking, which helps explain the debate going on about military action by American forces. It is increasingly looking like the outcome of this war will not be a positive one, regardless of whether the United States intervenes or remains on the sidelines. If it intervenes and overthrows Assad but does not stay, a power vacuum will emerge, one which the Al-Qaeda elements that have created strongholds in major cities will exploit in order to convert Syria into a rogue state from which they can operate freely. The same thing could occur if the U.S simply supplies arms to the rebels and they overthrow the regime. If the U.S simply maintains its inaction attitude, the regime is still likely to fall and Islamic fighters will have more time to solidify their future in Syria. If Assad remains in power fighting is likely to increase and more innocent civilians will be killed or displaced. Inaction will also give Assad time to transfer weapons to groups like Hezbollah.