In victory we eat

This morning finally Leopoldo Lopez, reported not being able to stand up anymore, has let it be known that he ended his hunger strike and asked that others end their own as well. Too many are heralding the calling for elections a great victory for Lopez, but I beg to differ. A victory it is but it lays elsewhere, associated to Leopoldo Lopez, make no mistake.

Let's look at the "electoral victory" first.

One of the petitions of the hunger strike was for the regime to set once and for all an election date. This should have been done long ago and it was clear that the regime was delaying it. The reasons were many, from picking the date that would favor its interest best, to give them time to organize an internationally palatable electoral fraud, to find an excuse not to call an election. That a date is set is a set back for the regime. But again, make no mistake, in the next 5 months many things may still happen to sabotage the election, the more negative polls are.

Another important aspect of the election is that they require a close international monitoring considering that the regime will do the impossible to cheat. That observation cannot be only a "accompaniment" on election day, that is, electoral tourists that come for the election day to see that all takes place in some sort of order, unable to check for possible fraud and forbidden to make any comments until the final results are proclaimed. In short, worth repeating, electoral tourism.

What we need is a real observation of all aspects of the process and that requires that in the coming weeks specialists from the OAS, UN and EU start visiting and have access to the different mechanisms and be allowed to talk to the different parties. Yesterday Venezuela seems to have accepted only UNASUR, the partial South American association that has time and again taken the side of the regime refusing to look at electoral fraud. We are not even sure if they will come as observers or tourists. Same difference I suppose for them.

Hence that Lopez "victory" on elections is far from being complete. Or even partial if you ask me, But it has been the least damaging way the regime found to end the hunger strike. And for this we should celebrate.

The victory of Leopoldo Lopez is elsewhere. Since he has been arrested over a year ago his actions and his resistance have clearly established that the regime is a dictatorship controlled from the radicals from Cuba. Apparently there is talk of a division between the radical, Fidelistas, and the ones who want to negotiate with the US, Raulistas (?). The Fidelistas would want Leopoldo dead.

Lopez courageous victories come from demonstrating that his trial is a political trial through a kangaroo court; that his detention conditions are abysmal (compared to those that Chaevz had, for example); on how his political allies have been hunted down without mercy without even a fake excuse; on the deeply calumnious nature of the regime; on how this one flouts any international norm, and basic human rights. The victory of Leopoldo Lopez has made it impossible for democratic leaders to have their picture taken with the regime, except for those corrupt enough like Lula or Rousseff. That Maduro claimed an ear infection not to go an visit the Pope is due to Lopez actions and hunger strike.

Dealings with the Venezuelan regime are now left to underlings or operators like Shannon meeting with impossible characters like Cabello because there is no other option. Venezuela is a pariah state and Lopez victory has been to force the world to recognize that fact. That does not mean the world soon will do something effective about it, but as long as all the people that count do not agree on that qualification for the Venezuelan regime, nothing substantive can be done.

For this, in my book, the sacrifice of Lopez was phenomenal and he deserves our gratitude.

Read more

Was Leopoldo Lopez hunger strike discussed in Port au Prince?

As I was sitting to write this entry where one of my intentions was to pat myself in the back, I run through a just out the presses article by Jackson Diehl from the WaPo. To all what has been discussed lately about the (in)famous meeting between Shannon and Cabello Diehl adds the lone noteworthy data:

the U.S. diplomacy has a modest goal: to prevent López’s death. Shannon told Cabello the continuance of the dialogue between the two governments depended on López remaining alive and being convinced to end his hunger strike, sources said.


There is no reason to doubt "sources" since the story is believable, the more so that Mr. Diehl is generally well informed. The point is that what I wrote on June 15 seems to be becoming the vox populi. Demanding a grand inquiry on Shannon, or claiming that he was cornered, "surprised", by a wily Cabello is not holding. The meeting took place because it was sought. I used the term realpolitik and this one is reprised everywhere, and not only in Diehl's note. Not that I was the first one to use it, simply it is the term to be used by anyone with a minimum of knowledge on how the world works. Unfortunately.

The fact of the matter is that Venezuela is a problem big enough that negotiations are a must because the alternative, not negotiating and waiting to see what happens is even worse. And the only party one can negotiate with are those in office. The opposition is offering a pitiful spectacle as it is even unable to offer a unified front to save Leopoldo Lopez from the consequences of his hunger strike. True, the hunger strike has damaged the regime greatly and forced outside countries to demand more from the regime than lip service. But on the other hand the opposition has revealed itself to be unable to present even a coherent group to negotiate. Even if the US and the regime and Brazil wanted to include the MUD in the negotiation, who would they include?

And so it goes while the epic of Leopoldo Lopez unfolds toward a not necessarily positive ending. So many are aware of that that voices are coming from many Venezuelan sectors to beg him to stop his strike. Because his sacrifice would be useless? Because so many could not care less?

Finally I would be remiss not to mention that among some folks the fate of Lopez is in the hands of Fidel's followers who feel betrayed by Raul and what not. Refusing to budge on the Leopoldo affair they are willing to let it go to the bitter end if it helps them in their fight against the US and Diosdado Cabello negotiating with the US. Whether this is true is not the point, the point is that being able to entertain such thoughts is a terrible confirmation on how degraded Venezuela and chavismo have become, that political prisoners fate is decided elsewhere...

Read more

Panama OAS summit for dummies

OK, real quick.

The OAS summit, for Venezuela's Maduro regime it was supposed to be the trashing of Obama and the US.

For the US and Cuba it was going to be the start of something and a positive PR for both battered leaders.

The results?

Winners?

No winners. There are never clear winners in an OAS summit because of the nature of the participants there, all prima donne that will always find a way to say that "yes, they did this and that but I told them so" and make this pass as a dramatic victory for home consumption. The saddest part here is that it tends to work....

However there are two winning moments: 1) when Raul Castro says that the US is horrible but whatever happened was not Obama's fault and 2) when they both sat together in front of cameras to chat a little bit. From here to eternity there is a long way, and even from here to get some sort of real agreement there is quite a way as the US Congress will never vote any treaty that does not include a clear improvement of human rights in Cuba. So we cannot call Casto and Obama winners but their moments under the flashes have erased any other "winning" moment at the summit, Better, it made worse the loser moments...

Losers!

Let's start with the minor losers. The tirades of Cristina Kirchener was not even attended by Obama I understand. The ones of Correa and Evo were, well, tired and out of the point considering the momentous tectonic shift further north.  In short the axis of evil-ALBA looked passé and lonely.  Obama had made sure the day before that CARICOM and Central America would remain at the very least neutral. Even Dilma for the first time in a pre summit interview started putting a tiny bit of distance with Maduro.

The loser was, of course, and by far, Maduro and Venezuela. Clearly the least influential country of our hemisphere (even Canada weighs much more by blocking by itself a final declaration without remorse, I understand).

Maduro did not even get to have Obama sit down to listen while he ranted about Miami plots.

Maduro did not get to deliver his 10 million petitions.

Maduro did not get to have the OAS rage at Obama and the US.

Maduro was caught bringing a double for him and his wife. Nobody knows why. Some suggest it was to fake an assassination attempt.

In fact Maduro did not get anything.  Worse, at the very end, it seems that it was Obama, like an afterthought, who in fact sort of cornered Maduro to let him have it. No photo we know of at this point. Of course chavismo is pretending that this is a great victory.  Never mind the ridicule from months of insults to rejoice about 5 minutes in between doors, But even if it were true that Maduro had cornered Obama it would look more like the stalker that finally got after the star victim he had been tracking all day long...

There, I think I got it all.

Read more

Preparing the OAS Panama summit, at Raul's good will

Now, before anyone says anything I am a great fan of Andres Oppenheimer from the Miami Herald whose columns and books on Latin America are a must read. But his latest OpEd piece has a je ne sais quoi off.

At first glance his argument is impeccable; Obama should use the next variety of meetings in the Americas to start a rapprochement with some of the countries in difficulty, mainly ailing Brazil (the biggie is OAS in Panama April 10) . Certainly since September 11 the US has been distracted from Latin America and others have step in to pick up the slack, namely China buying and pushing up the commodities market.

However if it takes two to tango, it also takes at least 2 NOT to tango. This blog has noted that the Afghanistan war and the much more questionable one in Iraq have been a huge distraction on what should have been the US real interests, namely South America its nearest neighbor. Certainly this helped a lot the chavista regime to take hold. But it was also good news for other assorted lefts that could count on US silence no matter what they did to reach office.

Yet the distancing of the US was also met by a deliberate distancing from the South. After all, someone like Lina Ron in Venezuela may not have risen to fame, and to perpetrate the damage she did, had she not been burning an US flag in front of the US Caracas embassy within hours of September 11.  She was extreme but she was not alone in smiling at a US disaster. One could have certainly expected most of "the West" to participate in the anti Taliban operation, but that did not stop countries from other continents of Asia and Africa to send in some support. South of the Rio Grande I think only Salvador expressed support of any type. I understand that Afghanistan was more of NATO problem than an OAS problem but that Cardoso or Fox were not more participative is kind of a mystery. If I am wrong in my recollections, please, do correct me.

The fact of the matter is that the US did try to have some links. For example George Bush braved the continent to have diner at a Montevideo steak house while in Buenos Aires Chavez paid for an anti US meeting. But in the end people like Lula were delighted at the opportunity offered by US pusillanimity to flex Brazilian imperialism through proxies like UNASUR, Chavez and others.

Poor Obama did not have much of chance. He tried to ingratiate himself at first, even receiving an idiotic book from Chavez at the Trinidad summit. In the Honduras fiasco he tried to see things Latin America way. To which result? Now, in his lameduckness I suppose that Obama is recentering the US interests where they truly belong, or at least where the US can hope for some significant influence or even alliances.  In 2015 what matters to the US are its partners Europe/Japan/Aussieland/likewise; middle East; and Central America and the Caribbean, the source of great immigration problems. Even Israel seems on its way to be demoted from numero 1. In South America the lone interest seems to be Colombia and I even start doubting it now that Santos seems to bent on sabotaging Uribe's successes while ignoring Venezuela narco state.

Obama's administration has the right perspective, at least it seems to be from this blogger point of view. In 6 years South America has been unable to make any significant rapprochement with the US (outside of the Pacific Alliance, still to prove itself, and a market thing rather than espousing US "ideology"). Not only that but Obama has found no support against the insults from Chavez, no understanding on how Venezuela having become a drug highway is damaging to US interests, no reprobation from the Venezuela financial corruption spilling over. Enough is enough and Obama has simply demanded that South America do its share, to straighten up their act.  Meanwhile some political capital is spent, wisely or not, on Cuba and the Caribbean basin. The rest may go to hell. After all the rich in South America keep buying at a steady pace Real Estate in the US, so where is the problem?

That is why when I read Oppenheimer question: Has the United States given up on South America? I can only but smile. I think that it is too easy to put all the blame on the US. Indeed the guilt of the failed relationship is to be shared in equal parts (I think less on the US actually).  And when I read "It’s a new regional scene. Obama should keep this in mind, and try to reset ties with South America — especially with financially ailing Brazil — at the summit." it sounds to me that the US should be the forgiving one, or that rather Oppenheimer in spite of, or because of, all his years in the US feels like the jilted party.

No matter what Caracas would like us to believe, the US is not anymore the imperial power it used to be. There is only so much resources available and it is fair for the US to start dealing only with amenable interested parties. If South America wants a better relationship with the US it is up to them, not to Obama or his successors. And it is not by promoting UNASUR, electing Almagro at the OAS or refusing to put pressure on Maduro that South America is acting like the responsible partner that the US need in this multipolar world.

In short, I have the feeling that Panama will be only another bust in the collection of failed OAS meeting. Unless of course Raul Castro decides it to be otherwise.  If he reins in Venezuela, if he convinces Maduro to go somewhere else during the summit, the cameras will be fixed on Barack/Raul hug. If Raul is pissed at his shadow he can wreck the whole summit by letting loose idiot Maduro. After all that would be quite a triumph for Raul, to spit on the OAS when this one is starting to allow the Cuban tyranny to go back in the concert of democracies.

It is quite amazing to see how a whole continent is hostage to the most archaic regime left in the world after North Korea. Though I suppose circumspect Canadians probably think that their own huge country could qualify as a separate continent and they will pretend to be in Panama on holiday.

Read more