On the
heels of his visit with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, America's
peripatetic ex-president Jimmy Carter has accepted a new
invitation.
On June 4, Carter was asked by the administration of embattled
Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez Frías to help
mediate floundering reconciliation talks between the recently
deposed and restored leader and political opponents determined to
get rid of him. Chávez's vice-president actually sent the
request to Carter the day after the Organization of American States
made its own offer to mediate-which Chávez refused.
It's hard not to imagine Castro's shadow behind all this,
putting a bug in the Venezuelan president's ear to the effect that
if he wants the United States to go easy on him, he should use
mediation as a way to obtain ex-president Carter's blessing on his
schemes, since Carter is known to have a soft spot for leftists,
communists, and dictators.
Although Carter encouraged Cuba's Castro to respect human rights
and enact democratic reforms, he also praised the 76-year-old
tyrant for a health care system in many ways no better than others
in Latin America and extensive education efforts more dedicated to
political indoctrination than practical learning.
Moreover, he made a plea from Havana for the United States to
lift its principled trade embargo with a regime that has trained
and armed Latin American guerrillas, harbors fugitives, and
supports international terrorist groups. In Castro's eyes, that
more than compensated for any trouble Carter's democracy message
and visits with dissidents might have stirred up.
Carter's participation in Venezuela's reconciliation process
would certainly blunt outspoken criticism of the Chávez
government by U.S. officials, allowing President Chávez to
retain and strengthen his controversial "Bolivarian Circles," or
partisan support groups. Like Castro's Committees for the Defense
of the Revolution, they serve their hero-but not necessarily the
nation.
Members of Venezuela's National Assembly have complained that
government money has been used to support these groups, and,
indeed, it does appear that some $4 billion has disappeared from
Venezuela's macroeconomic stabilization fund that no one seems to
be able to explain. During last April's demonstrations against the
president, members of these groups allegedly fired on unarmed
protesters. Some members of Venezuela's armed forces are
justifiably concerned that such groups will form the backbone of a
new army, displacing their own institution.
Although that is only one aspect of a widening fracture that
separates Chávez from middle-class Venezuelans, the business
sector, the media, and elements within the military-it's a clear
example of why the choice of mediators is important. There is much
that cannot be taken on faith from the man who is in charge-to the
extent he may really be in charge. Anyone who mediates in this
labyrinth must have a keen nose for mischief and guile.
He or she must also have a fair sense of what is wrong with
Venezuela beyond the current squabble. Ever since oil was
discovered in the early part of the 20th century, Venezuelan
military leaders and democratic politicians have promised citizens
a socialist caretaker state without ever promoting individual
enterprise or broad public participation in governance.
Former President Carter, who often found good things to say
about some of the world's worst dictators, may not be the best
person to sniff out the truth. His own willingness to excuse
leftist governments that try to guarantee citizens economic
privileges in place of political rights may also blind him to the
wreckage that populism has left in this oil-rich but
poverty-stricken nation.
Stephen Johnson is
a Latin America Policy Analyst at The Heritage
Foundation.