home | Archive | analysis | videos | data | weblog

news in other languages:
Editorials in English
Editorials in Spanish
Editorials in Italian
Editorials in German


On the significance of ousting Hugo Chavez

By Aleksander Boyd

London 22.05.06 | Throughout the years many people, outside Venezuela, have asked me why Hugo Chavez should be ousted. The romanticism with which Chavez was once perceived is giving way to the stark reality of his militaristic and authoritarian nature that, in itself, do not necessarily bother so called democrats around the world. Internationally Chavez's social expenditure has acted as a shield for criticism, the commendation generated by his misiones however has morphed into a de facto Letter of Marque and Reprisal, i.e. since he is meant to be alleviating poverty no attention to his destabilising actions needs be dispensed. However the revisionism spoused by first world sycophants of the Venezuelan caudillo is untenable; their racism evident. It is fitting therefore to explain why Hugo Chavez must be ousted, the significance of it from a foreign perspective and, more importantly, the hemispheric impact that a true democratic government in Venezuela shall have.

Not once did Chavez mentioned his continental expansion plans prior to his election in 1998. Much less did he dare mention a) that Venezuelan resources would be used to prop up Fidel Castro's ailing dictatorship and b) that Venezuela would become FARC's resting haven and operation's base. It is therefore imperative to clarify to foreign observers that no Venezuelan voted for it, simply because those issues were not even part of the agenda, regardless of what Trotskyists ignoramuses from Britain have to say to the contrary.

Hugo Chavez's ousting would mean an immediate cut of oxygen to his Cuban patron. By getting rid of Chavez, Castro's own demise, political and otherwise, would be accelerated, ergo not only 25 million Venezuelan would benefit but also 11 million misery-stricken Cubans. The political situation in Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador would improve immediately. Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil would also gain significantly by factoring out the Chavez menace. And what could be said of Central American nations, should Daniel Ortega and the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front be left on their own?

Let us talk drug trade now. On a larger scale 500 million citizens stand to gain should one were to deprive Latin America's narcoterrorist and radical groups of their ideological guru and financial / territorial benefactors. Imagine the FARC either being forced back to Colombia or made to run. Imagine them having to reorganize production lines and distribution mechanisms once "The Venezuela Connection" is eliminated. Imagine the impact that such scenario would have in the world's cocaine and heroine supply and money-laundering activities.

How about worldwide energy prices? The precise amount of the Chavez premium is difficult to quantify, nonetheless it is safe to say that it fluctuates from conservative appraisals of $5 to up to $20 extra per barrel. Would the world's economy not be better off with, say, a barrel hovering around the $40 mark in a stable market? Should the citizens of industrialised nations really be obliged to enrich a handful of oil speculators and sustain petro-dictators hellbent in destroying the very system that keeps them afloat?

Equally, the opportunities that would arise could be something unforeseen in economic terms. There are massive service industries, infrastructure and development plans to be implemented across Latin America. Energywise the region is almost unmatched. Instead of chronically lagging behind Asia, it can become the next engine of phenomenal growth and wealth generation. But can this be achieved in a climate openly hostile to foreign investment and private property? Can pauperous Andean nations afford to scare away investors?

Immigration issues. Why do people emigrate? Is it logical to assume that it is because the life conditions of their places of origin are dismal? How much does illegal immigration cost developed nations? Is it not more rational, from a first-world viewpoint, to invest in under-developed places so that conditions ameliorate and people do not wish to emigrate? I talk from experience, had my country had decent enough conditions I would never had thought of moving out, unless of course the token holiday trip abroad.

The world would be a much better place without Hugo Chavez and his ilk. Although it is irresponsible for Venezuelans to expect that citizens from other nations will solve our issues it isn't so to expect empathy towards our cause. Hugo Chavez is but the Frankenstein of a former political class that failed to address the huge inequalities of our society. Furthermore it is foolish to believe that his actions only affect those living within the country's boundaries: Colombian cocaine is distributed to the four corners of the world from Venezuela; high petrol prices are a common fixture in all industrialised nations owing to the volatility that Chavez's constant threats represent; terrorism has an ally in Venezuela's presidential palace; in sum nobody is beyond the reach of the long arm of the Bolivarian revolution. Ergo it is a moral imperative to help bring it to an end.

send this article to a friend >>

Keep Vcrisis Online

top | printer friendly version | disclaimer