A Victory for Chavez and a Re-Thinking of His Approach?
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez scored a huge public relations victory over the past few days by securing the freedom of two high-profile hostages held by the Farc rebels. He and Colombian President Uribe have been butting heads throughout the whole process, causing frequent stalls and setbacks.
When the first hand-off scheduled for December 31 failed miserable due to accusations on the part of the rebels against President Uribe, the world seemed to believe Chavez had once again over-stepped his bounds, continuing his seemingly ill-planned attempt to win influence in South America. Chavez has been vilified by the United States government and news agencies have painted him as an over aggressive, unwieldy leader, most memorably by having been told by the King of Spain to “Shut up”. But his latest success might force leaders to recognize that while often overzealous, Chavez still does retain a huge amount of sway in his region.
Chavez’s socialist approach to government in Venezuela and his highly publicized alliance with Cuban leaders may not resonate well in the overly capitalistic West, but his promise of spreading wealth and well-being to the devastated regions around him are appealing to many in the South. The respect he has garnered is evident by the Farc’s willingness to negotiate with him and their delayed release that was motivated because they wanted to keep him as a part of the process. We are forced to remember that just because a leader may not conduct himself with the stately air we typically ascribe to diplomacy, does not mean he is ineffective. Chavez cannot be ignored. Perhaps more interesting to the debate and his success with the rebels was his call for government’s to take them off their lists of terrorist groups. As major powers, and Colombia, have continually refused to negotiate with these groups, they have made little success in making the groups more malleable to their demands. In fact, the policy of absolute exclusion and derision has done more to alienate the groups and radicalize them than it has to change their tactics. An open and inclusionary approach with the attempt to understand the group’s political aims as led by Chavez, however, was strikingly successful. While it may seem the evidence points in this direction for foreign relations, I think it would be vain to hope major powers will change their approaches.