The focus on the back door of the United States should be wider ranging than illegal immigration. The banana republics are no more. In their stead is a burgeoning political power hidden beneath the cloak of 19th-century Latin American nationalism that is unfriendly to its northern neighbor.
While the world is focused on the monumental and heroic struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan following reports of daily Islamic terrorist violence, a vocal, popular, and well-financed challenge to democracy and regional stability is gaining power in strategically crucial Latin America. The growing Bolivarian movement led by President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is a combination of Cuban-style political repression, radical populism, broad militarism, and national socialism covered in an emotional mantle associated with the name of the 19th-century hero, Simon Bolivar, who was known simply as El Libertador-The Liberator.
Strategic Importance of Latin America
There is no region in the world where political changes affect our economy and our national security so profoundly as Latin America. The tide of undocumented aliens crossing our border comes not only from Mexico. Miami has received a flood of Venezuelans in the last five years, one of every seven Hondurans works in the United States, and migration from Haiti or Cuba can quickly be triggered by a variety of circumstance as in the past. The region's huge population is the fastest growing market for U.S. products in the world. It is our prime source of imported oil. It is also the base for narco-terrorism that kills 21,000 U.S. citizens each year in drug-related deaths, according to the Office for National Drug Control Policy. It also has embroiled Colombia in a savage war that threatens other countries.
For the past decade, and until quite recently, the area has been a good-news story as a model for advances of democracy and overall wealth. For example, the Miami Herald reported Latin America experienced a healthy 5.5% increase in economic growth in 2004. This activity is credited to the spread of democracy and free-market policies there over the last 25 years. Since the late 1970s-when dictators or military juntas ruled the majority of Latin American countries-democracy, individual liberty, and free-market systems have grown to the point where today only Cuba remains governed by a dictator, Fidel Castro. Unfortunately, the benefits of increased wealth and liberty have not been shared across the board. The continuing wide disparity between rich and poor is a key element in the discord breeding the Bolivarian movement and fueling increased migration. There is no doubt the region's fundamental problem is poverty and the slow emergence of a middle class.
The Movement's Origin
Bolivar died in 1830, bitter and disillusioned. He was a man of idealistic vision and foresight tempered by personal disappointments and what he viewed as the harsh reality of Latin American politics. He liberated the present-day countries of Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela from 400 years of Spanish domination and formed them into a single nation called Gran Colombia. Soon afterward he liberated Peru and Bolivia as well. Bolivar had hopes of following the example of the United States, which in 1788 ratified a constitution binding all the states formed from former British colonies into one nation. He was certain Latin America could never reach its full potential unless formed into a union capable of countering the traditional sway of Europe and the growing power of the United States. His hopes seemed to be realized at the Panama Congress, which opened on 22 June 1826, and where Gran Colombia, Peru, Mexico, and the nations of Central America agreed to form a permanent union to protect their sovereignty and independence against foreign interference. It was, however, not to be. Political discord made regional unity impossible.
The Movement's Nature
Venezuela President Chavez is one of the Latin Americans who dream of rebuilding Bolivar's nation and has committed his life to making it reality. It is a dream, however, of a nation adapted to what Chavez believes is the reality of Latin American society; it is not representative democracy. A charismatic autocrat will rule Chavez's Bolivarian nation, it will subordinate individual liberty, and it will actively oppose the United States.
President Chavez has given the world fair warning of his intentions. As he explained in a Newsweek interview with Lally Weymouth more than five years ago, "We are in the midst of giving birth to a new political system because representative democracy is not really good for us. It failed completely in the past. . . . I want you to understand the battle we are waging. It's a revolution."
To understand the nature of this revolution, it is important to understand Bolivar. The Liberator was a towering historical figure whose beliefs were shaped by harsh combat on the battlefield and by years of bitter political disputes. His youthful liberal idealism was tempered by the reality of his own experiences in politics where unity was achieved by power. Rejecting a representational democracy such as that of the United States, the Bolivarian movement believes it is adapted for the Hispanic culture with its history of authoritarian rule and charismatic leaders. It essentially establishes a republican monarchy.
The ideal Bolivarian state is a centrally controlled authoritarian regime with a president who serves for life and who can name his own successor. When Bolivar stepped down from the presidency of Gran Colombia in 1830, that is exactly what he did. Unfortunately, his hand-picked successor, Jose Domingo Caicedo, was unable to hold together what Bolivar had created.
Bolivar was convinced-as is Chavez today-that the Latin American people cannot succeed in building a free and open democracy. As he observed in his widely published "Letter from Jamaica," written in 1815:
A great monarchy would not be easy to maintain, a great republic impossible. It is a grandiose idea, to aim at fashioning all this New World into one single nation, with a single link binding all these different parts into one whole. Since this New World shares a common origin, a common language, set of customs, and religion, it would clearly benefit from a single government federating all the different states that might develop. But, this is not possible because [the regions of Spanish] America are divided by differences in climate and geographical location, by contending interests and dissimilarity of character.
As Carlos Rangel points out in his book, The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship with the United States (Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1987), Bolivar also believed the democratic example of the United States would never work for Hispanics. As Rangel quotes Bolivar: "I think it would be better [for Spanish] America to adopt the Koran [as a political code] than the form of government of the United States, even if the latter is the best in the world."
It is difficult for a U.S. citizen to understand how a modern popular political leader can turn his back on the democratic ideals of individual liberty and open elections. But the bloodiest dictators of the 20th century were swept into power by elections and popular support only to later unleash violence and repression. Unfortunately, it is well documented that the majority of Latin Americans living today share in a rejection of democracy as an answer for the people of Latin America. Geri Smith recently wrote in BusinessWeek: "The truth is that most Latin Americans are disappointed in democracy. In a 2004, 18-country survey by the Chilean research company, 'Latinobarometro,' just 29% of Latin Americans said they were satisfied with the way their democracies are working." What is truly worrisome is that ". . . 55% of those polled said they would back a non-democratic government if it could resolve economic problems."
Who is Hugo Chavez?
Bolivar's chief disciple is the self-proclaimed leader of the growing Bolivarian revolution in Latin America. The billions of dollars from Venezuela's state-owned oil industry places tremendous wealth in his hands. He is an undeniably popular and charismatic leader who was elected with a clear 56.2% majority vote. Unfortunately, he is methodically dismantling the system that carried him to power. Chavez has made his goal clear in words and actions. He has contempt for the political oligarchies that dismantled Bolivar's original state of Gran Colombia and has vowed to sweep them away in a popular revolution. He has done so in Venezuela and would like to incorporate the rest of the peoples once liberated by Bolivar in Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Bolivia into one powerful country.
Born on 28 July 1954, Hugo Chavez Frias came from a modest background. His parents barely scraped by on their primary-school teachers' salaries. He was a gifted child who once won a regional art competition, was an accomplished musician, and had aspirations of playing professional baseball. He was told his best hope of doing so was by joining the army and building a name for himself on an army baseball team. However, Chavez did not go on to play professionally, although he did join the army, becoming a career officer and playing ball while under instruction.
Like every other child in Venezuela, Chavez knew by the age of six that Simon Bolivar defeated the Spanish in 1819 to win independence for Gran Colombia. The country lasted barely a decade before dissolving in struggles among factious power elites. Chavez views this historical betrayal of Bolivar's ideal as a disaster. He also has a personal reason to redress this error: an ancestor rode into battle with the great liberator. As Gabriel Garcia Marquez wrote in "The Two Faces of Hugo Chavez," for the May/June 2000 issue of the NACLA (North American Congress on Latin America) Report on the Americas, his love of the Bolivarian ideal is deeply personal. "Chavez, a fervent Catholic, attributes his charmed existence to the 100-year-old scapular which he has worn since childhood, inherited from a maternal great-grandfather, Colonel Pedro Perez Delgado."
As a further example of the depth of his conviction and of his charismatic power of persuasion, Chavez related in an interview with Marquez of how he was captured as a spy by the Colombian army as he walked across Venezuela researching the battles of Bolivar and his great-grandfather. Apparently he strayed into Colombian territory and was apprehended with a suspicious backpack carrying a camera, maps, and drawings. During his interrogation by a Colombian officer in a room with an official portrait of Bolivar, he said, "Look, my captain, the way life is: just a century ago we were a single army, and that fellow who is watching us from the painting was the commander of us both. How could I be a spy?" The Colombian captain released him the next day at the international border with an abrazo, a comradely hug reserved for friends or family.
Although a professional army officer, Chavez has never had loyalty to the government of Venezuela. He conspired with other junior officers to found the Bolivarian Peoples' Army of Venezuela at the age of 23 when he was a lieutenant. His revolution began with a small circle of conspirators who made no overt actions, but who swore to be ready at the right time. As a major he led an abortive coup attempt in 1992 against the corrupt government of President Carlos Andres Perez. It failed, and he was imprisoned for two years, although he remained politically active in jail. After Perez was removed from office for corruption, President Rafael Caldera released Chavez and pardoned him in 1994. Soon after, Chavez devoted himself wholeheartedly to preparing for the 1998 elections, which he won.
Chavez's popularity is easily understood. Venezuela is abundantly blessed with natural resources, iron ore, gold, bauxite, hydropower, and vast oil reserves. Oil revenues alone fuel more than 50% of the national budget. However, corruption and government mismanagement has kept the potential of the Venezuelan economy from being realized and has provided riches for a powerful elite while 60% of the population lives in abject poverty, earning only a few dollars a day.
Although democratically elected, Chavez has dissolved and remolded the country's congress, added to the supreme court enough new hand-picked justices to ensure its loyalty, replaced the military leadership with obedient followers, written laws to limit freedom of the press, ordered 100,000 assault rifles to be distributed to a newly created militia of citizens answerable only to him, imported 15,000 Cuban medical personnel and government advisors, set up neighborhood-watch committees to report political dissent, and ordered new warships and aircraft from Spain as well as MiG-29 fighter aircraft and assault- and troop-carrying helicopters from Russia.
The United States has felt the first impact of Chavez's Bolivarian revolution. Many Venezuelans have chosen to leave their homeland rather than live under his rule. The population of Venezuelans living in Miami has risen from 5,000 in the 1980s to more than 150,000 now. The strategic implications of a Venezuelan-patterned Bolivarian revolution spreading to encompass much of Latin America are staggering. We only have to follow the recent actions of President Chavez in Venezuela to understand it means an end to democracy for much of the region.
Strategy and Tactics of the Bolivarian Movement
Chavez quotes Bolivar as having said, "Damned be the soldier who turns his weapons against his own people." This is key to understanding the tactics of the Bolivarian revolution as it pursues its strategy of regional domination. As Chavez foments and finances radical populism with crowds of armed demonstrators taking over essential utilities and government buildings and closing roads, the police and military are warned not to use force in any confrontation with demonstrators lest they face criminal prosecution. Across all of Latin America the military is the scapegoat for violence against violent insurgencies that sought political power through terrorism during the 1960s and 1970s. As a warning, military personnel are actively prosecuted.
It is important to recognize that Chavez is not the only political leader in the region intent on becoming a strongman. Many democracies are under attack in the area. In each country the tactic of holding the military accountable for violence in political confrontations is consistent. Within the last two years, Bolivia has had two presidents driven from power by carefully organized street demonstrations aided by advice and money from Chavez. At this point, transitions by elections in Latin America are being replaced by radical populism with a minority of fervent followers attempting to lift undemocratic leaders to power by violent confrontations.
One of the prime examples occurred in June 2005, when the president of Bolivia, Carlos Mesa, was forced from office after 19 months in power by a few thousand demonstrators who barricaded the streets and roads leading to the capital, strangling movement, and crippling the country. The demonstrators' leaders dared the police and military to use force against them. Mesa stepped down from office rather than confront the mobs and risk violence between the demonstrators and the police or military security forces. He understood the danger because when he moved from vice president to president after violent clashes forced his predecessor, President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, to resign and flee the country in October 2003, one of Mesa's first acts was to issue an indictment for genocide against his former boss, holding him responsible for the deaths of 60 protesters. As Sanchez de Lozada bitterly observed, as reported by Mary O'Grady in a Wall Street Journal article, "Since they can't win in the Congress, they go to the streets."
The firebrand opposition leader in Bolivia, Evo Morales, played a key part in organizing the mobs that drove the elected president and vice president from office. Morales was easily elected president by a 54% clear majority vote in December 2005. There is no doubt he will soon follow the example of Castro and Chavez by dismantling the democracy that elected him to power. He acknowledged his model when he was quoted in the Miami Herald: "Chavez isn't alone. The people of Latin America support him."
Similarly, President Lucio Gutierrez of Ecuador was chased from his country in May 2005 before he could complete his term. As an indication of the influence Chavez wields, Abdala Bucaram, a former president of Ecuador, returned home early this year after eight years in exile to proclaim to a group of 20,000 supporters: "I come to Ecuador to copy Chavez's style with a great Bolivarian revolution."
Peru will hold presidential elections this spring. Not surprisingly, a front-runner is Ollanta Humala who is supported by Chavez. Humala, like Chavez and Morales, is pledging to protect the country from intrusive foreign interests. Also, like Chavez, he is a former army lieutenant colonel who led a failed coup attempt in 2000.
These leaders look to Chavez, Castro, and finally, to Simon Bolivar for inspiration. Make no mistake about it, the Bolivarian revolution is finding fertile ground in Latin America, and the Bolivarian movement has a deep disdain for democracy. Obviously, grave social injustice must be addressed in Latin America, but is the grim Bolivarian solution the answer? The United States may soon find in Hugo Chavez a regional antagonist who makes Castro's defiance for the past 40 years seem insignificant and childish. If Chavez is successful in his dream of reuniting Gran Colombia through democratic means, it will be a monumental advance of Bolivar's ideal, and the United States will find a large, new, and unfriendly economic power to its south. If Chavez attempts to forcibly export his revolution, it could spell violent tragedy. The United States will do well to watch carefully the developments in Venezuela and heed the clear warning Chavez has given the world.
Colonel Gandy is chief of staff, U.S. Marine Corps Forces South. Previously he served in Chile in the Foreign Area Officer Program and commanded the 3d Battalion, 8th Marines, and the Marine Corps Security Force Battalion.