The State of the Chavez Capriles race: Hope Springs Eternal in Venezuela?

Unnoticed by many, there is another crucial election taking place in our hemisphere this fall--this Sunday in fact. Fourteen-year incumbent president Hugo Chávez (who re-wrote the Venezuelan constitution to allow him to run for unlimited terms of office--in effect to become President for Life) is facing off against former Mariana province governor Enrique Capriles Rodanski. Given Chávez' legendarily tight grip on his country's failing democracy, many have considered the race a farce--a foregone conclusion that might satisfy the Carter Center but would fool no one else. It would in effect be the death knell for freedom in Venezuela.

Yet it turns out that democracy might not be as tender of a flower as we have thought.

Mr. Capriles, despite facing dauntingly unequal access to airtime and the relentless persecution of both himself and his campaign operatives (three were shot by Chavista thugs last week), has captured the public imagination. Young and energetic, he makes a stark contrast with the ailing Mr. Chávez , whose weakened state makes his standard campaign shtick--cavorting onstage, singing to the moon--a sort of danse macabre. More importantly, Mr. Capriles offers a new sort of political platform, one that combines Chávez more popular social programs (reformed and vetted for corruption) with a return to the free market principles that were the original basis of Venezuela's prosperity. His message is resonating, and while polls in Venezuela are not exactly reliable, the gap with Chávez is narrowing and some even show the challenger ahead (see the numbers at the end of this article). Clearly the two headed to a close race on Sunday, and there is a real chance of an upset.

Why, you may ask, should this be of consuming interest to the United States? The Middle East is on fire and we are facing bleak times at home. While it would be nice to have Chavez gone and basic freedoms restored to Venezuelans, should this really be a high priority?

Yes it should, for several reasons Mr. Capriles articulated this week. He has started to talk about his foreign policy, and has pledged to mend the tattered relationship with our close ally Colombia, which would be a great help in finally eradicating the troublesome terrorist groups Mr. Chavez has funded on the Venezuela-Colombia border for so long. In addition, Mr. Capriles has indicated he would distance himself from the close relationship Mr. Chávez has forged with Iran over the last decade. This would be a massive gain for the United States as Venezuela has served as a financial clearing house for Iran, helping it evade the economic sanctions we hope will deter its nuclear ambitions. In addition, there are unsavory reports that Chávez has been allowing Iranian Hezbollah proxies to train on Margarita Island--an activity that could have grave security consequences for the United States.

In addition, Mr. Capriles' election stands to have a very positive effect on all of us: it could make a meaningful reduction in gas prices. As the Financial Times reports today, Mr. Capriles proposes to double Venezuela's oil output as part of his 100 day manifesto, an increase that would have a substantial impact on crude prices. And he would do it in a business-friendly way that would bring more prosperity and industry reinvestment to Venezuela.

It should be born in mind that Mr. Capriles may not be a perfect ally--he is certainly center-left, not a right-wing candidate, but his positives hugely outweigh his negatives, and a number of them have highly-desirable ramifications for the United States. And his election should give us all hope that amid the missteps and disappointments we have witnessed in the progress of democracy around the globe over the past few years, this story can still have a happy ending. Even after a fourteen-year starvation diet, democracy is alive in Venezuela, and may only require the spark of this election to flourish again.

A Risk of Contagion: The Growing Threat from Syria's WMD

Recent reports of al Qaida infiltration of the Syrian resistance have strengthened our national reluctance to intervene in the slow-motion train wreck that is the Syrian civil war. After all, we hardly want to be in the position of arming our enemies (that didn't go so well with the Mexican drug cartels), and should they be successful an al Qaida backed regime is one of the few things that would be worse than the Assad thugocracy that has oppressed Syria for so long.

Furthermore, our options are limited at best. All the high hopes pinned to Kofi Annan's diplomatic effort to broker a cease-fire have been dashed. Despite international outcry over ongoing atrocities such as the Houla massacre, there now seems to be little we can do beside plead with Vladimir Putin to get his buddy Bashir al-Assad to stop slaughtering his civilian population.

We might be forgiven for wanting to forget this whole sad, sorry mess and turn our eyes away from the carnage on the grounds that it simply is not our problem, and that even if it were we simply cannot fix it. Unfortunately it is not so simple. It is our problem and we have to try to fix it.  As this Jerusalem Post editorial details, a grave danger lurks beneath the surface of this conflict that directly threatens our national security: Syria's WMD. The presence of al Qaida in a country with these weapons further complicates an already enormously complex challenge, and puts the lie once and for all to the contention that Syria has nothing to do with us.

The issue is not so much whether Assad will use the weapons on his own people (although he may well, his father was not squeamish about it).  For us it is that Syria's WMD could fall into the sort of eager hands that snatched Libyan stockpiles in the chaotic days after Qaddafi's fall, and spirited them to Lebanon. Those shoulder-fired missiles present a worrisome threat to Israel to which the IDF is responding, no doubt thankful for their prudent recent investment in missile defense programs.

Assad has a far more deadly bag of tricks; while the 2007 Israeli strike may have retarded his efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, his successful chemical and biological weapons programs are well-known. What we do not know, however, is where he is storing these weapons. In an increasingly chaotic Syria where we have no presence, we have no way to ensure these stockpiles are safeguarded from whatever bad actor may choose to help himself and spread the grim contagion of these weapons where he will.

A number of alarming scenarios then present themselves. Our immediate concern would have to be Israel should the Iranians, who certainly know where the weapons are, tip off their Hamas or Hezbollah proxies regarding their location. It is even more unpleasant, however, to imagine what might happen if one of the jihadi groups that have joined the Syrian opposition, notably al Qaida, happens upon them.

President Obama and his administration have justified their lethargy towards Syria on the grounds that it is not Libya. In the case of Syria's WMD we should devoutly hope so. If the international community decides that despite all the very real dangers and challenges of intervention, leaving these weapons to the whims of fate is an intolerable risk, the administration should reverse the lackadaisical "lead from behind" approach that failed to secure Libya's stockpiles, and take an active and aggressive role in securing Syria's.

As the Jerusalem Post points out, however, no one should be under the illusion that there are good options here. We have to stop hoping one will magically emerge. This is not a situation that can be resolved with drones or a special operations strike--we face far uglier choices. We might conclude that WMD in the hands of terrorists is worse than Assad and communicate to him that there could be some wriggle room if he reveals their location. We might, despite the inevitable "Bush-lied-about-Iraq" comparisons, make with our allies the public case for the containment of these weapons in an effort to explain what is at stake here. But doing nothing is becoming an increasingly dangerous policy. The presence of al Qaida in an unstable country with WMD has changed the nature of the threat, and as the last fifteen months have demonstrated, ignoring Syria will not make it go away.

Victoria Coates is an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Why Ozzie Matters

Ozzie Guillén, manager of the newly re-minted Miami Marlins, has earned himself a five-game suspension by declaring his affection for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro in Time magazine:

"I love Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that son of a bitch is still there."

Many entities survive through unsavory methods—cockroaches and kudzu vines spring to mind.  But Guillén wasn’t praising some neutral long-lived thing, he was admiring the machismo of the man who has spent more than six decades trampling on the freedoms of his fellow ballplayers.  

Baseball is a passion in Cuba, which has produced some of the game’s greatest players.  Before Castro’s revolution, the Havana Sugar Kings were minor league competitors.  Castro himself was a fan, and formed his own pick-up tem called Los Barbudos after the unkempt facial hair fashionable with the revolutionaries.  But shortly after he seized political power he grabbed control of the Sugar Kings as well.  The American-owned franchise was moved to the states, leaving Cubans to play for government-run teams.

Castro’s Cuba is no place for great ballplayers, however, who relish healthy competition and the opportunity to gain from their talent and hard work.  Unlike Venezuelan players like Guillén who still have the nominal freedom to play outside their home country (even if they get kidnapped for their wealth when they return to visit their families), Cubans cannot leave their island paradise at will.  Many athletes have taken the dangerous path of defection to play in United States, and a healthy number have made it into the big leagues.  Guillen’s comments did a great disservice to those who had to leave home and family, not to mention risk life and limb, for the freedom to play.

Sure, Ozzie Guillén is a character, a notorious hot head and loose with his words, but these comments are more than just shooting from the hip as some have suggested.  His apology and confused explanation are at best weak sauce.  As a Venezuelan, Guillén should know better, and it seems sometimes he does, at least when it comes to his own country.  Guillén has been fortunate enough to make a successful career for himself in America, hired as he has been to manage a MLB team in the city with our largest community of Cuban ex-patriots and playing (and winning) baseball this very week in the birthplace our liberty.  He should perhaps think of the less fortunate trapped in Cuba before he exercises his freedom to speak.

It's a Wonderful Country: Robert Kagan's "The World America Made"

Robert Kagan's The World America Made (Alfred A. Knopf, 2012) is an extended essay on the role of the United States in the current global order. Kagan identifies political and economic freedom combined with military strength as the foundation of the enduring American power that has encouraged the current historical "wave" towards democracy, and argues the unique nature of this power has played a pivotal role in recent history.

While this analysis may not seem earth-shattering, what makes The World America Made compelling is Kagan's engagement with the current hypothesis that U.S. power is in decline, perhaps inevitably and perhaps desirably. Rather than delivering a rah-rah, red-meat defense of America the Good, Kagan discusses the many inconsistencies, hesitancies and set-backs that have beset the "American century," and recognizes the imperfections inherent in any human endeavor. But in the end, Kagan concludes that the international move towards a more liberal order is ultimately dependent on America's actions.

The World America Made is roughly divided into an introduction, three main sections, and a conclusion. The introduction suggests that America has played a role rather like George Bailey in It's a Wonderful Life--a reluctant hero who does not understand his own strength, and can only comprehend it through an exercise in counter-factual history. The first section deals with the historical tension between American interventionism and isolationism, the middle of the book turns to the importance of a "liberal economic order," which, Kagan argues, is like political freedom hardly a pre-ordained inevitability, and the last third addresses "next steps." Within this framework, the book deals with the salutary increase in political freedom around the globe; as Kagan points out, there has been a ten-fold rise in free governments from 12 to 100+ over the last 70 years. While his praise for Jimmy Carter's human rights agenda might be debated, Kagan's insistence on the spread of democracy as a necessity for improving the greater good, even when it is difficult, is welcome. Conventional wisdom holds that "progress" towards a more liberal political and economic order is an inevitable evolution, but one of Kagan's contributions in this book is to point out the fallacy of the evolutionary model, and the importance of human initiative and action to bring this end to pass.

Throughout The World America Made, Kagan grapples with the exercise of U.S. military power, which is a thorny issue to say the least. We generally understand the United States to be something of a military bully, but as Kagan argues, no nation in history has been so unconstrained in its exercise of power; indeed, the U.S. has been broadly supported in its military activities around the globe. Kagan argues this power has been a force for peace, noting that the "unusual combination of vast power and remarkable global acceptance of that power is the main factor that has deterred great-power war" since WWII. (pg. 65) It seems a reasonable conclusion that this deterrence has been worth the investment.

In the end, Kagan returns to his movie analogy, noting that while our world, like George Bailey's town, would have been far worse off without the United States, a happy ending is not pre-ordained. Americans can still choose, or be persuaded into, decline--and the results as Kagan discusses throughout the book may not be pretty. Assertions that international organizations are better equipped to deal with global problems, and that other nations will automatically preserve and expand the political, economic and security priorities established by the United States, are hardly borne out by history. "In short," as Kagan concludes, "it may be more than good fortune that has allowed the United States in the past to come through crises and emerge stronger and healthier than other nations while its various competitors have faltered. And it may be more than just wishful thinking to believe it may do so again." (pg. 133)

While Kagan's arguments can on occasion become a little too insistent on even-handedness (for example, the suggestion that other democracies such as Germany and Japan might have fueled a similar golden age in the 1970s and 80s, as Kagan does on page 29, are somewhat specious given that those democracies would not have existed with out the U.S. and it seems a stretch to celebrate communist China for fueling global prosperity given that country's abhorrence for the free market, as Kagan does on page 43), he deserves praise for the broad historical and international scope of this book. There are echoes throughout of the introduction to Donald Kagan's (the author's father) 1991 Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy, which was written in the context of the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Robert Kagan can now view these events with the benefit of historical perspective, which he brings effectively to his discussion of our collective "historical fallacy" in assuming American power was much greater in the past and therefore lessened today. He points out the many setbacks and indeed disasters that have beset us since WWII, notably Watergate and Vietnam in conjunction with the economic downturn of the 1970s, which in many ways dwarf our current troubles. It may be for another generation to bring a clear eye to the challenges we face, from the rise of China to the Arab Spring to our fiscal crisis, but as Kagan points out, accepting pre-emptive defeat would be a great disservice to ourselves, and to the global community.

The World America Made is an engaging and provocative book that makes an important contribution to our currently anemic intellectual public square. Particularly in this election year when we will make important decisions about the future economic and military policies that will shape coming decades, it deserves a careful read.

Is Hong Kong Becoming A "Real Headache" for Beijing?

Like Beijing, Hong Kong faces a "leadership transition" this year. In the 15 years since control of the island passed from Great Britain to China, successive rulers have been chosen by a committee of officials--and while large for a committee (1,200 people), this body is only a fraction of Hong Kong's 7.1 million inhabitants, who have no voice in their government.

But that may be changing. The anointed candidate, Donald Tang, is embroiled in a political scandal that can only be called epic, a sort of caricature of the party boss involving blatant infidelities and a secret, luxury underground bunker with wine cellar and health spa--as well as high-end junkets courtesy of Hong Kong's business community, eager to curry favor with the ostensible heir-apparent. But Mr. Tang's corruption and flagrant disregard for the rules that control the lives of the vast majority has finally proven too much even for this authoritarian political structure, and the people of Hong Kong are demanding he step down and an alternate candidate be put forward.

All this might be a tempest in a tea pot, if the People's Republic of China were not also facing a "transition" of its own. America got its first look at Xi Jinping, the Chinese Vice President and heir apparent to Hu Jintao, last week. The unassuming Xi does not appear to have the endemic vices of Tang, but the fact is that he is slated to be the leader of 1.3 billion people--and they, too, have had no say in the matter. Most Americans, including the Obama administration, seem to accept this state of affairs as inevitable, even though it contributes to the strained economic and diplomatic relationship between the US and the PRC.

Suddenly, Hong Kong is turning into a "real headache" for Beijing: instead of the orderly passing of power in Hong Kong in March that would neatly presage the larger events scheduled for later this year, there is the threat of instability.

Nothing could be more dangerous to the PRC than a successful demand for a free system of government where leaders are elected, not transitioned, into office. And unlike the provincial protests in China that rarely make it into the western media, Hong Kong is a much more high-profile case. The inclination of the PRC will be to impose Tang on Hong Kong and respond swiftly and harshly to dissent, but the publicity this might attract would hardly be in keeping with Xi’s carefully groomed image as a western-friendly leader with ties to Iowa and a weakness for the NBA. On the other hand, giving into the demands for increased accountability from the government to the people could result in considerable unpleasantness in the north, if the Chinese people decide to take notice. The situation in Hong Kong could turn out to be something far more serious than a headache for the Communist party bosses--which might in turn present an opportunity to an American president eager to promote democratic change in China.

Beware Greeks Demanding Benefits

In the most recent round of violent protests that have rocked Greece, a group of aggrieved Communist party members went up onto the Acropolis and hung banners from the massive rock. "Down with Dictatorship" they proclaimed (in English as well as in Greek for the benefit of the western media and/or relevant parties in London and Washington, D.C.).

The message was not particularly subtle: Here, in the birthplace of democracy, Greeks would once again stand up to their oppressors and claim their ancient freedoms. At the very feet of the Parthenon they made their stand, with the ruins of the classical past providing witness.

The juxtaposition between the "birthplace of democracy" and Greece's current budget woes has been echoed in the media, illustrated with video of Athenians torching Starbucks and Cinnabon. What this analysis fails to recognize is that the contemporary Greeks are rejecting their own heritage as they riot not for freedom, but against it.

The Parthenon has been caught up in this irony, as it has been in so many previous conflicts. Originally constructed as a monument to the successful--and near miraculous--defeat of the Persian empire by the Delian League in the early 5th century BC, the monument became the symbol of the small by doughty Athenian democracy that has been the touchstone for subsequent attempts at free governance. Rome, Venice, Florence, Holland, Great Britain and the United States have in turn claimed classical Athens as an ideological ancestor. Rose-colored glasses notwithstanding, the Parthenon represents the best of the western tradition, the urge towards political freedom that enables prosperity and culture.

Alas, the Parthenon today is but a shadow of its former self. While it survived for centuries in the post-classical world as a church and then a mosque, it was blown up in 1687 in an accident rather similar to the one that destroyed the Attikon theater in Athens over the weekend. The precarious ruin that is the contemporary Parthenon is undergoing a restoration in which each block of marble is removed, studied, and replaced in the archaeological equivalent of Humpty Dumpty.

The philosophical legacy of the culture that produced the Parthenon appears to be in similar tatters. According to Pericles, the building's patron, the strength of Athens was its self-sufficiency:

Again, we are contrary to most men in matter of bounty. For we purchase our friends not by receiving but by bestowing benefits. And he that bestoweth a good turn is ever the most constant friend because he will not lose the thanks due unto him from him whom he bestowed it on. Whereas the friendship of him that oweth a benefit is dull and flat, as knowing his benefit not to be taken for a favour but for a debt.

In other words, free men should never aspire to handouts, or embrace the dull and flat dead end that is debt. It is ironic indeed that the Parthenon now stands over the banners demanding benefits be bestowed on the Greeks. The enemy is no longer the invading Persians or rival Spartans, but rather "the monopolies" and the European Union who threaten to deny the favours decried by Pericles.

The Parthenon is fragile--not just the beleagured, damaged structure itself, but also the aspirational ideal it has come to represent. Those who believe independence is still worth pursuing should take note of its inglorious appropriation by the forces of dependence in Athens. New Parthenons in Philadelphia and Nashville attest to the influence this structure has had over our democracy. The original may well be beyond saving at this point, but we can preserve its legacy by heeding the words of Pericles.

Why is Syria different?

While the recent increase of attention to the ongoing carnage in Syria is a welcome change from the Obama administration's collective state of denial over the past ten months, signals remain mixed, and our policy is unclear if not non-existent. This week alone, for example, we got the welcome news that the Pentagon is preparing military options on Syria for the President, but at the same time White House press secretary announced those options will not be exercised.

The waters have been further muddied by the President's insistence that there is no parity between the situation in Libya last year and what we face now in Syria. In Libya, the threat to civilians and opportunity to topple a vicious dictator were sufficient cause for Mr. Obama to engage the U.S. military, even without a pressing national security interest at stake. While it can be argued that once the U.S. engaged in Libya it would have been preferable to actually lead from the front to secure weapons stockpiles and guard against al Qaida encroachment, the fact remains that the world is a better place with Colonel Qaddafi gone, as Mr. Obama routinely reminds us.

Meanwhile, as many as ten times the civilians killed in Libya before NATO's intervention have died in Syria over the last year. Bashir Assad is no less cruel and repressive a dictator than Muammar Qaddafi. The threat of Syria's unknown stockpiles of WMD falling into bad hands demands our urgent attention. And, above all, the United States has a clear strategic interest in toppling this vital ally of Iran.

But Syria is somehow different, and not worthy of the same sort of military assistance we offered to the Libyan rebels. Rather than taking decisive action in the form of military aid through our purported ally Turkey (perhaps in August when the President issued a statement calling for Assad's ouster on his way out of town for vacation), the U.S. has remained on the diplomatic equivalent of a hamster wheel. From the ill-advised resumption of "normal" relations with Syria last January through the pathetic failure of the Security Council resolution this weekend, our efforts to resolve the situation have been futile wastes of time and energy as the slaughter in Syria goes on to the tune of 100 people a day.

In dealing with Libya and Syria, consistency need not be the hobgoblin of little minds but can rather be the hallmark of a consistent and coordinated foreign policy. There are equivalencies to be drawn between the two crises, and once these are recognized we should take equivalent action. It is not a decision to be taken lightly, but we would not be alone and the cause is just. We have the unified support of our European and Arab allies. We have moral and strategic interests at stake. Rather than whining about the shocking moral turpitude of the United Nations, the President of the United States needs to remember his responsibilities as the leader of the free world--and lead.