Chávez's Death, Like His Life, Shows the World's Divisions

The unprecedented worldwide response to the death of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, and especially in the Western Hemisphere, has brought into stark relief the "multi-polar" world that Chávez fought for.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.
In this photo released by the Miraflores Press Office, soldiers who served with Venezuela's late President Hugo Chavez carry his coffin inside the military museum, Chavez's final resting place, where a mural of Chavez covers a wall, in Caracas, Venezuela, Friday, March 15, 2013. Chavez, 58, died of an undisclosed type of cancer on March 5. (AP Photo/Miraflores Press Office)
In this photo released by the Miraflores Press Office, soldiers who served with Venezuela's late President Hugo Chavez carry his coffin inside the military museum, Chavez's final resting place, where a mural of Chavez covers a wall, in Caracas, Venezuela, Friday, March 15, 2013. Chavez, 58, died of an undisclosed type of cancer on March 5. (AP Photo/Miraflores Press Office)

The unprecedented worldwide response to the death of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, and especially in the Western Hemisphere, has brought into stark relief the "multi-polar" world that Chávez fought for. Fifty-five countries were represented at his funeral on March 7th, 33 (including all of Latin America) by heads of state. Fourteen Latin American countries decreed official days of mourning -- including the right-wing government of Chile. In contrast to the emotional outpourings, and the honor and respect that came from Latin American heads of state, the White House put out a cold and unfriendly statement that -- to the horror of many Latin Americans -- didn't even offer condolences.

It seems that the most demonized democratically elected president in world history had a lot of friends and admirers -- and not just the "enemy states" like Iran or Syria that get first mention in U.S. news reports. Now we are told that the outpouring of sympathy is all about Venezuela's oil, but no Saudi Arabian royal ever got this kind of love, while alive or dead.

Readers of the New York Times were probably surprised to learn from a recent op-ed by Lula da Silva, Brazil's popular former president, that he and Chávez were quite close and shared the same vision for Latin America. It was always true: in 2006, after Lula was reelected, the first trip he took was to Venezuela to help Chávez campaign for his own reelection.

Let's face it: what Chávez said about Washington's role in the world was what all the left presidents -- now the vast majority of South America -- were thinking. And Chávez didn't just talk the talk: as Lula noted, he played a crucial role in the formation of UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations), CELAC (the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Nations), and other efforts at regional integration.

"Perhaps his ideas will come to inspire young people in the future, much as the life of Simón Bolívar, the great liberator of Latin America, inspired Mr. Chávez himself," wrote Lula.

Chávez was the first of what became a long line of democratically-elected left presidents that have transformed Latin America, and especially South America over the last 15 years, including Nestor and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina, Lula da Silva and then Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay , José "Pepe" Mujica in Uruguay, and Mauricio Funes in El Salvador. Before Chávez, democratically elected leftist presidents tended to end up like Salvador Allende of Chile -- overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1973. Much of the Latin American left, including Chávez himself, was still skeptical of the electoral route to social change more than 20 years later, since the local elites, backed by Washington, had an extra-legal veto when they needed it.

Chávez was able to play a vital role in the "second independence" of South America because he was different from other heads of state in a number of important ways. I noticed this when I met him for the first time in April of 2003. He seemed to treat everyone the same -- from the people who served him lunch at the presidential palace to visitors whom he respected and admired. He talked a lot, but he was also a good listener. I remember a dinner a few years later with more than 100 representatives of civil society groups throughout the Americas -- activists working on debt cancellation, land reform, and other struggles. Chavez sat and listened patiently, taking notes for an hour as the guests took turns describing their efforts. Then he went through his notes, and said: "OK, here's where I think we might be able to help you." I couldn't imagine any other president doing that.

It wasn't fake -- there wasn't anything fake about the man. He said what he was thinking, and of course that wasn't always appropriate for a head of state. But most Venezuelans loved his sincerity because it made him more real than other politicians, and therefore someone they could trust.

His attitude towards other governments was similar. Although he had big public fights with some governments, he almost never criticized another head of state unless they attacked him first. He successfully pursued good relations even with the right-wing Álvaro Uribe of Colombia for several years, until Uribe turned on him, which he saw (probably correctly) as Uribe acting on behalf of the United States. When Manuel Santos, who had been Uribe's defense minister, became president of Colombia in August 2010 and decided to pursue good relations with Chávez, he was pushing on an open door [PDF]. Relations were repaired immediately. Chávez was friendly to anyone who was friendly to him.

But it was more than his personality or search for alliances -- which he needed in order to survive, after the Bush administration made clear its intention to overthrow him in 2002. (Although it was almost never reported in the U.S. media, the documentary evidence of Washington's involvement in the 2002 military coup against Chávez is quite strong.) Chávez had a very solidaristic view of the world. He and his government had many policies that were not driven by the principle that "nations don't have friends, but only interests." He saw the injustices in the international economic and political order the same way he saw the social injustices within Venezuela -- as a social evil and something that could be successfully fought against. Why should the United States and a handful of rich allies control the IMF and the World Bank? Or write the rules of commerce in the WTO, or in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (which Chavez helped defeat)? Venezuela didn't have any national interest in these struggles, since it is an oil exporter.

But Chávez thought they were important, and his ideas happened to coincide with what was happening in the world: it was rapidly become more multi-polar economically. For example, China is now, by the best economic estimates of its (purchasing power parity) exchange rate, already the largest economy in the world, yet it has very little voice in these most important multilateral institutions. Other developing countries have even less. Chávez's ideas therefore resonated increasingly in much of the world, and especially in Latin America.

On the other hand, his tenure also shows the enormous power of the media in shaping public opinion. Most governments are quite familiar with his accomplishments, but because the Latin American and U.S. media reported almost exclusively negative news on Venezuela for 14 years -- sometimes grossly exaggerated as well -- most people in the Western Hemisphere never learned even the basic facts about Venezuela or what Chávez was doing.

This was published by Al Jazeera English on March 17, 2013. To read the rest of this article, please click here.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot