Who Is Tony Blair to Be Attacking Cuba and Venezuela?

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Who Is Tony Blair to Be Attacking Cuba and Venezuela?

Response of the Venezuela Information Centre to Blair’s Attack on Hugo Chavez

Ken Livingstone Writes in Support of President Chavez

The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has recently gone out of his way to criticise other countries in a manner that graphically illustrates his government’s approach to foreign policy, its contempt for the sovereignty and peoples of other countries and its own chauvinism. In the course of Prime Minister’s Questions on February 8, Tony Blair was asked if he shared the satisfaction felt by some Labour MPs about political developments in Latin America that were “bringing Governments into power who will be in the interests of the many and not the few”. The questioner, one of his own Labour MPs, then asked him to agree that “it would be bad news for all concerned if we allowed our policy towards those countries, especially Venezuela, to be shaped by a really right-wing US Republican agenda”.

            Not surprisingly, in response the Prime Minister made it very clear that he did not agree and although he did not state that he was opposed to governments “in the interests of the many not the few”, it would be impossible not to draw that conclusion. In short, the Prime Minister arrogantly stated: “It is rather important that the Government of Venezuela realise that if they want to be respected members of the international community, they should abide by the rules of the international community. I say with the greatest respect to the President of Venezuela that when he forms an alliance with Cuba, I would prefer to see Cuba a proper functioning democracy.” He then added that “the most important thing is that countries in south America and north America realise that they have much in common, much to gain from each other and much to gain from each other particularly through the principles of democracy”.

            It is to be wondered what gives the Prime Minister the right to criticise Venezuela and its foreign policy in the first place, but not content with insulting one country he then takes the opportunity to insult another. Is it not the height of arrogance for Tony Blair to lecture anyone on the principles of democracy and the norms of international conduct when his government daily breeches international law and violates the norms of the UN Charter and only last week has been publicly criticised by the UN Commissioner for Human Rights? It was not surprising that this was a point made by the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who responded to what he referred to as an attack on his country and labelled Tony Blair a “pawn of imperialism”. President Chavez added that Britain “flouted international law” more than most by its alliance with the US and invasion of Iraq.

            The Prime Minister’s attack on Cuba and Venezuela, countries that not only defend the rights of their own people but also strongly oppose US imperialism particularly in regard to its interference in other American countries, also highlights the Labour government’s slavish subservience to the US. It is striving to be that country’s principal ally in all circumstances, whatever the consequences for the people of Britain and other countries. It points to the fact that one of the key features of the government’s foreign policy is the arrogance and contempt with which it deals with other countries. The government is particularly zealous in criticising others for alleged democratic failings or alleged breaches of international law, based on its view that Britain is a model democracy, and that the values of the British ruling class, its government and main political parties are “universal values” that by definition must be adhered to by all. The Labour government takes a particularly highhanded approach with former British colonies, and in general with the countries of Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America, who it treats as if it were still a major colonial power and they were still colonies. This was once again demonstrated this week by the Prime Minister’s public criticism of the government of Ethiopia. However, the government often exhibits the chauvinism of a great power even when dealing with European countries, while it reserves special contempt for those countries which do not adhere to its values or which take a stand in opposition to its policies.

            The arrogance and great power chauvinism of the Labour government must be opposed not least because it does not stop at mere criticism but also gives itself the right to openly interfere in the affairs of others, by military means if necessary, to safeguard the strategic and economic interests of the big monopolies. A stand against this arrogance and chauvinism must particularly be taken by class-conscious workers in Britain in order to lay claim to their independent programme and carry through their proletarian internationalist duty.

Keith Sonnet, Chair, Venezuela Information Centre*

The Venezuela Information Centre regrets the tone and content of Mr Blair's reply. Venezuela has held the most thoroughly monitored and audited elections of any country and independent international observers have consistently certified them as free and fair.

            It is extremely unfortunate that the Prime Minister failed to take this opportunity to acknowledge Venezuela's democratic credentials under President Hugo Chavez and to congratulate him and his government on the major advances made in tackling poverty and social exclusion. Mr Blair's attempts to undermine the authenticity of Venezuela’s democracy by reference to its relations with Cuba were particularly unfortunate. Part of President Chavez's approach has been to promote regional integration through building strong alliances with all his neighbours in Latin America and the Caribbean.

            The Prime Minister's ill-informed remarks have caused great offence in Venezuela, particularly following on from last week's intemperate comments from Donald Rumsfeld when he compared Chavez to Hitler. Mr Blair's response betrays his adherence to the hawkish, neo-conservative, view of Venezuela fostered by the Bush administration.

            The recent UK trade union fact-finding mission to Venezuela headed by Rodney Bickerstaff was told by Jose Vicente Rangel, the Venezuelan Vice President and Ali Rodriguez, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister that they placed great value on good relations with the United Kingdom and hoped to strengthen ties in 2006.

            Whilst the PM's comments were regrettable, VIC hopes that they may generate a meaningful debate which will allow for some redress to the general media distortion in reporting of events in Venezuela. Those who visit Venezuela, as opposed to those taking their information from State Department-sponsored wire services, invariably come away convinced that  it represents one of the most positive examples in today's world of a participatory democracy working to make poverty history and redress decades of corruption and misgovernment.

* The Venezuela Information Centre (VIC), which has been in existence since May 2005, was formally constituted at its January meeting at UNISON headquarters, London. A broad-based VIC Management Committee was established which includes wide representation from the trade union movement, NGOs, MPs, students, academics and the media. The VIC website is: http://www.vicuk.org

Morning Star, February 18, 2006

United States Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, recently compared Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, to Adolf Hitler. His thinly veiled suggestion was that, having been legally elected, President Chavez is now supposedly a threat to democracy in Venezuela.

            In reality, Venezuela today is one of the most democratic countries in the entire world. Since President Chavez was first elected, with 56.2 per cent of the vote, at the end of 1998, there have been at least eight national votes in Venezuela.

            These were:

* A national referendum in April 1999 on whether to convene a constituent assembly to draw up a new constitution – won by Chavez supporters.
* The election of the constituent assembly to draft a new constitution in July 1999 – Chavez supporters won 95 per cent of the seats.
* The referendum on whether to adopt the new constitution in December 1999 – won by Chavez supporters with 71.9 per cent of the vote.
* A second presidential election in July 2000 under the new constitution – won by Hugo Chavez with an increased majority of 59.76 per cent of the vote.
* Election of the national assembly under the constitution in July 2000 – Chavez supporters won a big majority of the seats.
* A national referendum in August 2004 on whether or not to remove Chavez from  power – won by President Chavez with 59.3 per cent of the vote.
* Local and regional elections throughout the country in October 2005 – Chavez supporters won control of 80 per cent of local authorities and 20 out of 22 provincial governments.
* National Assembly elections in December 2005 – these were boycotted by the opposition and so Chavez supporters won every single seat.

            International observers confirmed that each of these votes was conducted fairly and democratically. Far from Chavez reducing democracy, it is unlikely that any country in the world has seen so many free and fair elections and votes in such a short space of time.

            The problem George Bush's administration has with Venezuela has nothing to do with any supposed reduction in democracy. On the contrary, Bush's problem is that the outcome of Venezuela's democratic process has been to empower the Venezuelan people to start to take control of their country's resources in order to improve the quality of life for the great majority of the population.

            For decades the beneficiaries of the country's enormous oil wealth were the United States and a very narrow section of the Venezuelan society while two thirds of the population lived below the poverty line – less than $2 a day in 1995. Now for the first time in the country's history, through the government of President Chavez the poorest people in Venezuela have started to take control.

            In a series of vast social programmes, funded by oil revenues, Chavez has shown what could have been done. Illiteracy has been eliminated, free health care has been provided to 7.5 million people for the first time, thousands of Cuban doctors are working in the slums previously deprived of virtually all public services, hundreds of thousands of people who did not complete primary, secondary or university education are being given the chance to do so, under-cultivated land is being redistributed, people in the shanty-towns are being given title to their homes, the prices of basic foods are being controlled and help is being given to countries throughout the Caribbean with cheaper oil and free eye treatment programmes.

            Instead of welcoming these social advances, the Bush administration has been deeply involved in a series of attempts to overturn the democratic process in Venezuela. Each of these has backfired spectacularly.

            In April 2002, an attempted coup failed when the plotters lost control of the armed forces amid gigantic mobilisations in support of Chavez. In consequence, at the present time supporters of the US have lost control of the army.

            In December 2002 and early 2003, a lock-out organised by the management of the oil industry did enormous damage to Venezuela's economy, but finally collapsed as the entire top management was sacked for being absent from their posts beyond the period allowed for in law. As a result, the oil industry came under the direct control of the government, and its revenues were redeployed to fund the country's social programmes.

            In August 2004, the opposition got enough signatures to force a referendum on removing Chavez from office. However, despite opposition control of all of the private broadcasting media, the referendum was roundly defeated. Since then nearly every elected office in the country has been won by Chavez supporters.

            The great majority of the people of Venezuela continue to live in very harsh conditions but it is hugely encouraging to see, at the start of the 21st century, a government committed to the democratic and social transformation of one of the most important countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

            They should be allowed to carry out the democratically expressed wishes of their people without further interference from George Bush's administration. London will certainly be extending the hand of friendship to Caracas, Venezuela's capital city, and we will make clear our support for their right to determine their own future.