« Remembrance addendum | Main | Fatwa justification »
August 23, 2005
Chavez's game
I had meant to bring this up a while back:
Chavez said late Monday that the U.S. government, which "won't stop caressing the idea of invading Cuba or invading Venezuela," should be warned of the consequences.
"If someday they get the crazy idea of coming to invade us, we'll make them bite the dust defending the freedom of our land," Chavez said to applause.
And this, too:
Chavez noted the immense contribution towards social progress made by the socialist countries, including China, Cuba and the Soviet Union. He heralded the relationship between the people of Cuba and Venezuela today.
The Venezuelan president also welcomed the delegation from the U.S. “We have very special guests with us,” he said. “The anti-imperialist youth of the United States of America.” He called the people of the U.S. “brothers” to Venezuela, and pointed to the progressive traditions of Walt Whitman and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a small example of the progressive history of the U.S.
When Chavez said, “One day, the people of the United States will join with the people of the world to save this planet,” the crowd erupted in cheers.
All in all, typical Chavez: quaint, amusing, and populist. But as is being widely reported, some aren't taking Chavez's antics very well:
Speaking on his own channel, the Christian Broadcasting Network, Pat Robertson said President Chávez should be targeted because he was a "terrific danger" whose country, a big supplier of oil to the US, was "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Islamic extremism all over the country".
Furthermore, killing the Venezuelan leader would be "a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."
I can't really take this too seriously, but many in the Bush administration are, at least to a certain extent. To their credit, they're distancing themselves from Robertson's statements. Unfortunately, that won't mean a whole lot. My speaking and acting in such an extravagant manner, Chavez has cleverly secured his position. Any move the Bush administration may wish to take against Chavez, overt or otherwise, will be nearly impossible to carry out in the spotlight that Chavez's rhetoric has cast on U.S. policy. And if the Bush administration doesn't want to act against Chavez, then he has lost absolutely nothing in speaking so directly -- it fits his populist reputation and image, and his domestic audience loves it.
My point is that Robertson's statements are analogous to Chavez's own over-the-top rhetoric. By playing Chavez's game and by receiving such wide media coverage, Robertson gives Chavez a credibility he might otherwise not have had. He also gave Chavez the rather unique opportunity to represent the sober voice of reason in this particular spat:
"I don't know who that person is,'' Chavez told reporters before he boarded a plane in Havana, where he met with Cuban President Fidel Castro, one of his closest allies, for four days. "I don't care what he said. I prefer to talk about life, about the things we've been working on.''
The Bush administration’s attempts to distance itself from Robertson, whether genuine or not, are not what's making headlines; they are thus largely irrelevant. It is Robertson and his ridiculous comments that are making headlines. Whether you like Chavez or not, it's undeniable that Robertson has just done him a nice, big favor.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 10:13 PM to Americas
