End of an era in region’s politics

THE death of Hugo Chavez, who led Venezuela for the last 14 years, has brought to an end a type of politics that many would not have associated with a region on the doorsteps of the USA – an environment similar to what existed 40 or even 30 years ago.

It gives rise to the question whether the Western Hemisphere will see a similarly strong leader not only emerging, but becoming a thorn in the side of the United States, which has come to view this part of the world stretching from Mexico to the tip of South America as part of its backyard.

Chavez, whose style resembled several Latin American leaders before him – nationalist, regionalist, anti-American and a firm believer that Latin American solutions must be found for Latin American problems – died last week after a two-year battle with cancer. However, with the exception of Fidel Castro in Cuba, not many survived for as long as the 14 years Chavez was in office.

On many occasions he had been very critical of the United States and its economic and political policy in the hemisphere. He had forged his Bolivarian revolution and alliance (ALBA) which in many ways was to dampen US influence in the region and to promote a new type of South-South economic cooperation among hemispheric countries.

 ALBA was meant to rival the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which the United States had designed to integrate 34 countries in Central America, South America and the Caribbean (with the exception of Cuba). The FTAA was also to rival the European Union and its Single Economy commonly known as Fortress Europe.

So that whereas the FTAA lost its way because major players like Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Mexico, were unable to come to agreements on how to cooperate in key economic sectors, Chavez and his ALBA was going along, even incorporating some of the smaller islands making up the Caribbean.

The Americans have long cultivated the notion of keeping out other influences of the Caribbean and Latin America, a policy that dates back to the time when the Monroe Doctrine was promoted. Meanwhile, socialism in Venezuela under Chavez was from the point of view of the United States being alien to this region. On many occasions the US has used its might to eliminate that form of government and economic organisation from the region.

To the question therefore as to whether there’ll be another Chavez or a similar leader styling himself as a rival to the United States, one can never say.

The emergence of Chavez towards the end of the 1990s had taken place at a time when political tensions between the East and the West had long ended. Those tensions had dissipated at least ten years earlier when the entire Eastern European socialist/communist experience came tumbling down under the weight of people wanting to have more democratic institutions, economic freedom and a chance for their economies to free themselves from the rigours of authoritarianism as practised since the end of the Second World War. The Soviet Union had also collapsed and Cuba, seen as a rival to the United States in term of political influence in the Caribbean, was weak. In a way therefore there was no haste for the USA to be overly concerned about Chavez. However, his influence was such that he will be remembered; whether his successor can carry forward his mission remains to be seen.