U.S. Attacks Venezuelan Process Again

Only a few days into the new year, the United States began to line up its artillery against the Bolivarian government of Hugo Chavez, questioning approval of the “Ley Habilitante,” or emergency powers act, as an “anti-democratic measure” that is causing concern in the region.

In addition, the new chairman of the House Subcommittee for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Connie Mack, announced that his “goal” for this legislative session is to include Venezuela on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. “He [Chavez] acts and talks in a very belligerent manner, and is governing by decree. Venezuela’s economy suffers because of his socialist practices, and he looks to the example of Castro in Cuba. But I haven’t seen evidence that he’s a threat to the region,” said the congressman.*

What’s more, Secretary-General of the Organization of American States (OAS) Jose Miguel Insulza joined the U.S. in declaring that the Ley Habilitante is unconstitutional.

Leading national legislator, Carlos Escarra, said that “emergency powers are a worldwide constitutional instrument, not just in Latin America.” With these words he went before the National Assembly to conclusively reject the array of negative opinion that has been raised against the law.

For his part, the ex-president of the National Assembly, Deputy Cilia Flores, said there is debate, not over the Ley Habilitante, but over intervention by foreign elements. “We have seen that those who seek and speak of debate are not focused on Escarra’s approach. The debate is not over the law, and the ultra right-wing representatives know it, but rather between a consistent attitude of a good citizen and a position that constitutes interference on the part of Mr. Insulza.”

Leading the banner of justice, he emphasized the fundamental role played by Venezuela in Latin America, where “we are fighting a very strong and hard battle, where we are pioneers in this century against the empire of the U.S., on our march to our second independence.”

It is worth noting that the first Ley Habilitante had its origin in 1925, in the Constitution of Chile, and later was passed in Mexico, Brazil, and other countries. In Venezuela, it came into existence in 1945, and is today referred to in article 203 of the constitution.

The foundations of the Ley Habilitante

According to those familiar with the matter, the Ley Habilitante requested by the president and approved by the recently concluded national assembly was justified, given the urgency that confronts the country as a result of the heavy rains of October and November of last year, which resulted in a significant number of homeless families. Add to this picture the problem of housing, a sector that has already been declared in emergency by President Hugo Chavez. Politically, this situation appeared to be an excuse for right-wing groups to intensify their attacks against Chavez.

Internally, the opposition directed their statements on the government’s Bolivarian project from the point of view of inefficiency, assuming that the national executive would not be able to control the situation. Contrary to what inspired the opposition, President Chavez, along with his executive team and the solidarity of the Venezuelan people and the international community, not only controlled the emergency situation, but turned the moment into an opportunity to present definitive solutions to a problem that brought suffering to poor Venezuelans during the Fourth Republic, prior to Chavez’s rule.

The heightened crisis required the application of emergency powers on the part of the president to effectively advance a solution to the housing problem. Internally, the opposition made use of the private media to maintain an array of opinions on the supposed illegality of emergency powers, working on the basis of deception to confuse the population. They predicted that once the recent assembly session concluded, the emergency legislative powers granted to the president would expire. The opposition’s desired end having failed and their deception being dismantled by reality, the lobby of the international political right was activated, implementing Venezuelan opposition groups abroad.

The statements of the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Arturo Valenzuela and OAS Secretary General Insulza, who characterized the Ley Habilitante as anti-democratic and unconstitutional, respectively, are not isolated incidents, but are rather part of the chorus of voices against President Chavez that is trying to delegitimize him at an international level.

Within the same framework of the destabilization, we have the statements of Congressman Connie Mack, who revealed the maneuver to include the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Mack’s position displays, once more, the use by the U.S. of such lists for political purposes, with the intent of discrediting and isolating countries to execute its imperialist pretensions.

Evidently, the OAS in this case is acting as it has always acted, as the political arm of the U.S. government, as it has been used, managed, and invalidated in order to institutionalize positions against countries that don’t comply with the U.S.

At the same time, conservative politicians in Venezuela have shown a benevolent attitude toward statements that come from abroad issued against domestic politics and which represent direct interference. This is internal evidence of the external script written by the U.S. against the Bolivarian government.

Finally, it is important to raise the issue of the state of affairs in Colombia that has resulted, as in the case of Venezuela, from heavy rains that have left a large number of dead and injured Colombians. To address the situation, President Juan Manuel Santos has seen the necessity of prolonging for two more months Colombia’s state of emergency and was granted special powers to legislate by decree to solve the crisis. Given this, it is worthwhile to ask what difference exists between the acts of the Venezuelan and Colombian governments in addressing their similar emergency situations and to what extent such actions infringe on the charter of the OAS. What’s more, if any transgression of the charter were to exist, why haven’t statements been made against President Santos? Clearly, Secretary General Insulza is a very obedient servant to the imperial interests of the U.S.

* Editor’s Note: Efforts to verify this quotation have not been successful.