Nikolas Kozloff

To read the article, click here.

To read article on Commondreams, click here.

As tensions ratchet up in the Middle East and the Straits of Hormuz, the U.S. has grown increasingly concerned about what Iran might try next.  Perhaps, the Obama White House miscalculated when it moved to strengthen the sanctions regime against the Islamic Republic, not anticipating that Iran might lash out and raise the stakes.  If Iran does move to block the Straits of Hormuz in retaliation against sanctions, world oil prices could skyrocket which in turn could have severe political repercussions in the U.S.  While the odds are unlikely that Iran would resort to such desperate measures, the embattled and isolated Ahmadinejad leadership may calculate that it can shore up crucial domestic political support by challenging the western powers.

 

In a further destabilizing move, Ahmadinejad has opted to conduct a four nation tour of Latin America designed to showcase Iran's budding relationship with the region's populist left.  In recent years, Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and members of his so-called ALBA alliance have done much to rehabilitate the despotic and increasingly repressive Ahmadinejad.  Prior to the Iranian leader's arrival in Caracas, Chávez rejected calls by the U.S. for nations to insist that Iran stop defying international efforts to evaluate the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.  While the U.S. and its western friends accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear energy program, Venezuela and its ALBA allies have backed Iran in the dispute.

 

In the unfolding diplomatic crisis in the Middle East, it's difficult to know who the more egregious and reprehensible party might be.  To be sure, Iran could be innocent of charges that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but the Ahmadinejad leadership is detestable for all kinds of other reasons.  The U.S. and its allies, meanwhile, are dangerously escalating tensions and needless to say they already have nuclear weapons.  Now that Ahmadinejad is traveling to Latin America, however, tensions have taken on an entirely new wrinkle.  Leaders of the ALBA bloc would claim that they are simply trying their best to avert a dangerous war in the Middle East against the imperialist machinations of the U.S.  Perhaps, but Chávez and his allies have gone much further than that, embracing Iran and thus tarnishing the left and much of their own political brand in the process.

 

Ahmadinejad and Chávez: A Perverse Relationship

 

Venezuela and Iran have little in common except oil and an axe to grind against Washington, but that hasn't stopped the two countries from cultivating unprecedented relations.  Fellow OPEC member states, both nations recently reached an agreement to invest more than $700 million in each other's oil fields and to develop a joint petrochemical plant.  The fruits of Chávez's diplomacy have been nothing short of remarkable: milk processing plants constructed with the help of Iranian technology out in the Venezuelan heartland; a joint development bank with Iran worth $200 million, and Iranian manufacturing plants which produce bicycles, tractors, cement and cars for Venezuelans.  If Chávez himself had to pick a car, it would be Iranian and not a Toyota or Ford.  According to the Venezuelan leader, a new car model called the Centauro is better than other vehicles.  The car is produced by Venirauto, a company set up with help from Iranian capital.

 

More significantly perhaps, Chávez has extended military cooperation with his Middle Eastern ally.  Iran reportedly provides training and support for the Venezuelan military as well as an ammunition factory.   Hardly amused by such developments, the U.S. has slapped sanctions on Venezuelan state oil company PdVSA for shipping fuel to Iran as well as an Iranian-owned bank in Caracas.  American officials also accuse Iran of using its new business relationships and energy deals in Latin America as "cover" for more illicit activities such as training of Hizbollah militants and developing nuclear weapons. 

 

WikiLeaks and Venezuelan-Iranian Defense Ties

 

Compared to the Soviet Union or European nations before it, both of which meddled in Latin American affairs but never seriously enough to threaten Washington's hegemony, Iran is essentially a middle-weight power and it is doubtful whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could ever seriously disrupt U.S. interests in the hemisphere.  Nevertheless, U.S. State Department cables recently released by whistle-blowing outfit WikiLeaks reveal that Washington has been closely monitoring the Islamic Republic.  In 2007, for example, U.S. diplomats spoke with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which reported that Ahmadinejad had begun to build alliances with Latin American leaders.  In Teheran, the Iranians hosted a conference aimed at comparing the Latin American and Iranian revolutions, and invited the daughter of Che Guevara no less to participate. 

 

Two years later, a befuddled new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought more information about Iran's wider goals.  Ahmadinejad, Clinton noted, appeared to be "the driving force" behind Iran's new push into Latin America, which sought to end the Islamic Republic's diplomatic isolation while recruiting sympathetic and anti-U.S. allies.  While Clinton noted that populist governments such as Ecuador and Nicaragua had cultivated greater ties to Iran, it was Venezuela which intrigued her most, and the new Secretary of State worried that "Hizbollah-linked" individuals might see Hugo Chávez's Bolivarian republic as a safe haven from which to raise funds.  Peppering her diplomatic staff for more information, Clinton asked about Iran's agreement with Venezuela to overhaul Chávez's F-5 aircraft engines and construct munitions plants.  Not stopping there, Clinton also inquired as to Venezuelan efforts to procure Iranian unmanned aerial vehicles and light Iranian aircraft.

 

From reading the cables, it's difficult to ascertain whether Venezuela took its defense ties with Iran very seriously.  The documents suggest that Clinton was somewhat clueless when it came to assessing Iranian intentions.  Did the new Secretary of State have access to intelligence from other agencies, for example the military, or was there little collaboration?  Honing in on defense related issues, Clinton wanted to know if Venezuela was satisfied regarding the quality of Iranian military goods and training; whether planes belonging to Venezuelan state-run oil company PdVSA were being used to transport arms from Teheran to Damascus, or whether Chávez and the Iranian Republic were pursuing joint nuclear cooperation.  Were Venezuelan flights between Caracas and Teheran being used for purposes of terrorism, Clinton asked?

 

A Growing Defense Footprint For Ahmadinejad?

 

Though Clinton's interest in Iran's ties to South America is certainly intriguing, it wasn't the first time that the U.S. had expressed concern.  In 2006, for instance, the U.S. Embassy in Caracas informed Washington that Venezuela had a Muslim population of approximately 250,000 including tens of thousands of Shia'.  Though Venezuelans were "unfamiliar with Muslims and are unable to distinguish Iranians from Arabs or from other Muslims," and Venezuelan and Iranian societies had "little more in common than their despotic leaders' antipathy toward the United States," nevertheless Ahmadinejad was steadily building up a diplomatic presence in Caracas and nine Iranians posted to the Islamic Republic's Embassy represented "a small but growing number of their citizens working in Venezuela in both the formal and informal sectors."

 

The Americans had become worried about a number of issues, noting for example how Chávez was "favoring Iran with petroleum deals and other contracts that appear to make little commercial sense."  The U.S. ambassador in Caracas also sounded the alarm bell about growing defense ties, noting that "an army official is scheduled to replace the current Iranian Ambassador to Venezuela."  It's sometimes difficult to assess the veracity of U.S. Embassy reports in Latin America, which occasionally relied upon so-called "sensitive reporting."  In Caracas, the Americans had apparently cultivated such high level sources as they sought to ascertain Teheran's precise intentions. 

 

Referring to anonymous sources, the Americans claimed that Chávez desired lethal armament from Iran such as rockets and other explosive materiel. The Bush administration had denied Chávez vital spare parts to service his U.S.-made fighter aircraft, but in the long run such a policy seems to have proven counter-productive.  According to reports, Chávez became frustrated with Washington and simply turned to Iran for the spare parts.  In a further worrying turn, Venezuela had reportedly sought help from Ahmadinejad in establishing its own military reserve force.  A commander of the Iranian Basij visited Venezuela and a colonel from Iran's revolutionary guard corps was "probably on permanent assignment" in the country.  A retired military officer, meanwhile, told the Americans that "Iran had a small number of soldiers in Venezuela training the reserves."

 

Iran and Venezuela: A "Radioactive" Relationship?

 

While the U.S. mainstream media is bound to make sensationalist hay out of Ahmadinejad's trip to South America, the WikiLeaks cables are hardly conclusive about the so-called Iranian-Venezuelan "threat" to the U.S.  What concerned the U.S. Embassy in Caracas above all else was the possibility that Venezuela and Iran might pursue a nuclear partnership, though the evidence at hand was hardly "radioactive."  Ambassador William Brownfield conceded that there was a lot of speculation swirling around such alleged collaboration.  The diplomat argued, however, that "we should not dismiss the uranium rumors."  Relying on press reports and "embassy contacts," Brownfield claimed that Chávez was trying to exploit Venezuelan uranium deposits with Iranian assistance.  According to the ambassador, Iran needed foreign sources of uranium to maintain its nuclear program.

 

Apparently, the Americans weren't overly shy when it came to communicating their concerns to the Chávez government.  In 2007, they went directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Caracas to discuss UN Security Council Resolution 1737 regarding Iran's nuclear and missile programs.  If Chávez was interested in supplying Iran with uranium, however, the cable makes no mention and indeed correspondence suggests that the Venezuelans were also somewhat circumspect about Ahmadinejad.  "Uncharacteristically," the U.S. Embassy noted, the authorities in Caracas viewed Iran's nuclear energy program "as a very grave matter." 

 

Perhaps, the Americans were unconvinced by such displays.  In another report, the U.S. Embassy noted that Chávez had already signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran to create a "National Geoscience Database" containing a survey of mineral deposits throughout Venezuela. The Americans feared that creating such a "basic geological map" could be the logical first step toward restarting a uranium program in Venezuela, and they reported that the Iranians might have been active within Chávez's Institute of Geology and Mines.  "At the very least," Brownfield wrote, "it appears clear Venezuela plans to prospect for uranium with the intention of starting a nuclear program."  In the event that the program turned out not to be peaceful, the initiative would merit further scrutiny. 

 

From Perverse to Outlandish

 

If the Chávez-Ahmadinejad alliance is perverse, Iran's diplomacy toward Ecuador is even stranger.  Ahmadinejad has promised Ecuador that it will invest in the country's energy and petrochemical industry, and in a visit to Teheran Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa signed more than 25 bilateral accords with his counterpart.  Oddly, Correa has even sought to promote an ecological partnership with oil producing Iran through Ecuador's novel Yasuní initiative in the Amazon rainforest. Iran would seem an odd partner for Ecuador's Correa: the Islamic Republic has been blamed for oil spills in the Persian Gulf resulting in the deaths of whales and dolphins.  WikiLeaks cables suggest that when it comes to Ecuador, the U.S. is just as clueless about Ahmadinejad's intentions as the Venezuelan case. 

 

There's no real smoking gun in the secret documents, but much evidence of U.S. paranoia.  The United States, Clinton told diplomats, had information that Ahmadinejad planned to open a branch of Iran's Export Development Bank in Ecuador.  The bank, she wrote, provided "financial services to multiple subordinate entities of Iran's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics that permit these entities to advance Iran's WMD programs."  U.S. Treasury officials had met with staff at the Ecuadoran Embassy in Washington to express concerns, but Clinton urged American diplomats to follow up with further discussions in Quito.  Somewhat cryptically, Clinton sought to "warn Ecuador of the risks involved in facilitating financial transactions with Iran."

 

WikiLeaks: Raising More Questions than Answers

 

For a middle-weight power, Iran has surely beefed up ties to many Latin American nations.  On the other hand, I suspect that this "marriage of convenience" between Latin America and Iran will not prove very enduring.  If the Arab Spring should pick up steam and spread to Iran, then more moderate elements might take power.  Mir-Hossein Moussavi, Ahmadinejad's rival in Iran's previously marred presidential election, said that Ahmadinejad's foreign policy moves had "isolated" and "disgraced" Iranians in the international arena.  "Instead of investing in Iran's neighboring countries, the government has fixed eyes and poured money into Latin American states," Mousavi quipped.  "The President has obviously failed to get his priorities right."  Even if Ahmadinejad and his hardliners should prevail, it's by no means clear that South American societies will continue to approve of increasingly close Iranian ties.  The many contradictions and fissures in the friendship have become more and more evident and threaten to cause ruptures between the region's many social and political constituencies and local leftist leaders. 

 

Nevertheless, as Ahmadinejad continues his tour throughout Latin America, we can probably expect the usual saber rattling from U.S. officials and the mainstream media making the case that Iran represents a true threat to the hemisphere.  The bottom line, however, is this: though U.S. diplomats would like to make alarmist claims about Iran's military presence, the evidence is pretty thin thus far [unless, of course, the Americans turned up additional information in recent years, as the WikiLeaks cache ends in early 2010].  What the increasingly desperate Ahmadinejad truly hopes to accomplish in the region is difficult to fathom, and while the WikiLeaks cables provide some limited clues, the documents ultimately lead to more questions than answers.

To read the article, click here.

To read the article click here.

To read the article, click here.

To read the article, click here.

The recent election of former Bishop Fernando Lugo as President of Paraguay poses a sticky dilemma for the Vatican and underscores the hostile political environment facing incoming Pope Benedict XVI in South America. Lugo, who was known to his constituents as the "Bishop of the Poor" for his support of landless peasants, advocates so-called Liberation Theology, a school of thought which took shape in Latin America in the 1960s.

 

Recognizing the pressing need for social justice, Liberation Theology was minted by Pope John XXIII to challenge the Church to defend the oppressed and the poor. Since its emergence, Liberation Theology has consistently mixed politics and religion. Its adherents have often been active in labor unions and left-wing political parties. Followers of Liberation Theology take inspiration from fallen martyrs like Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador and Dorothy Mae Stang, an American-born nun who was murdered by ranching interests in Brazil.

 

Romero, an outspoken voice for social change, was gunned down in 1980 by a right wing death squad during a Mass in the chapel of San Salvador's Divine Providence hospital. Stang, an advocate of the poor and the environment, was shot to death in the Brazilian Amazon in February 2005; her assailants were later linked to a powerful local landlord.

 

Joseph Ratzinger: Doctrinal Czar

 

During the 1980s and 1990s Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, acted as John Paul II's doctrinal czar. At the time, John Paul was in the midst of a fierce battle to silence prominent Church liberals. "This conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth," the Pontiff once said, "does not tally with the church's catechism."

In 1983 the Pope wagged his finger at Sandinista government minister and Nicaraguan priest, Ernesto Cardenal on a trip to Managua, warning the latter to "straighten out the situation in your church." Cardenal was one of the most prominent Liberation Theologians of the Sandinista era.

 

Originally a liberal reformer, Ratzinger changed his tune once he became an integrant in the Vatican hierarchy. As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's doctrinal watchdog agency, Cardinal Ratzinger warned against the temptation to view Christianity in an exclusively political light. Liberation Theology, he once said, was dangerous as it fused "the Bible's view of history with Marxist dialectics."

 

Calling Liberation Theology a "singular heresy," Ratzinger went on the offensive. He blasted the new movement as a "fundamental threat" to the church and prohibited some of its leading proponents from speaking publicly. In an effort to clean house, Ratzinger even summoned outspoken priests to Rome and censured them on grounds that they were abandoning the church's spiritual role for inappropriate socioeconomic activism.

 

As Pope, Ratzinger has not sought to hide his lack of esteem for Liberation Theology. During a recent trip to Brazil, he was pressed by reporters to comment on Oscar Romero's tragic murder in El Salvador. The Pope complained that Romero's cause had been hijacked by supporters of liberation theology. Commenting on a new book about the slain archbishop, the Pope said that Romero should not be seen simply as a political figure. Hoping to avoid any meaningful political discussion on the matter, Benedict said "He was killed during the consecration of the Eucharist. Therefore, his death is testimony of the faith."

 

How to Handle Lugo?

 

Despite his best efforts however, Benedict has not been able to impede the rise of the Bishop of the Poor in Paraguay. Lugo has had long time differences with the Vatican, which could now create some political friction between Paraguay and the Papal See. When Lugo left the priesthood to pursue politics, the Vatican refused to accept his resignation, arguing that the Bishop already made a "lifetime commitment." Defying the Pope, Lugo formed the center left Patriotic Alliance, which brought together leftist unions, indigenous people and poor farmers.

When Lugo announced his intention to run in what turned out to be his victorious presidential race, the Vatican sent him a letter declaring that the Holy See had "learned with surprise" that some political parties "have the intention of presenting him as a candidate in the coming Presidential election in Paraguay." It added: "The acceptance of that offer would be clearly against the serious responsibility of a bishop … Canon Law prohibits priests from participating in political parties or labor unions." The letter asked Lugo "in the name of Jesus Christ" to "seriously reflect on his behavior".

 

Lugo replied tartly, "The Pope can either accept my decision or punish me. But I am in politics already." Hardly amused, the Vatican suspended Lugo from his duties "a divinis," meaning that he could no longer say Mass or carry out other priestly functions such as administering the sacraments. This was enough to enable Lugo to stand in the Presidential elections, but his victory now presents the Vatican with a dilemma over whether to "reduce him to lay status." Vatican officials said it was up to the Pope to decide, and that Benedict would "take time to study the situation".

 

Brazilian Challenge

 

Though Benedict has long opposed Liberation Theology, it's unclear what he might do at this point to halt its spread. Unlike the 1980s when South America was in the midst of right-wing military rule, the region has now undergone a decided shift to the left which is confounding the Papacy.

 

In Brazil, the world's most populous Roman Catholic nation, some 80,000 "base communities," as the grass-roots building blocks of liberation theology are called, are flourishing. What's more, nearly one million "Bible circles" meet regularly to read and discuss scripture from the viewpoint of the theology of liberation.

 

Liberation Theology advocates have strong links to the labor movement which helped propel the current regime into power; this history turned President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva into being a long time ally. The movement has been particularly strong in poorer areas of the country such as the Amazon, the hinterlands of northeast Brazil and the outskirts of large urban centers like São Paulo, which has a population of 20 million people.

 

In the latter city, the followers of liberation theology prominently display their politics. For example, during last year's May Day celebration, liberation theologists draped a wooden cross with black banners labeled "imperialism" and "privatization" and applauded when the homily criticized the government's "neoliberal" economic policies, the kind backed by Washington.

 

Chávez and Pope Benedict

 

Try as he might, Benedict has been unable to halt the re-emergence of Liberation Theology, and Paraguay and Brazil are just the tip of the iceberg. For years Venezuela has been a religious battleground, with President Chávez pursuing a combative relationship with the Catholic Church. Unlike some other Latin American countries which had a stronger liberation theology movement, the Venezuelan Church never had a leftist tendency except among diocesan priests.

 

A clash between the government and the Church was probably inevitable, and shortly after taking office Chávez started to chastise Venezuelan bishops, accusing them of complicity with the corrupt administrations that preceded his rule. The Venezuelan leader accused the Vatican's former representative in Venezuela, Cardinal Rosalio Castillo Lara, of allying himself with the country's "rancid oligarchy." Memorably, Chávez suggested that priests such as Castillo Lara ought to subject themselves to an exorcism because "the devil has snuck into their clerical robes." Incensed, the cardinal compared Chávez to Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.

 

During the April 2002 coup, prominent Catholics such as Cardinal Ignacio Velasco sided with the opposition against the president. Velasco was even accused of offering his residence as a meeting place for the coup plotters. What is more, he signed the "Carmona decree" that swept away Venezuela's democratic institutions. Senior Catholic bishops themselves attended the inauguration ceremony for Pedro Carmona, Venezuela's Dictator-For-a-Day.

 

But when Chávez was able to quickly overturn the coup and return to power, the hard line Church establishment was humiliated. Relishing his triumph Chávez launched a rhetorical broadside on the Vatican, calling on the Pope to apologize, on behalf of the Catholic Church, for the "holocaust" of the indigenous peoples of Latin America during the colonial era, and for the imposition of Christianity. The Pope, who is close to Castillo Lara, is reportedly anti-Chávez but has met with the Venezuelan leader at the Vatican.

 

Hoping to neutralize the power of the Catholic Church, Chávez frequently quotes from the Bible. Puckishly, he also tells his supporters in his public addresses that Christ was an anti-imperialist. Even as Chávez spars with the Church, Protestants have provided a key pillar of the president's political support. Over the last few years, Chávez has done his utmost to cultivate the support of Protestants, which make up 29% of the population. He even declared that he was no longer a Catholic, but a member of the Christian Evangelical Council.

 

In The Andes, Pope Faces Hostile Political Environment

 

In the Andes, the situation is not much more promising for Pope Benedict.
Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa is a Catholic Socialist and has called for a "new Catholicism" in the 21st century which would challenge globalized capitalism. The President has said that his real education came from working as a lay Salesian missionary in the mid-1980s in the largely indigenous province of Cotopaxi. During his speeches, Correa invokes the words of Leonidas Proaño, probably Ecuador's most famous liberation theologian.

Bolivia's Evo Morales has never been a fan of ecclesiastical authority and has said that Catholic bishops "historically damaged the country" by functioning as "an instrument of the oligarchs." What's more, Morales tapped Rafael Puente Calvo, an ex-Jesuit and a staunch liberation theologian, to be his Deputy Minister of the Interior.

 

In Paraguay, Brazil, Venezuela, and up and down the Andes Pope Benedict faces a very changed political climate from the 1980s. A new generation of leaders, allied to the Pope's ideological foes, has to be making life difficult for the conservative church hierarchy. If he wants the Vatican to maintain its influence in the region, Pope Benedict is going to have to be creative, diplomatic and extremely cautious in his regional initiatives.

It’s now crunch time for Bush and his Colombia free trade agreement: the President has sent the deal to Congress, thereby forcing a vote within 90 legislative days.

"The need for this agreement is too urgent — the stakes for our national security are too high — to allow this year to end without a vote," Bush said. "The stakes are high in South America," he added. "By acting at this critical moment, we can show a watching world that America will honor its commitments. We can provide a powerful rebuke to dictators and demagogues in our backyard. We can show millions across the hemisphere that democracy and free enterprise lead to a better life."

The political strategy is clear: facing an uphill battle for his trade deal in Congress, Bush hopes to intimidate the Democrats by linking them to Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. Either pass my deal, Bush is saying, or allow Chávez to further expand his geopolitical influence in South America.

It’s a shrewd move on Bush’s part.

Though the trade deal is unpopular on the Hill owing to Colombia’s appalling human rights and labor record, most Democrats will do most anything to avoid the perception that they are sympathetic to the Chávez regime. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has called Chávez "a thug," but probably fears that Bush may be able to peel off some Democrats by resorting to Chávez bashing. In the House, the Republican leadership is attempting to frame the political debate over the Colombia deal as either a vote for Colombian President Uribe or for Chávez.

The Bush administration, Pelosi has said, should not invoke the specter of Chávez but instead focus on curbing labor abuses in Colombia (more than 700 trade unionists have been killed in Colombia since 2001, and though the number murdered annually has fallen sharply since President Uribe took office in 2002, the 25 killed in 2007 was still more than in any other country in the world. Only a small fraction of the killings have been solved).

"Nobody likes Chávez," Democratic Representative Charlie Rangel remarked, "but I don’t think a bogeyman is going to get people excited into voting for these trade deals." "The problem is that Hugo Chávez is not their main thrust – he is their only thrust," he added.

I’ll Be Your Tour Guide in Colombia

Hardly intimidated by the spineless Democratic leadership, Bush has employed a relentless public relations campaign to get conservative Democrats on board. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutiérrez, a right wing Cuban and former CEO of the Kellogg Company, has led congressional delegations to Colombia which have included some Democrats. "Colombia has been one of our closest allies in the region," Gutiérrez has remarked. "What an irony it would be if it is punished for its support of the United States." Gutiérrez has been a long time booster of free trade in the hemisphere. For example, he played a key role in the passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement or CAFTA-DR.

Thanks to Gutiérrez’s tireless efforts, some Democrats seem to be coming round to the Colombia free trade deal. Gregory Meeks and Eliot Engel, both representatives from liberal New York City, recently traveled to Colombia. When interviewed, they agreed that the United States needed to help Colombia and other countries face up to Chávez. "The Chávez issue plays on something important," Meeks said. "What has to be considered is the difference between two economic systems. One is the capitalist model of friends like Colombia based on market access. The other is the failed socialist model of Venezuela. We have to show that our system works." Engel, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, is reportedly still nervous about Colombia’s labor situation but joined his colleague in the by now obligatory Chávez bashing: "He’s saying, ‘Follow me, I’m the wave of the future in Latin America.’ We do have to counter that." Another Congressional Democrat, Jim Matheson of Utah, traveled to Colombia with Gutiérrez. After touring the country he declared that carrying out a free trade deal would shore up Colombia’s status as a key U.S. ally in the region.

Condi Makes Her Case

Yet another leading booster for Colombia trade has been Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Rice remarked "Some in the Americas today want to shove the region toward authoritarianism. This system has failed before, and it will fail again. The only question is how much harm it will cause in the meantime, and in large part that depends on us ­ on whether we support the vast majority of people in the Americas today who believe, as we do, that security and social justice are best achieved through liberty and the rule of law, free and fair trade, and responsible democratic governance. Colombia shares these values, and we have invested billions of dollars in our ally’s success. How could we possibly retreat now?"

Rice and her colleagues are alarmed because, notwithstanding their ideological differences, South American nations appear to be moving towards extensive political and economic integration. The only question now is which economic development model will predominate within the region and what the eventual complexion of integration will look like.

Chávez, whose star is rising, has overseen an avowedly socialist and strong statist approach to the economy. Rhetorically, he rails against the market and globalization and would like to see a more "un-savage" version of globalization spread forth from Venezuela into neighboring countries. In order to advance Venezuelan interests, Chávez provides development assistance and oil at discount prices to sympathetic regimes in the hemisphere. He has promoted the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (known by its Spanish acronym ALBA), a scheme based on solidarity and barter trade outside of the usual corporate strictures. The initiative was originally an effort to counteract the U.S-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas. Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Dominica have signed on to the agreement.

Rice seeks to head off Chávez’s ALBA before it can take root amongst left leaning countries throughout the region. In Chile last month, she sought to revive a long-standing, but largely dormant, strategic partnership between Chile and the U.S. state of California. State Department officials argue that both have complimentary economies; spokesman Sean McCormack said that a centerpiece of Rice’s visit was a proposed educational exchange program. For Rice it was important to visit Chile, a country with which the United States has a free trade agreement: the Bush White House hopes the accord will serve as a model for other free trade initiatives in the region, including Colombia.

Avoiding another Ecuador Fiasco

Rice may take some comfort in the fact that the Bush administration was successful in recently ramming through a free trade agreement with Peru. If she can help to ensure a deal with Colombia, this might take some wind out of Chávez’s sail. Bush officials are in a hurry because the tide seems to be turning against them: in Ecuador, maverick Rafael Correa wants his country to join Chávez’s ALBA.

As I explain in my new book, Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan), the United States made a serious geopolitical mistake in not securing a deal with the tiny Andean nation. Prior to Correa’s assumption of power, the state-run oil company in Ecuador, Petroecuador, took over assets belonging to the U.S. energy company Occidental, allegedly because the firm had violated its contract by transferring some of its assets to another company.

In the U.S., the mainstream press referred to the government’s action as an "expropriation."

Incensed by Ecuador’s handling of the affair, the U.S. broke off discussions on a free trade agreement that had been going on for four years. As a matter of fact, the two parties had finally agreed on key terms when the talks were abruptly severed.

Correa has signaled that he’s in no mood to enter into new trade talks with the U.S., and has alarmed foreign investors and the moneyed classes by seeking to participate in ALBA. Ironically then, by cutting off free trade negotiations the U.S. may have encouraged Ecuador to strengthen its ties to Venezuela and thereby hasten economic integration along more progressive lines.

Rice and her colleagues are determined not to repeat the Ecuador fiasco again. Securing a free trade deal with Colombia would be more economically significant than any agreement entered into with tiny Ecuador. The real rationale, however, is ideological and political: in its devious game of geopolitical chess, the U.S. badly needs a symbolic victory over Chávez.

The only obstacle in Bush’s path right now is the Democrats, who are deeply divided over the question of Venezuela. While some may be counted on to resist Bush’s relentless Chávez bashing, most are fearful of being labeled as anything but hawkish when it comes to dealing with the United States’ enemies on the world stage.

To read the article, click here.