Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez will undergo emergency surgery in Cuba. Speculation had mounted for days about the state of Chávez’s health before he admitted publicly on 21 February that a “two-centimetre lesion” had been discovered during a “routine check-up” in Cuba at the weekend in the same (unspecified) place where he had a malignant tumour removed less than a year ago. He did not say when he would go to Cuba for treatment, but it is likely to be this weekend and to involve radiotherapy. He admitted that he would be forced to slow down his rhythm in the months ahead but he pointedly refrained from announcing a temporary replacement and remains intent on standing for re-election on 7 October. The uncertainty should play into the hands of his opponent Henrique Capriles Radonski, who won a sweeping victory in primary elections on 12 February.
Chávez spoke out on state television, after visiting a tractor factory in his native state of Barinas, to quash what he called malicious rumours that he had metastasis in the liver and that he would be unfit to contest October’s elections. The Venezuelan journalist Nelson Bocaranda, who has demonstrated since Chávez underwent four rounds of chemotherapy between July and September 2011, that he has very reliable sources, broke the news in his runrun column and on Twitter that Chávez had been flown to Cuba for an emergency check-up on Saturday 18 February.
Bocaranda claimed that Chávez has been taking steroids to disguise his illness, and that rather than resting, as his doctors, family and even mentor Fidel Castro are urging, has made a superhuman effort to gear up for re-election and attack Capriles. Perhaps too great an effort. Hours before he was flown to Cuba he had unleashed a torrent of abuse on his opponent, who he has never once mentioned by name, depicting him as “inferior, mediocre, a liar and a pig”. He said Capriles represented “the rancid Venezuelan oligarchy” and was lying about being progressive.
Capriles said he was not surprised by the insults. He compared Chávez to an old and tiring pugilist slugging around, while he was nimble and dexterous. The analogy, which was designed to contrast the past with the future, gained poignancy and prescience after Chávez’s relapse. If Capriles was offended by his opponent’s personal attack it was probably more over the accusation of being “a liar” than the extended porcine metaphor. Chávez has been very economical with the truth about his illness and members of his government are either being misinformed or simply lying - neither of which reflect well on his government. How else can the vehement denial of the rumours about a downturn in Chávez’s health by the communications minister, Andrés Izarra, on 20 February, a day before Chávez demonstrated that the rumours were in fact true, be explained?
Capriles wished Chávez “a successful operation, swift recovery and long life” on his Twitter account, but the opposition Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD) is demanding “transparency” from the government, as well as “reliable” medical reports on Chávez’s condition. “Telling the truth is a democratic duty to the Venezuelan people, especially over such an important matter,” it argued.
Chávez will gain a degree of support for his stoicism in the face of his illness, but it will be tempered by the perception that his government has not been straight with supporters and the very real fear that even if he recovers and wins in October, another six years, with all the associated rigours of office, is surely beyond him. He has no chosen successor (he has pointedly refrained from delegating power for now) and, despite his claims to the contrary, he is far more popular than his project and Capriles would be a clear favourite against any alternative candidate.
Diosdado Cabello, elevated to head of the national assembly and vice-president of the ruling Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) in recent months, insists that nothing has changed and that Chávez “is and will continue to be” the party’s candidate in October. Cabello, paradoxically, claimed that Chávez had kept him well informed about his illness but that he was surprised by his latest announcement. Izarra had accused the opposition of fighting “a dirty war” by spreading false rumours, although these were proven to be true and the communications minister’s own denial false.
Alba’s support for Syria
One of the things Henrique Capriles has promised in the event of winning election in October is to discontinue the “club of friends” set up by President Chávez. One of these special friends is Syria. The Alba integration bloc, led by Venezuela, recently issued a statement, condemning “the violence armed rebel groups supported by foreign powers have unleashed against the Syrian people” and “a systematic policy of interference and destabilisation”. It expressed full support for Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. This is in line with the conclusions of an Alba delegation which visited Damascus four months ago. Since then the violence has intensified and more than 6,000 people are thought to have been killed.
Last week the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accused Assad and his government of “almost certain” crimes against humanity and called for him to step aside to allow a democratic transition. The UN General Assembly voted 137-12 to condemn the violence in Syria and endorse an Arab League plan that calls for Assad to resign. Alba members Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela lined up with Syria itself, Belarus, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Zimbabwe in refusing to condemn the violence.
The very name Alba is supposed to symbolise a new dawn of people’s democracy. And yet, an organisation which enshrines greater democratic participation at the heart of its founding statutes is pledging unqualified support for Assad, not an enlightened social reformer embodying democratic ideals but a scion of a 40-year-old regime brutally repressing his people. How can Alba be oblivious to this incongruity? Chávez is well know for forging close ties with pariahs such as Alexander Lukashenko, the Belarusian president, but how can it possibly avail Alba to throw its weight behind Assad now? Part of the answer is a visceral anti-Americanism and suspicion of US intentions. Part of it is survival instincts. The five main Alba heads of state are always highly critical of external interference in sovereign nations because they claim that (often foreign-backed) conspiracies seeking to destabilise them abound (see page 3); they thrive on polarisation. Other Alba members are clearly uncomfortable with the bloc’s Syria policy. Antigua & Barbuda and Haiti voted to condemn Syria in the UN; St Vincent and the Grenadines abstained.
The UN might yet sanction Venezuela. Reuters claimed last week that Venezuela had sent US$50m worth of diesel fuel to Syria, in violation of international sanctions.
- Replacement
When President Chávez underwent chemotherapy last year he did not delegate power to his Vice-President Elías Jaua, or any surrogate. Even though he could be sidelined for weeks at a time undergoing radiotherapy, it appears that he does not intend to announce a temporary replacement now either. Indeed, Jaua has indignantly lashed out at the opposition for even suggesting the need for such a replacement and insisted that Chávez would continue to wield power throughout his treatment.
End of preview - This article contains approximately 1205 words.
Subscribers: Log in now to read the full article
Not a Subscriber?
Choose from one of the following options
