A recent article by Jose Miguel Vivanco, the Americas director for Human Rights Watch, describes Obama’s recent actions at the OAS summit as a calculated act of diplomacy that deflates Hugo Chavez’s dictatorial ambitions. The reality: Vivanco is wrong.

The reason he is wrong is the same reason that so many other international observers have been wrong; they fail to recognize the fundamental difference between the traditional Latin American “caudillo” (or military strongman) and the communist/socialist demagogue. The former swoops into power in order to accomplish a handful of goals. The caudillo is a product of political impasse, of popular dissatisfaction with a government, and the personal ambitions of a military or political figure. The caudillo generally does not remake or destroy the institutions of the country. Exceptions exist of course, but in general, these regimes tend to worry about their own country and neighbors.

The communist dictator or demagogue is a completely different species. By the very nature of their ideology, they believe that they themselves are historical figures fighting the imperialist armies intent on conquering the world. They back up their authoritarian rule with an ideology that they export around the world and use to justify any sort of abuse or atrocity. The first such dictator was, of course, Fidel Castro and naturally his successful subjugation of Cuba for more than fifty years serves as a model for other would-be dictators. The other main difference between military dictatorships and communist/socialist dictatorships lies in their approach to human rights. While both violate basic rights, the socialist variety denies that they exist altogether (at least how the world believes in rights). The state or the collective usurps all rights: property rights are nonexistent, people do not have the right to express themselves without permission, people do not have the right to assemble in groups, people do not have the right to travel without government permission, etc. The entire political structure of the country is remade radically. What I am describing is the Cuban model which, as of now, does not yet exist in the Latin American countries engaged in a “socialist revolution” like Venezuela and Ecuador.

Many people consider Chavez to be a clown who simply uses a populist platform to consolidate power over Venezuela, similar to Juan Peron (except for the clown part), but when you look at Chavez’s actions, he has restructured Venezuelan politics and has actively turned it into a one-party state. He rewrote the Constitution, remade the national seal, changed the flag, renamed the country to the “Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” arrested political opponents, has ruled by decree, nationalized foreign businesses, and the list goes on. Chavez is not going to let all of this work to “go to waste;” he is going to make sure that he retains power indefinitely… and therein lies the rub.

Those that say that Obama’s friendliness actually undermines Chavez do not understand that this individual does not plan to ever lose power, especially through those pesky things called elections. What happens when Obama comes with his hand out? Chavez says that he has made progress in stopping the imperialists by making them respect Venezuela, acting like a national hero.

What about Colombia? The fact is that Venezuela’s involvement with Colombian guerrillas has brought a lot of friction between both countries; at one point Chavez threatened war if Colombia pursued terrorists or guerrillas into Venezuelan territory. Chavez has a heavily armed, Washington-backed foil next door that he can goad into conflicts by supporting their local guerrilla armies, what does he need Washington for? He continues to deny that he supports drug traffickers or guerrillas, any action against Venezuela will be seen as a violation of their sovereignty. That means that Chavez still has the nationalism card that can be used to distract the populace from its current woes under the Chavez government. Worse still, the United States will most probably have to stand by our Colombian allies and therefore be complicit in any sort of problem involving a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty.

What about the inevitable rise in the price of petroleum? Eventually, China’s insatiable appetite and recovery from this recession will push up prices. At that point, he can do what he has always done, throw money at the impoverished masses and mobilize their vote while continuing policies that will keep them impoverished.

What about the press? Chavez’s war against the free press will continue and his party will have control of all media. He already shut down anti-Chavez radio stations and TV stations. He has also shown the propensity for sending troops to nationalize businesses and private property. With a press under his control, he will have a rather easy time creating an alternate reality for the Venezuelan people.

So when someone writes or says that the Obama handjob… i mean, handshake just made it harder for Chavez, he/she does not understand that while heightened friction between the United States and Venezuela has served as a useful distraction for the Venezuelan people, it is not the only thing keeping Chavez in power. It does not make sense for the United States to get in Chavez’s corner at a time when Chavez is trying to increase his influence over Latin America, is in the process of building up its military, is thought to actively support communist guerrillas, is thought to undermine the war on drugs, and is improving ties with Iran, China, and Russia. Today, we perceive Chavez as a clown because of his antics at the UN and pronouncements at home and by extending our hand to him, we give him the appearance of being a reasonable person. “O"-pologists and starry-eyed idealists think that we can defeat our enemies through kindness… if that were the case, then Neville Chamberlain would be a hero for negotiating with that clown Adolph.

-AG