Hugo Stay Home

The Venezuelan president's ill-advised foray into Mideast diplomacy won't help Libya or his own struggling country.

BY MICHAEL SHIFTER | MARCH 4, 2011

Perhaps it was only a matter of time before Hugo Chávez inserted himself into the turmoil gripping the Middle East. Uncharacteristically silent ever since revolutions began to break out in Tunisia last December, the Venezuelan president has clearly been enticed by the Libyan drama, where his longtime friend and ally, Muammar al-Qaddafi, is under siege from rebel forces. After taking to his Twitter feed last week to defend "Libya and its independence," Chávez has now offered to create an international commission composed of South American, European, and Middle Eastern countries to mediate and seek a peaceful resolution of the Libyan crisis -- and also, presumably, to figure out a way for Qaddafi to stay in power.

In making this proposal, Chávez is keen to shore up his waning global constituency. The prospect of civil war in Libya offers him the chance to use his close relationship with Qaddafi to try to head off what he claims is an impending U.S. military invasion. As a measure of the camaraderie between the two army colonels, bonded by oil and ideology, the rumor circulating early in the crisis that Qaddafi would seek refuge in Venezuela had a ring of plausibility. But in fact, Chávez's belated intervention in the Libyan crisis seems likely to fall flat on the international stage -- and to carry some unexpected, unpleasant consequences for the Venezuelan leader at home.

Chávez's somewhat delayed response to the historic events unfolding in the Middle East can be attributed to conflicting loyalties stemming from geopolitical complexities. Chávez's ties to Qaddafi -- for decades Chávez has admired Qaddafi's "Green Book" and called him (the highest compliment possible) the Simon Bolivar of Libya -- is exceeded perhaps only by his attachment to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Chávez has sought to build alliances with these and other leaders who are similarly intent on curtailing U.S. influence. But Ahmadinejad's cheering of anti-government forces in the Middle East and his condemnation of Qaddafi's "unimaginable repression" against his own people posed a dilemma for Chávez. That dilemma was resolved when Washington's anti-Qaddafi rhetoric heated up, triggering Chávez's reflexive anti-U.S. response and driving him headlong into the fray.

The Venezuelan government claims that its proposal had been accepted by Qaddafi, though the Libyan ruler's son Saif al-Islam seemed less than enthusiastic about Chávez's role. He said, "We have to say thank you ... but we are able and capable enough to solve our issues by our own people ... ourselves. There is no need for any foreign intervention. ... They are our friends, we respect them, we like them, but they are far away. They have no idea about Libya. Libya is in the Middle East and North Africa. Venezuela is in Central America. We appreciate this." Libya's rebels immediately rejected the Venezuelan offer.

Chávez's proposal was received more sympathetically in the Arab League, where its secretary general, Amr Moussa, said the organization would consider it. But most Western countries have dismissed the idea summarily. U.S. President Barack Obama has insisted that there is nothing to negotiate: Qaddafi must go. The Italian and French governments have agreed.

JUAN BARRETO/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Michael Shifter is president of the Inter-American Dialogue and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University.

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

9:05 PM ET

March 4, 2011

Libya

whether or not the peace negotiations are remembered as a good idea or a blunder depends a great deal on how this civil war unfolds (and whatever kind of deal Chavez is thinking of). It will be hard for Chavez to come out the winner from all of this though.

Interestingly, the communist party of venezuela, the main ally of chavez's party, came out with a scathing criticism of Gadhafi.

 

PEDRO CARMONA

12:39 AM ET

March 5, 2011

Why not?

Peace Talks are a welcomed alternative to both prolonged civil war into which Libya is descending, and the military intervention the US is currently mulling.

Peace talks offer diplomatic exit from the current impasse, not to mention a face-saving way for Qaddafi to concede defeat and negotiate terms of his exile.

Sure, Chavez is far from an ideal go-between. But it's hard to think of anyone else whom Gadhafi would listen to. It might be the only chance for peace.

Shame on those who prefer to let the violence continue than to credit Chavez with anything so significant as brokering a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

 

GRANT

3:50 PM ET

March 5, 2011

As the article points out,

As the article points out, Chavez really doesn't have any credentials as an international mediator and the rebels have absolutely no reason to trust a man who openly came out in favor of Qaddafi less than two weeks ago. Castro or Lula from South America would potentially work or perhaps Nelson Mandela since this is an African/Middle Eastern matter. Castro and Mandela have worked out agreements and Lula is fairly respected across the world. Chavez on the other hand is far more well known for being a demagogue and socialist than a diplomat.
As for peace, remember what happened in Zimbabwe once the two parties made a power-sharing agreement. Mugabe still holds power and his police still arrest opposition leaders and protesters without hesitation. Perhaps the rebels have a good reason not to consider making peace with Qaddafi.

 

ANA.STROE

5:45 AM ET

March 7, 2011

I believe the article is

I believe the article is biased. Yes Chavez is far from being a supporter of democratic regimes, but it's the only one Qaddafi would listen to. The Western powers have made a terrible mistake by isolating Qaddafi completely and not giving him any way of getting out of the situation. Now he has no other option but to fight till the last man and drop of blood.
So Chavez comes with the only viable and peaceful solution and everyone accuses him of wanting to keep Qaddafi to power. And it's a bad thing to try and talk the conflict out. Instead, what do the US do? Encourage Saudi Arabia to arm the rebels! In what universe has this been proven to be a good idea? When in history giving weapons to a bunch of angry, uneducated people has ever had good consequences? Maybe I'm living in another world, but the one I'm living in still has a war going on in Afghanistan started on the same grounds.
Chavez is a dictator, yes. He's a demagogue and keeps his people in poverty. But right now he's got the best solution so let's not throw rocks at him yet.