June 2021 – The Pull Of The Land

All Within the State: Understanding the Cuba – Venezuela Nexus II: Spurning Fidel

June 29, 2021June 29, 2021 Richard Barnes

“What I want to say I’ll say even more forcefully. If the Castro regime continues with its policy of aggression against Venezuela and [other countries] the moment will come when those governments will lead a joint action of their armed forces by air, sea, and land to make war on Fidel Castro, on his 300 thousand militias, and on his Soviet military advisors.” — Rómulo Betancourt, papers, 1972

While it is true that Rómulo Betancourt founded the Communist Party of Costa Rica in the 1930s, it is also true that he moderated his views over the years.

That allowed him to see through and size up Castro very quickly: he must have wondered why many in Venezuela’s army leadership seemingly did not see what he saw. Vice Admiral Wolfgang Larrazábal, the leader of the military coup against Marcos Pérez Jiménez in 1958 and the provisional government’s president, was at the very least sympathetic to Fidel Castro, even giving the effusive welcome speech on Castro’s arrival in 1959. Although he vehemently denied providing weapons to Castro’s Communist guerrillas, there is much evidence to the contrary, including a letter from Fidel thanking him for his “noble gesture.”

(Although seemingly counterintuitive, the Venezuelan army was mined with leftists enamored with Communism. For example, Wolfgang Larrazábal ran for president, with Communist support. He was defeated by Betancourt. And we should not forget that Hugo Chávez himself came to prominence leading two Communist-supported army coup attempts in 1992. We in the West all-too-often unthinkingly genuflect before military leaders. We should be more cautious.)

But Larrazábal had plenty of company: Fidel was feted by many Venezuelan luminaries, including future president, Rafael Caldera, perennial presidential candidates and political leaders, such as Jóvito Villalba, and intellectual elites such as Prieto Figueroa.

President Betancourt was the only major politician in Venezuela, and very likely in all of Latin America, who understood from the start the grave danger Castro posed to national, regional, and hemispheric stability. He recognized a “gangster” who sat before him in 1959. He readily understood that this man was willing to sink his own island nation just to retain power or destroy the United States — preferably both — by any means necessary. His willingness, nay, his craving to destroy became clear to the rest of the world a few short years later during the 1962 missile crisis. This suicidal disposition is a common trait with apocalyptic dictators, including Hitler.

Betancourt, almost alone, saw this.

In 1972 he led efforts to raise a legitimate multinational Latin American army to confront Castro’s tyranny. However, this objective died along with Betancourt’s failing health and subsequent death in 1981.

But his greatest legacy also became a danger to his country and region: he not only spurned Fidel Castro, he defeated him time and again. Castro backed deadly guerrilla and army uprisings in Venezuela, including Barcelona in 1961 and Carúpano and Puerto Cabello in 1962, not to mention the very real attempts to disrupt the 1963 elections. Betancourt’s energy and vigilance ensured the defeat of all such attempts, which inflicted great loss of life and property. And profoundly angered the Cuban dictator.

We must also credit his successor, President Raúl Leoni, who acted with energy in repulsing Castro’s attacks, including an armed landing in 1967 of Cubans and Venezuelans trained in Cuba. President Leoni’s 5-year term was also attacked by Communist activists and guerrillas including yet another military coup attempt in 1966, which was quickly squashed. That same year, Leoni felt compelled to order an army search for revolutionaries in Central University in Caracas. By the end of his term, however, most subversive activity had practically ceased.

Castro never gave up on his designs on Venezuela. After Betancourt, his obsession grew apace.

In the high councils of Havana, it must have grated when another politician who saw through Castro uttered the following words upon President Betancourt’s death:

“I speak for all Americans in expressing our heartfelt sadness at the death of Rómulo Betancourt. While he was first and foremost a Venezuelan patriot, Rómulo Betancourt was an especially close friend of the United States. During the 1950s he considered the United States a refuge while he was in exile, and we were proud to receive him. We are honored that this courageous man whose life was dedicated to the principles of liberty and justice spent his final days on our shores. We join the Venezuelan people and those who love freedom around the world in mourning his death.” — President Ronald Reagan, September, 1981

It is necessary to understand the above background if one is to understand the Cuba-Venezuela nexus and the quid pro quo between Castro, Chávez, and Maduro.

To be continued.

Large crowds welcoming Fidel Castro on his visit to Venezuela, January, 1959. He was invited by Vice-Admiral Wolfgang Larrazábal, leader of the military coup against Marcos Pérez Jiménez. The crowds were composed mostly of the recently legalized Communist Party in Venezuela (Betancourt later outlawed it), but also, it must be said, many in the AD and other parties.

Father Luis Manuel Padilla holds a dying Venezuelan soldier shot down in Puerto Cabello, Venezuela, during an army uprising of leftist army personnel backed by Fidel Castro’s Cuba. It was put down by Betancourt’s army but not before 200 soldiers and 400 rebels were killed. Photo above won the Pulitzer Prize for Héctor Rondón Lovera in 1963.

Castro with Venezuelan politicians, clockwise, beginning from upper left: Wolfgang Larrazábal, Betancourt, Carlos Andrés Pérez, and Hugo Chávez.

All Within the State: Understanding the Cuba – Venezuela Nexus

June 24, 2021June 24, 2021 Richard Barnes

“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” — Benito Mussolini

“Revolutions do not measure their success in terms of productivity but in terms of control.” — Diego G. Maldonado

The author of the second quote is a pseudonym for the researcher of a magisterial investigation into the relationship between Venezuela and Cuba. He remains anonymous for obvious reasons.

Venezuela’s first democratically elected president was Rómulo Betancourt, elected in 1958 and inaugurated in 1959.

In 1958, Venezuela had the 4th highest per capita GDP in the world. Its monetary policy was stable and property rights were respected and honored. To quote a Venezuelan writer: “In 1958, Venezuela became a democracy when the dictatorship was overthrown. With that came all the usual benefits of democracy such as freedom of the press, universal suffrage, and other civil rights. Unfortunately, these reforms came along with … destruction of our economic freedom.”

Fast forward to 2020 and we find Venezuela in 140th place in per capital GDP, poorer than any other Latin American country and than most other countries in the world. And that ranking is based on unreliable numbers. Judging from the massive emigration over the years, I suspect she ranks even lower.

Given the above, would you be surprised to know that Venezuela is Cuba’s principal source of income since the turn of this century?

Despite (or because of) its collapse of oil production, Venezuela in 2018 (latest available figures) purchased $440 Million of foreign crude and sent it to Cuba at a lower price (at a loss), with flexible credit conditions. According to documents obtained by Reuters, this oil was purchased “at a cost of $12 per barrel more than the price she charged Cuba despite her great need of currency to sustain her own economy and import food and medicine midst a great scarcity.”

And that has been the case since Chavez’ election.

Why? Is it all ideological? Did Chávez and now Maduro love Cuba so much that they were willing to sacrifice their own country for Cuba’s survival?

It’s a bit more complicated and yet more simple than that: it is all done for control, for power.

Shortly after Betancourt’s inauguration in early 1959, he welcomed Fidel Castro as his first foreign state visitor. From eye witness accounts, the meetings did not go well. Castro believed he had a kindred soul in Betancourt; after all the newly elected president had founded the Communist Party in Costa Rica during his exile there.

However, Betancourt was more moderate than Castro. He knew he had an army that would not look kindly on a civilian president who immediately and radically set about to thrust the country from 4th place GDP to 140th in less than a generation. Also, he rejected Castro’s request for free or heavily subsidized petroleum: “That oil is not mine to give,” Betancourt is reported to have said.

Castro was offended and angered. In the early 60s Cuba supported and fomented Communist guerrilla warfare in Venezuela, uprisings by leftist members of the Venezuelan army, and sabotage of oil pipelines and supplies warehouses. As a child I remember our family car being stopped many times by the National Guard for searches. That was a common sight throughout the country as Betancourt energetically sought to defeat his former allies. He also successfully backed the expulsion of Cuba from the Organization of American States.

Castro never forgave him and, with Chavez, he succeeded where he had failed with Betancourt.

If, as noted above, it was all done for control and power, what then was the quid pro quo between Chavez, Maduro, and Castro?

We will be writing more on this in future posts.

Fidel Castro visits Venezuela in early 1959. Relations went downhill from there. Not pictured is Castro’s rifle. Betancourt requested he leave it at the door.

There is much more to these relationships than scarcity, emigration in the millions, extra-judicial executions in the thousands, and more.

Los Nevados

June 12, 2021June 12, 2021 Richard Barnes

By jeep the intrepid traveler can reach Los Nevados, which rests about 9,000 feet above sea level in the Venezuelan Andes in the state of Mérida. The road is dirt and more frequently than not, the traveler sees little “sanctuaries” which commemorate those brave or foolhardy souls who attempted to make the journey but fell off the bottomless cliffs running alongside it for miles.

The village was founded in 1591 and today has about 150 people according to the most recent statistic I was able to dig up (2019), plus about 1,000 in the small villages and farms surrounding it. That is down from the 2,000-plus total in 2011.

Los Nevados depended heavily on tourism, mostly European and American; one can still see fading French and English signs, still there for no one these days.

It is so isolated that the great industrial and infrastructure booms of the 20th century bypassed her. Although power blackouts are frequent and long lasting, Los Nevados’ dauntless people have never depended much on electricity. Internet connectivity is infrequent and forget about texting.

How is it that the village population is not down to zero by now?

I personally know folks who live in the Venezuelan interior, far from the major metropolitan areas of Caracas, Maracaibo, Ciudad Guayana, and such. They are finding it very difficult to acquire the basics of life such as food and medicines as well as simple necessities like soap. Some are about to embark on the long and dangerous trek to Brazil or Colombia, a trek that millions of others have taken, many having disappeared along the way.

But Los Nevados hasn’t experienced such an exodus, although to be sure, many have indeed emigrated. What do the remaining majority do?

The same as their ancestors have done for centuries, it turns out. They grow their own food, including potatoes, beans, tomatoes, berries, and more. Every household has a garden and many raise their own chickens and other small livestock. Theirs is mostly a barter economy.

And I am told their countenances continue to be serious but content and determined.

No, I am not for returning to some idyllic subsistence existence. However, I am for being prepared by learning a trade, knowing how to grow your own food, and loving your neighbors. That’s a start for any major upheavals which one may face in a given lifetime.

I wish Los Nevados well.

Ghosts II

June 2, 2021June 2, 2021 Richard Barnes

“The Roman Empire is luxurious, but it is filled with misery. It is dying but it laughs — moritus et ridet.” — Salvian (5th century)

As noted elsewhere, the title of this blog, The Pull of The Land, is borrowed from Whittaker Chambers of whom I’ve posted only once (Ghosts), where I noted my intentions to post more of or from him. This is the second such post.

Chambers was considered a pessimist who believed that in leaving Communism he was leaving the winning side to join the losing side. One need not share his melancholy to nevertheless correspond with or comprehend it. After all, Salvian would be considered an extremist today and yet he was not far from the truth, as a mere few decades later would confirm.

Chambers quoted Salvian in his essay on St. Benedict in 1952 and went on to write:

“What, in fact, was the civilization of the West? If it was Christendom, why had it turned its back on half its roots and meanings and become cheerfully ignorant of those who had embodied them? If it was not Christendom, what was it? And what were those values that it claimed to assert against the forces of active evil that beset it in the greatest crisis of history since the fall of Rome? Did the failure of the Western World to know what it was lie at the root of its spiritual despondency, its intellectual confusion, its moral chaos, the dissolving bonds of faith and loyalty within itself, its swift political decline in barely four decades from hegemony of the world to a demoralized rump of Europe little larger than it had been in the crash of the Roman West, and an America still disputing the nature of the crisis, its gravity, whether it existed at all, or what to do about it?”

In another context, he wrote that the conflict of the age is not really Communism vs Capitalism, but rather God vs atheism or, more precisely, submission to God vs submission to man personified by the state. Possessing a strong sense of history, Chambers understood that there is nothing new under the sun and he saw that Rome was beset by three great alienations which are present with us today as well: “They are the alienation of the spirit of man from traditional authority; his alienation from the idea of traditional order; and a crippling alienation that he feels at the point where civilization has deprived him of the joy of simple productive labor.”

He pointed to the parallels between AD 410 and 1952 when “three hundred million Russians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, East Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, and all the Christian Balkans, would tell you” the same “if they could lift their voices through the night of the new Dark Ages that have fallen on them.”

The fall of the Iron Curtain brought great changes to the political geography since Chambers wrote the above, however, not to the basic conflict: God or man? Hence, Chambers’ point still stands. And in such a conflict, we know Who the Victor is, although we may not be able to see His triumph at the moment.

But here is a hint: a sign of divine judgment on a people or nation is evidenced by the anomaly of such having rulers who do not love or appreciate them. In effect, of being ruled by their enemies: “…. they that hate you shall reign over you…. (Lev. 26:17)”. That can refer to rulers who are foreign to the nation or rulers who are internal to the nation.

In Rome we saw an empire often ruled by emperors whose cruelty is unimaginable. Gaius Suetonius wrote The Twelve Caesars in AD 121 and the events he records in his work, still considered a reliable primary source, often make chilling reading. Although some historians believe he was sensational and biased, other contemporary works, including works of art, substantiate his biographies in many essential points. Rome’s cruelty to Christians is well known and attested to (although increasingly ignored in today’s age of savagery and unnatural affections). One thing to note about Rome’s persecutions is that cruelty to Christians will eventually devolve to cruelty to all peoples. And such was the case in Rome.

In Venezuela, we have seen the anomaly of a large, once-prosperous country possessing the largest oil reserves in the entire world actually inviting a small basket-case island nation to take over their basic industries, intelligence services, internal security, and much, much more (I will be posting more about this in the future). All this was knowingly commanded to be so by “local” rulers who knew exactly what they were doing. One can say much about such rulers, but one cannot say that they love their nation or her people.

Examples, not as blatant but just as destructive, can be multiplied throughout the Americas and Europe.

To hate God is to hate man, for God is man’s Creator and Redeemer.

Now, having written the above, I will also say that although I recognize we may be seeing some difficult times that will likely go beyond our lifetimes, I do not share Chambers’ pessimism.

For I know Who wins and such a victory will one day be plain for all to see and acknowledge.