Chavez Assassination Not the Route to World Peace

by Sir Arthur Foulkes

Pat Robertson’s statement calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sent shock waves around the world.

Mr. Robertson is one of the most popular television evangelists in America as well as a political activist who once sought the nomination of the Republican Party to run for president of the United States.

He is believed to be well-connected to the present administration of President George W. Bush and his neoconservative hawks who misled America into an expensive and disastrous war in Iraq.

So it was not surprising that his words stirred up such a hornets’ nest. Even though he has made many outrageous pronouncements in the past, it was still shocking that this Christian leader could openly advocate the murder of the democratically-elected leader of another country.

In response to the torrent of condemnation which followed his remarks, Mr. Robertson at first tried to blame the media for misinterpreting his words, a not unfamiliar tactic. Then he interpreted his gangster parlance “take him out” to mean kidnapping.

But what he did in fact say was clearly heard and understood by millions in his own country and around the world:

“… If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”

The multimillionaire – some say billionaire – preacher would not be constrained by his Master’s command not to kill but just might have second thoughts if murdering Mr. Chavez would mean that the oil would stop!

Clearly Mr. Robertson was issuing a fatwa against Mr. Chavez to be executed by his government or by some fanatical follower.

The tragedy about all of this is that two thousand years after Jesus Christ when the world is still bleeding from so much violence, a Christian leader can advocate even more violence as a solution to any perceived problem and a way to deal with a political opponent.

What can we in the West now say to the blood-thirsty murderers of a perverted fundamentalist Islam who talk about a compassionate and merciful God while preparing to blow up innocent children along with themselves?

Should we prove to them that we believe in violence every bit as much as they do and are even better at it? Should we shock them by dropping bombs and carrying out assassinations? Or should we try to awe them with Christian love and an invitation to come reason together?

Mr. Robertson should be among those in the West who are now painfully but so slowly coming around to the realization that it was wrong to bomb tens of thousands of Iraqis to bits in order to get rid of one dictator and that it is foolhardy to believe that western democracy can be rained down on an unwilling people from the wings of stealth bombers.

Instead he is plotting to inflict more mayhem in another part of the world which is only now struggling to emerge from long years of violent interference and bloody dictatorship.

Mr. Robertson should recall the plaintiff words of El Salvador’s Arch- bishop Oscar Romero to US President Jimmy Carter before he was himself assassinated at the altar:

“You say that you are Christian. If you really are Christian, please stop sending military aid to the military here, because they use it only to kill my people.”

Mr. Robertson should also recall the terror that was unleashed on the people of Chile when their democratically-elected President Salvador Allende was killed resisting a coup at least encouraged by agencies of the United States.
The Marxist Allende was succeeded by the Fascist Augusto Pinochet who killed thousands of Chileans and imprisoned and tortured many more thousands.

The international community should insist on the observance of human rights in Venezuela and everywhere else in the world. But the Venezuelan people should be left to decide for themselves what kind of government they should have.

If the socialism of Hugo Chavez succeeds, fine. If it fails then the Venezuelans should be trusted to try something else.

After World War II came to an end in Europe the British people elected a socialist government headed by Clement Attlee. It was a radical regime which changed Britain forever.

When the British had enough of socialism they chose another kind of government. Now, none of the three leading parties in Britain is socialist but some of the institutions and reforms put in place by Mr. Attlee still survive.

The American government would be wise not to listen to the likes of Pat Robertson and repeat the bloody mistakes of the past. The administration should engage Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and anyone else willing to sit and reason together in an effort to bring peace and stability to the hemisphere and the world.

CABINET LESSON

Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell confirmed last week that the PetroCaribe oil deal being touted by his colleague Leslie Miller has not yet come into operation.

In an interview with The Nassau Guardian Mr. Mitchell acknowledged that there is such a proposal “but the analysis is not complete on that proposal and it can’t be signed until the Cabinet has looked at it.”

It is reassuring to know that, but in the meantime Mr. Miller, the Trade and Industry Minister, is due for another lesson in cabinet government. He says the controversial PetroCaribe proposal would bring cheaper fuel and cheaper electricity to the Bahamian public. “And that’s why I’m fighting for it because I know it’s the right thing to do.”

Even a backbencher of a governing party has to be careful how he goes about trying to upstage his colleagues and score points at their expense. A minister in the government should not do it at all.

It is easy to advocate a particular course of action that would please the public, even if it is not feasible, and then turn around and say, “See, I tried but those fellows wouldn’t let me do it.”

This is exactly what Mr. Miller is about, and it is wrong. It is important that this kind of ministerial conduct be stopped, not just for the sake of the government of the day but for the survival of orderly government in the Bahamas.

It is easy to imagine what will happen if every minister is allowed to put his colleagues on the spot in this fashion and, in effect, to reveal the position taken by them in the process of arriving at a collective decision.

Each minister is expected to accept his share of responsibility for a cabinet conclusion and to defend that conclusion publicly. The only way he can say he did not agree is if he resigns over the issue.
Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook (who died a few weeks ago) took just a position when he resigned over his government’s participation in the Iraq war. Only then could he speak out freely against the war.

It may seem a hard thing for ministers but it is necessary to avoid disarray in a government and to preserve good order and discipline.

Mr. Miller is obviously grandstanding at the expense of his colleagues over the high price of fuel. But he knows that the causes of fluctuating oil prices are beyond the power of the Bahamas government to control.

There are some things we can do internally to ease the shock, including reducing the tax on gasoline. But no minister should publicly advocate even that without the prior approval of the cabinet.