Venezuela Under Siege

By ARNOLD SOME four centuries ago, a Spanish conquista- dor, seeing clusters of native huts on stilts over Lake Maracaibo, named the place Venezuela, little Venice. Unlike modern Venice, however, Venezuela isn't sinking into the ground. In fact, this oil-soaked land on the north coast of South America has made more economic and social progress in the last four years than at any time in its 150 years of independence.

Its democratic government is headed by President Remulo Betancourt, elected in a free vote in December, 1958, by a people which had a few months earlier rid itself of a ten-year dicta- torship. His inauguration in February, 1959, followed by a month Fidel Castro's assumption of power. What has happened in Cuba and what is now happening in Cuba, we know all too well. By comparison, little is known or reported about Venezuela and its democratic revolution.

A political-intellectual of immense yet little appreciated stature, Betancourt and his Accion Democratica (AD) party in a coalition with the Christian Socialists (COPE') have introduced a Rooseveltian New Deal-cum-Labour Party type of government without the use of political terror, without lynch-mob cries of `paredan; without the suppression of opposition parties. In fact, four Communist leaders sit in the Venezuelan Congress, having been duly elected in 1958.

The population of seven and a half million increases at the rate of 3.6 per cent. a year, one of the highest rates of growth in the world, and to compound the problem, half the population is under eighteen years of age. Nevertheless, the country's living standards have visibly improved despite hard-core unemployment of 12 per cent. of the work-force or 350,000 people. These are the usual handicaps of underdeveloped countries but Venezuela is distinguished by being the richest underdeveloped country in the world.

Foreign investment totals $6 billion, two-thirds of which is from the US. If Venezuela survives the next election and the Havana-Moscow plots against its independence, more investment will be forthcoming. Larger in area than the United Kingdom, France and Benelux combined, Venezuela could support, given time and trained manpower, a population of fifty million because of its still untapped mineral wealth and the of its lianos.

While waiting for such a miracle, the Betahcourt government has spent huge sums on housing, schools, roads, hospitals and other public improvements without any taint of corruption. The country's agrarian reform programme has been described by Professor Robert J. Alexander, a Socialist, as 'the best-planned and most scientific effort of this kind which has yet been made in Latin America.' In public education, the achieve- ment has been even more spectacular. On a continent where fifteen million children will never see the inside of a classroom, in Venezuela one can now say that every child has an opportunity to attend, at least, a primary school.

The trade unions, grouped into the Confedera- cion de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV), are growing with government encouragement, not domination. A mission sponsored by the Inter- national Confederation of Free Trade Unions and headed by Victor Feather, the TUC assistant general secretary, recently visited the country. Their report praised Venezuela's 'democratic revolution [for] bringing about far-reaching industrial and land reforms which in no way hinder but rather advance the struggle to raise living standards and give to all the opportunity to lead a full and decent life.'

Venezuela's post-liberation existence is a repudiation of the apologies of those 'liberals' who argue that it is presumptuous to demand democratic behaviour from underdeveloped countries seeking 'forced draft' economic growth. In actual fact, Betancourt could easily justify the imposition of a dictatorship in Venezuela if he availed himself of all those elaborate rationales used to defend Africa's strong-men from democratic criticism. For in addition to all the problems which beset any socially disadvantaged country, Venezuela suffers an additional burden—it is a land besieged.

To state it quite simply, Venezuela is besieged by the ubiquitous Communist conspiracy which, under the Khrushchev doctrine of support for `wars of national liberation,' seeks Betancourt's overthrow.

Although he has but one more year to serve, although under the constitution he cannot succeed himself, the Communists and their allies have adopted every conceivable tactic, including terror, guerrilla warfare, insurrection, assassination, to overcome this still democratic regime.

To say that Venezuela is a land under siege is no figure of speech. It is as bad in Venezuela today as it was in France and, certainly, in Algeria during the OAS campaign of terror, a year or so ago. Here is a listing of just a fraction of the gangsterism and sabotage which the coun- try has suffered in little more than two years : November, 1960, Communist-led students at the Central University in Caracas bad a four-day gun battle with police. The university is a Com- munist Party arsenal but nothing can be done 'You've got to admit he's more efficient.' about it. By Latin American tradition, a university, is a privileged sanctuary.

June, 1961, the US Ambassador's car was burned while he was visiting an architecture show at the university.

January 23, 1962, fourth anniversary of the overthrow of the Perez Jimenez dictatorship, a time-bomb exploded on the seventh-floor men's room in the US Embassy.

May and June, 1962, rebels attempted to seize naval bases at Puerto Cabello and Cardpano. A similar coup in June, 1961, occurred at Barcelona. One of the ringleaders, a Communist Congress- man, was caught as he tried to flee by launch to nearby Trinidad.

October 27, 1962, fidelistas succeeded in destroying major power installations at Mara- caibo, Venezuela's oil-producing complex. Production was paralysed for several days.

January 17, this year, Shell installations at Maracaibo were bombed.

The day before, a ten-man band armed with sub-machine pistols stole five French Govern- ment-owned paintings from the National Art Museum in Caracas. The canvases were recovered a few days later in an automobile occupied by two university students, who tried to shoot it out with the police, and a girl who managed to escape. January 20, a time-bomb was exploded on a Maracaibo street fifty yards from the newly- established offices of the US Information Service. The incident occurred half an hour before a scheduled speech at the USIS office by the American Ambassador.

January 21, the government closed all Caracas high schools and the Central University for three days to prevent rioting expected in celebration of another anniversary of the 1958 revolt against Perez Jimenez. Even so, in Caracas five persons were killed and fifty-seven wounded in rioting. January 23, I was in Merida, a large town 400 miles south-west of Caracas, which boasts one of the oldest universities in the hemisphere, la Universidad de Los Andes. From my hotel a mile away I heard shooting. A small group of students, holed up in one of the university residencias, was firing away at the police, one of whom was killed. The ninety-mile railroad carrying iron ore from Cerro Bolivar to Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela's little Pittsburgh, has been sabotaged several times. January 24, the Caracas radio-television station was attacked, its transmitters 'sabotaged. Almost every day, somewhere in Venezuela, a policeman is shot or killed or a small military depot is raided for arms, or bombs explode. Such incidents have become so common, they rarely rate page one in the local press. The latest of them was the pirating of the Venezuelan ship Anzoategui last week.

Were Betancourt the sworn enemy of `Western imperialism' and making common cause, say, with Cheddi Jagan; were he shooting his opponents and suspending elections in the name of Marxism-Leninism; were tens of thousands of Venezuelan 'counter-revolution- aries' fleeing into exile; were Betancourt organising 'united fronts' with Communists and leading a kulturkampf against the Church; were he calling for armed revolt against all Latin American governments and financing continent- wide subversion—his beleaguered government, you can be sure, would be blessed with a host of supporting propaganda organisations called `Committee for Fair Play for Venezuela,' 'American Friends of Venezuelan Freedom' or 'The Hands Off Betancourt Committee.' You can be sure that Jean Paul Sartre and his consort or Kenneth Tynan would be hymning Betan- court's social vision and someone like Dennis H. Wrong, the American sociologist, would be writing about Betancourt as he wrote (Commen- tary, February, 1962) about Castro. The explanations offered for Castro's failure to hold elections are on the whole reasonable. The Revolution has been unquestionably popu- lar with a large majority of the Cuban people, and few revolutionary governments . . . have held elections until considerable time elapsed after they came to power.

I understand why Betancourt cannot engage those avant-garde liberals who are forever tor- tured by the question: which should come first, the omelette or the egg. I can understand why he lacks the endorsement of the American Right, exemplified by Mr. William Buckley, whose publication accused Betancourt and other Latin American democrats of 'leftism.' Or the endorse- ment of the Venezuelan Right, whose spokesmen in Maracaibo so hate Betancourt as a 'crypto- Communist' that it would be quite simple to enlist them in, say, La Sociedad de Juan Birch.

All this 1 understand. What 1 cannot under- stand is why Betancourt is no 'culture hero' to that, sector of intelligent Western opinion which seeks champions with untarnished credentials. Betancourt clearly opposes all totalitarianism, as evidenced by the fact that of six known attempts en his life since he assumed the presidency one was arranged by the late General Trujillo. When I saw the fifty-four-year-old Betancourt at Mira- ftore Palace a few weeks ago. his left hand was still bandaged because the wounds he suffered in the Trujillo bomb blast in June. 1960, have not healed. Two of the assassination attempts are blamed on General Marcos Perez Jimenez. who at this writing is in Florida awaiting a Federal court decision as to whether he can be extradited.

The other attempts are charged to fidelistas who are going to keep on trying. During the weeks 3f the Cuban crisis, Theodore Draper recently wrote, the Cuban press'unleashed a campaign against the Venezuelan Government, particularly against Rdmulo Betancourt, that was unprecedented in ferocity and provocation.'

Of all Latin American leaders, Betancourt is most hated by the Moscow-Havana axis because he refuses to sell Venezuelan oil to Cuba, 1.200 miles away. This boycott has tied up Soviet and foreign-leased tankers in endless shipments from the Black Sea to Cuba. Despite Soviet pressures on Betancourt, the boycott continues. There is a second reason why Betancourt is so detested. His government has offered Latin America an alternative to Castroism. Duvalier of Haiti. Somoza of Nicaragua, Stroessner of Paraguay, these dictators• are holloW men for Castro—but not Betancourt. Therefore, Venezuela must be thrown into such chaos that foreign investors will be scared off and local Capital will fly away to foster-homes in New York and Basle; any kind of national planning will stop: the military will then oust Betancourt and establish their own 'caretaker' government Most important of all objectives is prevention of the elections scheduled for next winter, probably ill December. It is essential for the Communists to prevent free elections because they would lose badly. Their congressional candidates in 1958 received 160,000 votes or 6 per cent. of the ballots cast and roughly five times the estimated CP membership. Even if they could fashion a united front with the Republican-Democratic Party (URD) or the pro-Castro Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR) or any other political fragments, it would

be difficult to defeat the AD presidential candi- date, whoever he will be.

What has saved the day so far is Betancourt's own political sagacity, trade union and peasant support which I would say is unbreathable, the existence of cadres of well-educated, upper-class reformers who are persuaded that Betancourt's 'middle way' is the only hope against Castroism. Two negative factors are also in his favour: 1. Betancourt respects the military officers; they, in turn, respect him. They are also aware that another military dictatorship might bring about a Castroist coup.

2. Reports in the local press that the CP leadership is split on the value of guerrilla and terrorist tactics. Whether these reports are true or not, the terrorism, particularly since the Cuba events, has made las extremistas (the Venezuelan press euphemism) highly unpopular.

These internal considerations, however, may be insufficient to save Venezuela from externally- supported armed insurrection (the country's 1,700-mile coastline is made to order for smug- gling whisky, cigarettes—or trained guerrillas) and the American retaliation which would certainly follow. What is wanted now to keep this beautiful country from becoming a battlefield is the widest possible realisation in the free world that Venezuela is not an abstraction like the phrase 'Latin America.' Rather Venezuela is a cause over which the most sensitive liberal or conservative need have no crisis of conscience. How to infuse our most alert publicists and politicians with active concern about Venezuela and how to create that needful public conscious- ness about a country which is as innportant---1 hope I do not offend Africanists—as Mali and Somalia, puzzles me. I shall end this report with a bit of 'inside information' to illustrate why I am puzzled.

This week Betancourt is making an official visit to Washington as President Kennedy's guest. It

is Betancourt's first trip outside Venezuela since he became president. It was suggested here that Betancourt ought to receive the honour of addressing a joint session of Congress, on the assumption that what's good enough for Soe- karno and the chiefs of lesser States is certainly good enough for Betancourt. Senator Hubert Humphrey, assistant leader of the upper house, an admirer of Betancourt, took up the suggestion. He has since reported back that Congress is bored at the idea of any more speeches by foreign potentates nobody every heard of. Perhaps, even more persuasive arguments have come from Texas and Oklahoma oil producers who resent Venezuelan competition—three million barrels a day—and think even allowing Betancourt into the White House is a mistake.

1 am persuaded that a Betancourt appearance before Congress, in and of itself, would have pro- duced no miracle in Venezuela. But it might have helped. After all, what's one more little speech in the Mother of Filibusters? And shouldn't there be on Capitol Hill some lingering guilt that in 1954, President Eisenhower awarded with suitable encomia the Order of Merit, our highest non- military honour, to General Marcos Perez Jimenez then looting the country and persecut- ing thousands of its finest citizens?

All is not lost. There is a sense of duty which today informs American opinion about the lands below the Rio Grande and, indeed, this is far better than the stolid indifference of the past. I am sure it is all to the good that our intelligentsia no longer skip the Latin American news sections in Time or Newsweek. Or that they offer reverential applause to the Alliance for Progress. And so with Betancourt and his Venezuela sitiada. Nobody is opposed to helping him; it's that so few really care.

Soon I think we will care, and not just about Venezuela.