Latin America, Not a Free Territory for Civil Society

Politics
Opinion: Latin America, Not a Free Territory for Civil Society
By Carlos E. Ponce

Published June 04, 2011| Fox News Latino


Freedom of association is not only a fundamental right, but also facilitates citizen’s ability to have a say in how government works. One of the first things authoritarians do when they take power is to exercise undue control over unions, media, and civil society.

Respecting freedom of association is not something governments do out of good will or charity. Rather, freedom of association is a right—and, as every right implies a duty, governments are obligated not to violate the right to association.

Further, states are obligated not to unduly interfere with the freedom of civil society organizations to operate and also to do their best to protect civil society organizations, activists, and human rights defenders from harm that might befall them when effectively exercising their right to association. This means freedom from intimidation, coercion, and physical harm as the freedom to associate without being guaranteed this security is not freedom at all.

Few publicly question the necessity of a vibrant, organized civil society in terms of ensuring responsive and effective democratic governance. However, both the public and the private sector frequently see non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as serious threats to their interests. Governments often restrict civil society to prevent public oversight while private sector groups often fear NGO’s criticism of their business practices.

Civil society in Latin America is under serious attack—part of the wider backlash against democracy and liberal institutions that has caused many countries to return to authoritarian pasts rather than look ahead to the future. Keen to develop institutions that suit their own power-hungry purposes, the backlash against democracy, and especially against civil society, is all about power.

In recent years, authoritarian leaders have decided to create their own rules for government, often hiding behind the mantle of democracy or, in many cases, incorporating populism and common demagoguery to further a majoritarian conception of democracy that could just as easily be termed electoral authoritarianism.

And, what do these leaders do when they enter power? They crackdown on individuals and groups who challenge their “popular” conceptions—their understandings of what the people—at least in their minds—want. And, further, how do they do this? They do this by cracking down on democracy promotion efforts inside their countries.

Though this crackdown is sometimes obvious and brutally obvious, it can also be subtle, disguised in ostensibly “democratic language” but ultimately just—if not even more—dangerous than the obvious and brutal approach.

These less direct, less loud authoritarian actions by governments in recent years give us a cause to worry, eating slowly at democratic governance by gradually and ever-so-quietly restricting the space in which civil society organizations, activists, and interest groups operate.

Article VI of the Inter-American Democratic Charter provides that citizen participation is an essential right and responsibility for achieving the full exercise of democracy. However, in Latin America, some governments repeatedly violate the right of association—not only the more obviously authoritarian countries of ALBA (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua), but also supposedly more democratic countries like Honduras and Costa Rica.

Now as a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy, I have just finished a study that includes an assessment of the right of association of civil society organizations in all Latin American countries. According to quantitative data I generated, Brazil and Chile lead in terms of respecting the right for freedom of association. Argentina, Mexico, and El Salvador also scored relatively well.

These countries have fair systems for registration and operation, online access to information, and can register in less than 6 months. Their operations are free from intrusive government control and the government itself has an effective system in place for providing NGOs with tax exemptions.

In my study, Cuba fares by far the worst in terms of freedom of associate, no doubt a function of its overall failure to provide for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Even when Cuban law allows for the registration of a civil society organization, its freedom to operate is severely limited. Another serious case is Venezuela.

In December 2010, Venezuela adopted the Law on Political Sovereignty, grossly impeding the activities of human rights and democracy organizations to associate, assemble, and speak on issues of public importance. The government also extra-legally restricts the registration of civil society organizations, as well as persecutes and attacks civil society leaders.

Significantly, the law restricts the ability civil society organizations to collaborate with foreign partners and receive funds from international donors. Honduras, Ecuador and Nicaragua did not rate well either. This April, Honduras passed an association law that places extraordinary controls on civil society groups, including limiting the number of members an organization need to register to a minimum of 25.

Which is a prohibition on family members’ participation in the board or administrative functions in the same organization restrictions on how organizations manage funds, and an allowance for the government to close an organization with which it disagrees. Ecuador has also increased controls, regulations, and limitations on civil society. In the case of Nicaragua, civil society organizations face direct and indirect persecution from the government.

Costa Rica, a country that would seem amenable to civil society, also has problems. Legislation requires hindering civil society organizations ability to register by mandating that a government official be involved in the board of directors. Meanwhile, in Peru, a strong regulatory system tightly controls civil society, and government officials are intent to pass even more restrictions.

After various analyses of legislation and regulatory structures, as well as the ways in which laws are implemented in reality, I found the situation of civil society in most countries quite disappointing. Countries with greater economic and political stability seem to have the highest respect for the civil society organizations.

Aggregating data I collected in my research, the above graph reveals that democracy and transparency correspond with freedom of association for civil society organizations. From 0 to 50 the numbers indicate the fulfillment of several indicators to measure the level of freedom. The most advance countries in the region in terms of democracy, social development and economic improvements are the ones with better environment for civil society to operate.

The Alba countries fared worst in terms of having fair mechanisms for registration, as well as in respecting freedoms of operation, of assembly, and of expression. So, we can say that there is a direct relationship between socio-economic development and freedom of association. It is the case of the two Latin Americas again, one with open a fair rules of the game for COS to operate in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay and the other with restrictive environment and persecution in the Alba countries.

It is not only the case in Latin America, if we evaluate some of the most progressive countries we can see that civil society organizations are able to operate without major restrictions. Even in China, the most awarded mayor due to her innovation and efficiency, Ms. Ma Hong, pointed out that the key of her success as government official in the city of Shenzhen (across the border of Hong Kong) has been dismantling most of the controls, regulations and restrictions for NGOs to operate and create partnerships with civil society leaders.

Freedom of Association and Assembly is a fundamental right in every country of the Americas at the regional level. To help to raise consciousness of the importance of civil society in the Americas and also commence regional cooperation aimed to support freedom of association and assembly for civil society organizations, the United States, with the sponsorship of Canada, Mexico, Panama, and others, has presented the Organization of American States (OAS) with a draft resolution on “Promotion of the Rights to Freedom of Assembly and of Association in the Americas.”

The resolution will be discussed at the OAS’s Forty-First General Assembly Meeting next week in El Salvador, and is open to amendment. Even though the resolution is far from perfect, it is an opportunity for the region to acknowledge the challenges with which civil society is confronted and begin looking for solutions.

Regrettably, in recent years the OAS has failed to live up to its potential to lead on expanding space for civil society. This is due to a lack of leadership (in my view Mr. Jose Miguel Insulza is the worst OAS secretary-general in its history) and lack of commitment from democratic countries like Brazil, Mexico, Chile or Uruguay to do the right thing and be effective in a South-South diplomacy to export democracy at the regional level.

However, the organization has great potential, and though it is what it is, it's the only regional mechanism that includes a wide swath of countries in the western hemisphere. Of course, some authoritarian leaders want to dilute the OAS or turn it into another handy inter-governmental organization to lend false legitimacy to internationally unacceptable actions, (think Unasur, the Union of South America Nations or the proposal of a OAS-like organization without Canada and the US) and thereby weaken the efficacy of the Inter-American Human Rights System.

While they continue this effort, our challenge as Democrats is to find a way for the OAS to become relevant again. In this regard, the General Assembly meeting next week provides not only an opportunity for civil society to gain some protection at the regional level but also a chance for the governments and the OAS to show that they care.

Sandra, True Love for Guatemala Looks Different

By Carlos E. Ponce

This piece originally appeared in Fox News Latino on May 20.


The Guatemalan presidential election, set for September 2011, has heated up with the presence of unlikely contenders vying to hold that nation’s highest office. The most controversial of these is the current shadow president of Guatemala and “former” wife of President Alvaro Colom. The problem, the Constitution expressly prohibits close members of the president for running themselves for the presidency. Not to be stymied by rule of law, the populist “former” first lady filled for divorce just five months before the elections in a maneuver of dubious legality which would allow her to run for. Queried by the press, Sandra Torres “de Colom” explained her decision was taken because of the first family’s immense love for Guatemala.

What kind of love is this? The substitution of social and economic development for populist programs to purchase political patronage? A bag of food instead of sustainable jobs? Ideological rhetoric instead of education? And drug cartels instead of private sector growth? Sandra, true love for Guatemala looks different.

It is hard to see how an inefficient government that has allowed violence to spiral out of control while pursuing personal power is in the best interest of the Guatemalan people. When the violence, carried out by a group called the Z-200 – a drug-trafficking group affiliated to the Zetas of Mexico – manifests itself by the murder and decapitation of 27 workers in retaliation against a farm owner, it is not difficult to realize that Guatemala has been accelerating its path down the wrong track.

It is an insult to see such an elaborate and expensive political campaign, paid out of the public coffers and illegal donations from abroad, while the ordinary Guatemalan people suffer an unending spiral of violence and unemployment. I remember, as I’m sure do all Guatemalans, that only a few short years ago I could walk through the Guatemala City without concern for personal safety; now kidnapping, robbery and violence are the norm.

Despite this, the truth about Guatemala is elusive. Nobody wants to talk about how drug cartels have penetrated politics and society in Guatemala. It is the drug-trafficking industry that supports the majority of political campaigns, some social programs in the country-side, and which effectively runs the country. The response from the current government to this ever-increasing reality has been simply “see no evil”, while their popularity has been lubricated by populism.

Of course the alternatives for the Guatemalans (as in too many countries in Latin America) are limited; to vote for the former wife and shadow president (former Guerrilla comander) or to vote for a hard-line former general who doesn’t seem to possess the skills (or desire) of public dialogue.

This begs the obvious question, where are we going as a region? It’s painful to watch the resurrected phantoms of a brutally violent past come again to haunt this marvelous Central American country. It is equally difficult to witness how the drug cartels and violent “Maras” have been extending their grip through Mexico and El Salvador. And It is hard to see how a great country like Peru is forced to chose between a dictatorial past and an authoritarian future; the choice between the terrible legacy of Fujimori and the Chavez style regime of Humala. It is also a shame how the new king of Ecuador, Mr. Rafael Correa, has with relative ease used the electoral processes against the people of that Andean country in his attempt to control the media and the judiciary and silence the democratic forces crying out to be heard. Finally, in Nicaragua an unconstitutional president violates the law at will to run again.

Latin America seems to have only two options; to fall into the hands of the populists who believe that with ideology and propaganda they can solve the very real problems of the people, or working together in real representative democracies to solve the crushing challenges of our region. This is not a discussion of “left” versus “right”, it is about pragmatic work in freedom to solve the terrible problems of violence, drug-cartels, poverty, exclusion and the need for coherent governments that respect rule of law, human rights and true democracy.

No, Sandra, don’t say its love of country. The people from Guatemala may be poor people, but they are not so easily fooled.

“Socialism of the 21st Century”: Venezuela's Populist Propaganda

This piece originally appeared in the Latin American Herald Tribune on May 10.

Class struggles and oil-based growth have helped populists like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela to export their “ideologies” and increase their power at the regional level. Chávez, as well as Rafael Correa from Ecuador, Daniel Ortega from Nicaragua, and others, have been using a socialist revolution to frame their fight for power in the region. Their “Socialism of the 21st Century” is just populist propaganda. The political character of Chávez and his regime is state-capitalist, fascist, and specifically populist. This “New” Socialism, instead of advancing towards something new, is repeating the worst faults of the most perverse authoritarian models of the 20th century.

If we take Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci views, a socialist regime must focus on empowering the working class and civil society to achieve power. According to Gramsci, civil society -- rather than the economy -- is the motor of history, for this is where the meaning and values that can sustain or transform society are created.

In the “Socialism of the 21st Century” model, the basic function of populist leadership is to prevent the working class from developing a full understanding of their role in society with false rhetoric. Chávez, like other populists, makes a rhetorical claim to represent the ‘people’ against the ‘elites,’ in order to pre-empt the development of class-consciousness and instead maintain the majority of the population surviving from the governmental “charity”.

Chávez’s regime persecutes civil society and at the same time created a new elite caste, which is corrupt, arrogant, and rich. This new caste of leaders (with their families and close partners), within the huge government bureaucracy, is worse than all the rich classes from the past. The new elite are getting richer and richer, supposedly on behalf of the people. For Chávez and his accomplices, it is not a matter of empowering the lower classes or even engaging in a class struggle. The key for the regime is to keep working-class struggles under control and to create a false social-revolution.

False socialism promoted by Chavez, Ortega and Correa, according to Bernard-Henri Levy (Left in Dark Times: A Stand against the New Barbarism), is sick because it adopts the worst features such as fascination with nationalisms, anti-U.S., anti-liberalism, anti-Semitism, and a fascination with radical Islamism.

The extreme Left sees in people like Chávez the money that they need and the false discourse to maintain false dogmas. The result is a false progressivism without progress. In this case, social-revolution has been the flag used by a group of neo-populists to gain power in Latin America and impose a new tyranny with false social goals.

While Chávez from Venezuela, Correa from Ecuador and Ortega from Nicaragua were democratically elected, they have ruled by decree, modified the law to fulfill their desires, concentrated power in the executive branch of government, eliminated any form of accountability, manipulated the elections which no longer can be considered free, and greatly enhanced the role of the military as their chief power base.

They have violated human rights and eliminated the rule of law and any democratic principle or institution. Instead of seeing new socialists, we are witnessing the resurgence of radical populists in Latin America. The nationalist and anti-imperialist rhetoric of Chávez, Correa, and Ortega is a rebirth of a radical-nationalistic populism from the past. We cannot call those countries democracies.

Eduardo Galeano, one of Chavez’s favorite authors, wrote in Open Veins of Latin America (1973): “The ghosts of all the revolutions that have been strangled or betrayed through Latin America’s tortured history emerge in the new experiments, as if the present had been foreseen and begotten by the contradictions of the past”. Chavez and Ortega just betrayed their own revolutions.

What Galeano (1973) wrote about Venezuela years ago applies to the false socialist regime of Chávez: “nationalization of basic resources doesn’t in itself imply redistribution of income for the majority’s benefit, nor does necessarily endanger the power and privileges of the dominant minority. In Venezuela the economy of waste and extravagance continues intact."

Chavez “extravagance” is just one of the ghosts hunting his fake revolution, it is just a matter of time and the right democratic wave for his sand-built regime to fall.

Effective South-South Diplomacy against Authoritarians

This piece originally appeared in the Latin American Herald Tribune on April 19.

Numerous Latin Americans have developed a bizarre love-hate relationship with the United States, most of them populists who tend to blame the American government for all that is wrong with their lives, even if these faults are the product of their own mistakes. As a result, the United States has become an easy excuse for bad government, repression, and restrictions on freedom of expression and association in recent years.

In some cases, actions taken by the United States that are intended to sanction repressive regimes actually have the opposite effect — for example, the American embargo on Cuba. Similarly, the confrontational rhetoric exchanged between former President Bush and President Chavez allowed the latter international leverage to persecute civil society activists and curtail fundamental freedoms.

The United States’ reciprocal response to the expulsion of American ambassadors to Bolivia, Venezuela, and most recently, Ecuador, has unfairly provided populist authoritarian leaders valuable political capital. It is all too easy to just blame the United States. It is also too easy to keep old memories of the cold war alive for “ideological” reasons.

And, it is not just the authoritarians who blame the United States. Extremists in the opposition, those who have campaigned for the United States to more actively involve itself in Latin American regime change á la military intervention, also s blame the US for being too soft. The United States just can’t win. It is true that the United States doesn’t have a good policy toward the Western Hemisphere, but that is part of another history.

Last week I wrote of two Latin Americas: one, comprised of countries with effective policies that balance the utility of free markets with the necessity of social justice, and another, consisting of countries stuck in the past that leave their citizens poor and ignorant in order to control them.

The first has experienced tremendous advances in terms of equality, evidenced by countries like Brazil, where more than 20 million people have moved from poverty to the middle class thanks to an effective social program that has motivated parents to bring their kids to school and ensure they receive medical services. In these countries, presidents from the right and left have brought political stability, democratic governance, and economic development, and have done so with a social face.

We can include countries like Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Costa Rica, Brazil, Peru, Colombia and Panama on this list. It looks like El Salvador—despite its problems with violence and economic limitations—is also headed in this direction. On the other hand, there is Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ecuador, all of which are going backward.

The success of the first set of countries did not involve blaming America. Instead, these countries found their own way. Latin Americans must work as citizens of their countries and region to solve their own differences, reduce the inequality between them, and eliminate social exclusion by effectively balancing market forces and social justice. There is no magical solution that will come from the north. The people must do this work themselves.

In terms of how to deal with elected authoritarians, those who persecute opposition and violate democratic values human rights, the best solution is effective South-South diplomacy — for governments like Brazil, who have been successful, to positively engage countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua on issues of human rights and democracy.

We need governments that have carved out democratic paths to assist in exporting democracy to this “other” America so that it too can share in the prosperity. Democratic countries in Latin America have tremendous potential when it comes to sharing democratic stories and lessons with their more authoritarian neighbors, and it is exactly this, as well as holding the feet of leaders in this other Latin America to the fire.

Civil society organizations in countries like Brazil, Chile and Uruguay should working in conjunction with civil society groups in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. These groups should share experience , an effective tool building healthier opposition politics and stronger civil society. In addition to civil society development, democratic governments in Latin America should align their foreign policy with their expressed domestic commitment to democracy and human rights. Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Panama, among others, have been consolidating their democracies internally and have thus increased the opportunities for their civil societies to advance democracy and human rights in other countries.

However, despite enormous potential for cooperation of civil society groups across borders, we too often witness a lack of solidarity between civil society organizations, most importantly between civil society organizations in countries with authoritarian regimes and those with consolidating democracies. Not only this, but some democratic countries have seemingly loaned support to the repressive countries.

It is important that newly emergent democracies do not forget their global commitment to democracy in the tranquility that has corresponded with their political and economic success. Further action is required to promote an awareness of the status of democracy in countries outside one’s own — to more actively engage civil society organizations and diplomats to further democracy across borders, to consolidate democracy in Latin America as a whole rather than leaving the continent to be divided in two, one democratic and successful and the other not.

The voting record of Brazil at the UN Human Rights Council and its support of authoritarians in Venezuela, Iran and Cuba should bring shame on a country that has managed to achieve such a vibrant democracy and fervent respect for human rights in such a short period of time.

Effective diplomacy is possible. For example, look at how the Czech Republic has engaged Cuba, allowing Cuban civil society leaders to use computers in its embassy to blog free from the Castro regime’s usual controls and leading efforts to strengthen and inter-link civil society groups. Czech and Cuban civil society groups have worked with each other on numerous projects.

Democratic countries in Latin America are not without similar examples. For example, look at the effective role Conectas, a small civil society organization in Brazil, has had in promoting responsible diplomacy in the south. There are positive examples of South-South diplomacy. We just need more of them, and we need them to be consistent.

My view of South-South Effective Diplomacy requires responsible governments to facilitate the sharing of best practices among civil society organizations, youth groups and other social, political and economic actors, support the construction of civil society networks, educate civil society leaders on the use of new tools and technologies, promote democratic solidarity across the continent, and promote awareness of what has been accomplished in much of the continent.

Countries like Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador should not be left behind. Instead, they should have their eyes opened to the successes experienced in other countries so that they too may build such democratic foundations.

North-South diplomacy has its place, but South-South diplomacy also has an important role to play. The United States is not all-powerful, and it is time for democrats in the region to come to together to strengthen regional and sub-regional bodies, to adopt country-to-country initiatives, to level the playing field between authoritarians and democratic forces in the countries left behind.

A Tale of Two Latin Americas

This piece originally appeared in the Latin American Herald Tribune on April 6.

This year the realities of a divided Latin America are being placed in stark contrast as two very different countries with very divergent political models go to the polls. In Peru, positive progress has been made in shedding its repressive and violent past and moving along a path to stable democracy and economic growth; meanwhile, in Nicaragua, ghosts of a similarly miserable political past continue to haunt the halls of power.

First is the case of Peru. It is easy for us to forget that 20 years ago the violent guerrilla group called the Shining Path killed hundreds of people in a merciless insurgent war. The ensuing chaos caused financial instability that led to Peru defaulting on its debt, with an inflation rising to 397% in 1990.

While the world has moved on, Peruvian politicians have not forgotten. Deciding to combine effective social security programs with policies that promote private investment and innovation, Peru has successfully balanced free market forces, regulation, and social policy to build a healthy mixed economy consistent with the rule of law and democracy.

They have chosen as their recipe successful countries such as Chile, Brazil, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Panama. They have abandoned the tired arguments of “left” and “right” and focused instead on pragmatic solutions which create opportunities for investment, employment, and innovation while generating social policies that reduce inequality and poverty.

Importantly, fostering such success inevitably means respecting the rules of the democratic game.

The Peruvian economy has experienced nine years of positive growth. According to the IMF it is expected to grow more than any other Latin American county in the next five years.

A stable democracy for the past ten years, Peru has set in place a system that assures an effective transition of power void of ideological excesses and anchored upon its respect for the rule of law. Peru’s improvement will continue unless Peruvians decided to look back and elect the ghost of the past represented by Ollanta Humala, Hugo Chavez protégée.

Peru’s story is paralleled in Brazil, Chile and Uruguay. In those countries, presidents from both the left and the right opted to pursue market-oriented policies with a “social face,” transcending old ideological divides while providing a re-definition of democracy and economic policymaking.

All of them had the opportunity to use repression or take advantage of populist sentiments to change the laws and the constitution; however they have chosen instead to follow the rules of the democratic game.

As a result, their countries have and continue to progress unlike the regimes of Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela, Evo Morales’ Bolivia, Rafael Correa’s Ecuador, Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua, and the Castro brothers’ Cuba.

These countries instead have fallen victim to autocrats who have manipulated institutions and violated democratic principles to the point of turning their countries in failed states.

An opposite case of Peruvian election this year will be Nicaragua’s election. This country has decided instead to follow down the path of Venezuela and Ecuador. These countries trumpet ideological values cemented with populist platforms paid for by un-transparent governments dependent upon extractive industries.

Instead of freedom and wellbeing, the pages of the newspapers in Nicaragua are rife with terrible news of corruption, murder, and evidence of state failure. This is the other Latin America, the one that, as Oscar Arias says, “marches resolutely into the past, to the ideological trenches that separated us during the cold war”.

What we have are two Latin Americas, one looking with hope to the future and the other immersed in defensive ideological excuses to disguise failed policies, ineffective governments, corrupt elites and sanguinary leaders.

Perhaps equally concerning, the policies generated by the populist leftists are not only destructive for their own countries — they are also dangerous for peace and security in other countries as well.

From Morales’ encouragement of drug production in Bolivia to the increase in trafficking in Venezuela with the complicity of Chavez’ inner circle; to terrorist groups and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “jointly” investing in the region, this ‘other’ Latin America is no longer only a threat to its own people, but to the entire Western Hemisphere.

It is time for the United States to encourage and support a Latin America that looks to the future — to help democracy activists counter regressive policies and begin to steer the ‘other’ Latin America in the direction of those countries that have enjoyed success stories in recent years.

Upcoming elections in Nicaragua provide a chance to do just this as the United States will have new opportunities to support those civil society and democratic leaders who have been struggling for free and fair elections that will offer something more than Ortega’s eternal presidency.

The United States should also realize the need to counter autocracy in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba.

All Latin American countries must be allowed the opportunity to share in a common, region-wide story of success, and now is the time for the United States at long last to offer help along the way.

The Rise (and Fall?) of Ridiculous Leaders

This piece originally appeared in the Latin American Herald Tribune on March 22.

“The devil came here yesterday, and it smells of sulfur here still.” Who can forget these infamous words by Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York referring to US President Bush.

“There must be a United Nations inquiry into the assassination of John F. Kennedy” said Libya’s Dictator Muammar Gaddafi at the same forum only three years later. He went on to demand 7.7 trillion dollars in reparations for Africa, and opined that he would be happy if President Barack Obama stayed president of the United States for life.

In 2010 it was Iranian dictator Mahmood Ahjadinejad’s turn as he revived September 11 conspiracy theories and announced that Iran – the world’s most significant sponsor of terrorism – would be holding a global conference in Tehran on how to combat terrorism.

Those three friends share the same megalomania and the same approach to power.

The eccentricities of these ridiculous leaders are well known. Muammar Gaddafi travels with a voluptuous blond nurse, is afraid of heights and tall buildings, and sleeps in a roving convoy that drives through the desert protected by only women bodyguards.

Hugo Chavez appeared on a stage wearing a huge Mexican “sombrero” and sang “rancheras” for a full hour in a misguided attempt to apologize to the Mexican people for a slight from his famously undisciplined tongue. “Condi Rice seems to be obsessed with me,” he once told a crowd of 700,000 people in downtown Caracas. “Maybe I should propose marriage to her, maybe that would fix things” he said to the jeering mob, “no, let another make a sacrifice for the country; ask me anything else, but don’t ask me that.” One day a communist revolutionary the next day a self proclaimed savior of the poor and latter a democrat persecuted by the “evil empire”.

In a recent conference on climate change Bolivia’s President Evo Morales confidently stated that eating genetically modified chicken makes people gay, and bald. He appeared in front of his own parliament promoting the use of coca and admitting that he used coca leaves and paste.

In a recent kerfuffle with his police, Ecuador’s President Correa waded through a mob of hundreds of armed, angry officers to stand framed in a window and yelled, “…if you want to kill the president, here he is. Kill him,” and ripped open his shirt with a flourish to reveal his bare chest. “I prefer to be dead sooner than lose my life,” he shouted self-importantly to the armed crowd.

Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua’s President, violated his stepdaughter.

Birds of a feather, as they say. It’s no surprise at all that Chavez, Ortega, Castro, and Morales have all been the recipients of the highly coveted Muammar Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights. This important trophy, with its corresponding $250,000 award, is given to “international personalities, bodies or organizations that have distinctively contributed to rendering an outstanding human service and has achieved great actions in defending human rights, protecting the causes of freedom and supporting peace everywhere in the world.”

It is a shame for the Western Hemisphere that the automatic and stronger supporters of the Gaddafi’s bloody tyranny are these three stooges.

The risible antics of these barmy leaders could be passed off as fodder for Saturday Night Live -- maybe a spoof featuring Tina Fey -- if these men weren’t at the same time so dangerous. As I write this, Libya’s Gaddafi is using weaponry of war against his own people in a desperate attempt to retain power.

Mahmood Ahmadinejad, after torturing and murdering thousands of Iranians after the fraudulent election of 2009 could be only months away from a nuclear weapon to call his very own.

Hugo Chavez has held onto power for twelve years, converting his tropical Caribbean paradise into a safe haven for drug dealers, terrorists and criminals while sitting back as they murdered 150,000 Venezuelans in senseless acts of turf warfare. He turned a progressive oil country (with undoubted social and economical disparities) into a banana republic. He talked about his revolution but instead of a “jasmine” one he has been implementing a banana revolution in Venezuela and exporting his authoritarianism to Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador and other countries.

So far, Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua – all Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA) member countries – are the only countries willing to defend Gaddafi’s carnage. Not even Iran, who can barely contain its pleasure at a competitor’s demise; or Russia who must fear losing an important arms client, are coming to the defense of the Butcher of Tripoli.

I had hoped that after the slaughter of the twentieth century an exhausted world would be unwilling to watch again – this time in High Definition – the plight of countless millions demanding that we come to their aid.

Apparently, I was wrong.

While the international community debated whether or not Libya should lose its seat in the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Gaddafi regrouped and hired African mercenaries who are attempting to retake areas lost to the rebels.

While the United Nations Security Council votes to open an investigation by the International Criminal Court into war crimes – Gaddafi’s military continues to commit them. In the Western Hemisphere, not a single word from the Organization of American States in support for democracy in Libya and the end of the criminal massacre at the hands of Gaddafi and not a single critic from the heads of the countries in the region or the ones responsible for the Western Hemisphere’s policies in the Department of State or the National Security Council.

It is time for the timidity of the Obama Administration to cease. They sat on the sideline while Ahmadinejad tortured thousands. They say nothing while Chavez harbors terrorists, persecutes civil society, closes down TV stations, supports drug traffic and sells gasoline and uranium to Iran in violation of international sanctions.

President Obama famously said from Cairo University, “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.” It is time for the Obama Administration to stand up for those beliefs, and help free the world from its ridiculous, dangerous leaders.