Venezuela's diplomatic fight with Colombia comes at an opportune time for Hugo Chavez, who could benefit politically if he manages to shifts voters' attention away from a recession, Latin America's highest inflation and rampant crime. Venezuela's socialist president is playing up his dispute with US-allied Colombia in an apparent attempt to rally nationalist sentiment against foreign enemies ahead of legislative elections in September. He severed relations with Colombia last week in response to allegations that Venezuela has become a haven for Colombian rebels – and without missing a beat he sought to portray those accusations as a plot against him by Bogota and Washington. The narrative helps Chavez play on supporters' patriotism and redirect attention away from potentially damaging accusations. But even for a leader accustomed to making claims of conspiracies, his rhetoric has been particular strong. “The possibility of an armed attack from Colombian territory on Venezuela's territory has a probability that it's never had before in many years. I'd say 100 years,” Chavez told a rally of supporters over the weekend. “I'm obliged to tell the people the truth: We are threatened by the Yankee empire.” Chavez has long accused the US of trying to oust him since he survived a 2002 coup, and he insists his concerns about a possible armed conflict are genuine. Yet Chavez's forceful verbal counterattack – from threatening to cut off U.S. oil shipments to talking of a threat of war – also seem politically expedient. He has plenty to be concerned about at home: 31 percent inflation, a recession that saw the economy contract 3.3 percent last year, unchecked crime and a scandal involving thousands of tons of food found rotting or beyond expiration dates in government storage. Chavez often says that in politics, the best attack is the counterattack. He had already stepped up his televised speeches at state-run stores to counter the food scandal before the latest escalation of tensions with Colombia. Chavez is a savvy political strategist and is adept at deflecting attention from potentially damaging issues. He has also found ways to defuse situations that might otherwise turn against him. In December, he quickly corked up a banking scandal involving a Cabinet minister's brother and several wealthy businessmen with ties to his administration by firing a close aide, vowing to bring other suspects to justice and labeling them “revolting rats that wear ties.” Now Chavez is focused on holding on to majority control of the National Assembly in the Sept. 26 elections. The legislature has been dominated by Chavez allies since the last congressional vote in 2005, when major opposition parties boycotted the elections. Pro-Chavez lawmakers have done their leader's bidding ever since, approving laws reducing the power of opposition mayors and governors while stonewalling calls for investigations into alleged official corruption. Opposition leaders hope to dramatically increase their presence in the 165-seat assembly to rein in Chavez, who they accuse of becoming increasingly authoritarian and ruining the economy. How Chavez looks in the eyes of his supporters during the next two months, and how he handles issues like the Colombia dispute and the food scandal, could have an impact on what is likely to be a hard-fought political contest. Chavez has already started lashing out at opposition governors in border states who are demanding an investigation into Colombia's claims about havens for rebels. But even while warning of a conflict with the government of outgoing Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Chavez is keeping his options open, saying he hopes President-elect Juan Manuel Santos will take a different approach once he takes office Aug. 7. Chavez may not be the only one trying to play the dispute to his political advantage. Uribe's public finger-pointing at Venezuela in his final days in office could also help distract public attention from scandals on his own ground. Members of his inner circle are coming under questioning by prosecutors for allegedly ordering illegal spying on political foes, judges and journalists.
