Venezuela and the new Latin America
After a period of relative quietude, the frisson between the United States and Venezuela has boiled over again in recent months, like a spiteful clash between old lovers. In his weekly television address, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez claimed that the US was trying to kill him. This was in response to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s description of Chavez as a ‘negative force’ in the region. Chavez, not normally known for his romantic overtures, went on to brazenly suggest that Dr. Rice’s obsession with him was down to a latent sexual frustration and claimed she ‘didn’t know what she was missing’.
The amusing rhetoric belies a fragile relationship that has come dangerously close to cracking. Since his 1999 election to the presidency, Chavez has often been singled out as a problem by the US. His close ties to Fidel Castro have been criticized. His ‘Bolivarian Revolution’, with its emphasis on the re-distribution of oil revenues to social projects and literacy campaigns for the majority of Venezuelans who live in poverty, have been derided as quasi-communist. In April 2002, a coup d’etat was staged, with the US offering discreet complicity; 48 hours later Chavez was returned to the Miraflores palace following widespread demonstrations by his many supporters.
Photogenic, light-skinned Venezuelans have accused Chavez of wrecking the country and waging a war on the formerly prosperous middle class. Yet Chavez was re-elected in 2000, and in August 2004 a long-running campaign aimed at dissolving his presidency was derailed when 60% of the population voted to keep him in power. His is a power base rooted in the poor, the oppressed, the millions who live in the slums of Caracas, the rural people who until the arrival of Chavez had little opportunity of bettering themselves. In the President, with his indigenous heritage, they see one of their own.
The latest volleys between Washington and Caracas come at a time of increased U.S. interference in Venezuela. Donald Rumsfeld has been sounding ominous warnings about the supposed ‘threat’ posed by Chavez to the region’s stability, and the right-wing National Review duly complied by describing Chavez as one of “Latin America’s Terrible Two”, along with the resurgent Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. In that article, the former Latin American aide Otto Reich amply demonstrated his mastery of Bush-speak, describing the Cuban president Fidel Castro as an “evil genius” and dredging up the spectre of an “axis of subversion” between the two countries that could threaten to unhinge the entire region.
The U.S. has also become worried about what they see as an increasing militarism in Venezuela. The government has recently bought a supply of Ak-47s from Russia, and a deal was signed to buy ships and transport plans from Spain. Rumsfeld openly queried Venezuela’s recent acquisitions, saying that he “can’t understand why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK47s”, an interesting remark from a man whose country spends more on defence than the rest of the world’s nations combined. The irony of this is, of course, that Washington is becoming increasingly reliant on the 1.5 million barrels of oil they buy daily from Venezuela.
All this talk of ‘subversion’ masks the real fear that Washington has over the region. Over the last five years, a swath of countries across Latin America have elected centre-left democratic governments, and in doing so fundamentally altered the political makeup of the hemisphere. The days of the Washington consensus, and IMF-dictated economic policies that insisted on free market reforms and cutbacks on social expenditure, appear to be over. Argentina and Brazil are led by governments that are willing to stand up to the hegemony that the West has long held over their countries. In Bolivia, indigenous groups have managed to unseat one unpopular President, and are challenging the exploitation of their country’s natural resources by multinational corporations. Most recently, Uruguay elected its first ever leftist President, Tabare Vazquez, who on his first day in office re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba and signed an energy co-operation deal with Venezuela.
It is this increased regional integration that perturbs Washington; thus these efforts, in the words of the Venezuelan Vice-President Jose Vicente Rangel, to “destroy Latin American unity”. The idea of a powerful Latin American bloc – a dream that was borne in the mind of the 19th century liberator, and oft-invoked Chavez hero, Simon Bolivar – which could pose a difficult partner in trade negotiations, is something that the US wishes to undermine at all costs. A ‘trial run’ for such a group was seen in the abortive Cancun WTO negotiations in 2003, when the so-called G22 – a group of developing nations worldwide, spearheaded by Brazil and India – directly challenged the hitherto Western-dominated meeting and effectively brought the talks to an end. Such a pact across Latin America – with its shared geography, language, and history of colonial exploitation – could dramatically alter the balance of power in global trade.
And with the oil-rich Venezuela reaching out to the rest of the continent, and other nations of the 'global south', it is possible that the balance could be shifting for good. Perhaps Condoleeza Rice should take up Chavez's offer, at least on the grounds of diplomatic necessity.
The amusing rhetoric belies a fragile relationship that has come dangerously close to cracking. Since his 1999 election to the presidency, Chavez has often been singled out as a problem by the US. His close ties to Fidel Castro have been criticized. His ‘Bolivarian Revolution’, with its emphasis on the re-distribution of oil revenues to social projects and literacy campaigns for the majority of Venezuelans who live in poverty, have been derided as quasi-communist. In April 2002, a coup d’etat was staged, with the US offering discreet complicity; 48 hours later Chavez was returned to the Miraflores palace following widespread demonstrations by his many supporters.
Photogenic, light-skinned Venezuelans have accused Chavez of wrecking the country and waging a war on the formerly prosperous middle class. Yet Chavez was re-elected in 2000, and in August 2004 a long-running campaign aimed at dissolving his presidency was derailed when 60% of the population voted to keep him in power. His is a power base rooted in the poor, the oppressed, the millions who live in the slums of Caracas, the rural people who until the arrival of Chavez had little opportunity of bettering themselves. In the President, with his indigenous heritage, they see one of their own.
The latest volleys between Washington and Caracas come at a time of increased U.S. interference in Venezuela. Donald Rumsfeld has been sounding ominous warnings about the supposed ‘threat’ posed by Chavez to the region’s stability, and the right-wing National Review duly complied by describing Chavez as one of “Latin America’s Terrible Two”, along with the resurgent Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. In that article, the former Latin American aide Otto Reich amply demonstrated his mastery of Bush-speak, describing the Cuban president Fidel Castro as an “evil genius” and dredging up the spectre of an “axis of subversion” between the two countries that could threaten to unhinge the entire region.
The U.S. has also become worried about what they see as an increasing militarism in Venezuela. The government has recently bought a supply of Ak-47s from Russia, and a deal was signed to buy ships and transport plans from Spain. Rumsfeld openly queried Venezuela’s recent acquisitions, saying that he “can’t understand why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK47s”, an interesting remark from a man whose country spends more on defence than the rest of the world’s nations combined. The irony of this is, of course, that Washington is becoming increasingly reliant on the 1.5 million barrels of oil they buy daily from Venezuela.
All this talk of ‘subversion’ masks the real fear that Washington has over the region. Over the last five years, a swath of countries across Latin America have elected centre-left democratic governments, and in doing so fundamentally altered the political makeup of the hemisphere. The days of the Washington consensus, and IMF-dictated economic policies that insisted on free market reforms and cutbacks on social expenditure, appear to be over. Argentina and Brazil are led by governments that are willing to stand up to the hegemony that the West has long held over their countries. In Bolivia, indigenous groups have managed to unseat one unpopular President, and are challenging the exploitation of their country’s natural resources by multinational corporations. Most recently, Uruguay elected its first ever leftist President, Tabare Vazquez, who on his first day in office re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba and signed an energy co-operation deal with Venezuela.
It is this increased regional integration that perturbs Washington; thus these efforts, in the words of the Venezuelan Vice-President Jose Vicente Rangel, to “destroy Latin American unity”. The idea of a powerful Latin American bloc – a dream that was borne in the mind of the 19th century liberator, and oft-invoked Chavez hero, Simon Bolivar – which could pose a difficult partner in trade negotiations, is something that the US wishes to undermine at all costs. A ‘trial run’ for such a group was seen in the abortive Cancun WTO negotiations in 2003, when the so-called G22 – a group of developing nations worldwide, spearheaded by Brazil and India – directly challenged the hitherto Western-dominated meeting and effectively brought the talks to an end. Such a pact across Latin America – with its shared geography, language, and history of colonial exploitation – could dramatically alter the balance of power in global trade.
And with the oil-rich Venezuela reaching out to the rest of the continent, and other nations of the 'global south', it is possible that the balance could be shifting for good. Perhaps Condoleeza Rice should take up Chavez's offer, at least on the grounds of diplomatic necessity.
posted by DN at 6:49 PM
1 Comments:
brilliant synopsis of the new Latin America - i had no idea things were getting so progressive down South... maybe Rice will soon enough be takin' it like you said, haha!
Post a Comment
<< Home