What would you say about a country whose GDP growth rate stands at 10.3%? Whose poverty rates have dropped by 10%? Whose leader has offered aid to minorities and those in poverty in foreign countries? Sounds like a good deal to me.
Now what would you say about a country who is stockpiling Soviet weapons and aircraft? Whose leader is regarded by some as the most dangerous and divisive pundit in the Western hemisphere? Who stages protests and speaks out vigorously against the most powerful country in the world?
Enter Hugo Chavez. Part revolutionary, part drama queen, part politician, the Venezuelan leader is both loved and loathed – but he rarely goes unnoticed. During President Bush’s recent visit to Latin America, Chavez made nearly as much news as the leader of the free world, staging demonstrations and events, often in close proximity to Bush’s, as a counterweight to the president’s rhetoric of human rights and strengthening relations with Latin America.
Of course, President Bush had nothing to say about Chavez, whose name he refuses to speak out loud. Chavez, who has taken to calling Bush “El Diablo” has been essentially erased from the president’s official language. After all, if you his name isn’t spoken, then he must not exist, right?
Unfortunately for the administration, Chavez does exist, and his voice is getting louder. Far from the criminal the Bush administration would like to portray him as, Chavez is the leading voice in a growing contingent of Latin American countries that are fed up with the dominance of American-based corporations in their native lands.
As most countries in Latin and South America continue to struggle to provide basic human needs for a large percentage of their citizens, the anti-poverty rhetoric of a corporate-heavy American policy becomes more and more transparent. The privatization of natural resources such as water, oil, natural gas, and (perhaps most famously) fruit has led to a trend of rising prices and constricting access for native citizens. But Chavez, working with other leaders, has begun to spread the rhetoric of change, relying on nationalism and anti-American sentiment to help incite a movement back toward national ownership.
Venezuela has nationalized its oil industry, one of the largest in the world, and it appears that others are following suit. Last year, Bolivia made the decision to nationalize its own natural gas reserves, and Colombia, despite outward statements that may suggest otherwise, has expanded production of cocoa, its largest cash crop.
But what makes Chavez and Venezuela unique is the oil. Unlike other third world leaders, Chavez is sitting on an enormous reserve of petroleum – that magic black substance the US seems to be willing to go to all ends of the earth to procure. What’s more, Venezuela remains the fourth largest importer of oil to the United States. So while the Bush administration can dismiss Chavez now as they dismiss all the others who denounce its policies, Chavez remains in control of a resource that becomes more valuable every day, especially to his gas-guzzling American opponents. It is his always ready and rarely mentioned trump card.
OIL
Last September, Chavez made a push to solidify his stance in the United States. Acting through Houston-based Citgo Corp. and in conjunction with Joe Kennedy’s Citizen’s Eneregy project, Chavez promised to provide Venezuelan oil at low cost to about 450,000 low-income families in the United States. Promoting the program at the United Nations General Assembly, he made strong remarks denouncing the consolidation of power in the highest office in the land. Responding to the claims of extremism often made by his American critics, Chavez had this to say: “The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up.”
Yet the response to this seemingly benevolent act has run the gamut from praise to damnation, both from ordinary citizens and political figures. Arguing that the subsidies amount to nothing more than an attempt to curry favor in a disenfranchised demographic, his detractors have called for outright refusal of Venezuela. Supporters, on the other hand, praise Chavez for his ability to see human need ahead of financial gain.
Despite the contentiousness of the action, Venezuelan oil, subsidized or not, continues to pour into the United States. According to PDVSA, Venezuela’s state-owned oil firm, Venezuela plans to expand production to nearly 3.5 million barrels a day this year, with an estimated 50% of the total yield flowing directly into the United States.
“If discounted fuel from Venezuela is somehow unfit for the needy, the full-price Venezuela oil shouldn’t be enough for the cars, boats, jets and furnaces of the wealthy,” said Kennedy. In the U.S., where federal assistance for programs like Citizen’s Energy that provide low-cost heating fuel has been cut drastically during the Bush administration, the incentive for refusing Chavez’s oil seems low.
But in Alaska, another targeted location of CITGO’s low-cost oil initiative, some citizens are speaking out. Letters in the Anchorage Daily News express the sentiments from those who are less than grateful for the donation of Venezuelan oil. One resident called for those who accept the oil to “no longer be accepted as U.S. citizens.” Others aim for the heart, like Alexander Clark of Homer, Alaska: “There are many brave and proud rural Alaskans wearing the uniform of this country who are engaged in combat with the very enemy that Chavez supports. How proud of you will they be?”
Clark’s admonition is a common one, and the belief that Chavez is allied with destructive forces around the world is not entirely unfounded. He has developed relationships with both Syria and Iran and defended the rights to nuclear armament of the latter. He is widely known to revere Fidel Castro as a model of anti-American resistance, and was the sole world leader to visit Saddam Hussein in 1991. Though there appear to be no explicit links between Chavez and known terrorist organizations, the implications abound. Marked by dense vegetation and a lack of organized government presence, parts of Venezuela, especially those along the Colombian border, are suspected areas of “narco-terrorist” activity stemming from the production of cocaine and other narcotics. Despite the irony that these activities are fueled primarily by demand from the United States, these connections have prompted the U.S. State Department to label Venezuela a “liability” in the “international community’s fight against terrorism.”
Yet in the era of an administration that has used strangely similar language as a basis for the invasion and sanctioning of other resource-rich countries, the admonition bears little weight. The oil industry and its handmaidens in Washington have together created a rhetoric of terrorism against democracy, socialism against capitalism, extremism against determinism. In this light, Chavez seems only one of a multitude of targets of U.S. criticism.
“If objections to Venezuelan oil are about democracy,” said Kennedy, “then critics should look at the December elections won by President Hugo Chavez with nearly 70 percent of the vote. Venezuelans have now spoken four times in his favor.
“I'm not going to defend or demonize Chavez for his moves toward socialism, but it does seem like we favor selective socialism here in the United States for big corporations that get to socialize risks and privatize profits.”
