|
 |
 |
|
It’s not very often that a two Washington think tanks, one liberal, the other conservative, agree on future U.S. policy towards a Latin American country. And what’s striking is that both are wrong.
According to the Inter-American Dialogue, a liberal-left think tank that is known for having offered refuge to former Latin American presidents who lost at the polls because they backed state-run economies, president George W. Bush’s new administration “should not hesitate to oppose Venezuelan government actions that violate regional norms and U.S. interests” (as a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries it has shared responsibility in raising crude oil prices), while the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a foreign policy research center with close ties to Republicans, states that “[t]he Venezuela issue is likely to be troubling, or a hot spot in the first three to six months” as anti-drug battalions trained by the United States begin operations in Colombia.
Both agree the United States has nothing to gain from aggressively confronting Venezuela. It would “likely provoke [Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez] to further challenge U.S. policy”, according to the Inter-American Dialogue report. The analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies note that an openly hostile stance toward Chavez could do more harm than good. But neither explains how the Bush administration could “oppose Venezuelan government actions” or deal with Venezuela as a “hot spot” without giving Chavez help in becoming a new Fidel Castro —who has a succeeded in convincing his people that it is the United States that should be blamed for their country’s disastrous economy.
As we pointed out in this space two weeks ago, since Chavez took office in February of last year he has displayed his independence from the United States, a posture that plays well with his nationalistic, mostly poor supporters. He spurned United States flood aid when American troops came to deliver it. He became the first head of state to break the international isolation of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, when he visited Iraq in August.
He lavished admiration on Castro, and helped him combat the American trade ban by sending him oil in return for Cuban slave-labor sent to Venezuela. He has fostered the greatest increase in tensions with Colombia in two decades, has reached out to Colombian rebels and has predicted that American military aid will lead to a regional conflagration. His expressions of sympathy for anti-government forces in Bolivia and Ecuador have drawn howls of protest from those countries.
However, even though Venezuela has the largest oil reserves outside the Middle East and is the world’s third largest oil exporter —it currently accounts for 13 percent of U.S. imports—, it is mired in a deep recession. Despite its enormous oil wealth, approximately two-thirds of the people live in poverty, while a decrepit state is unable to provide many basic public services, such as health, justice and education.
In unemployment-ridden Venezuela, at least half the 9 million workers make their living on the streets, driven into the informal economy after losing their jobs or failing to find one. By government estimates, 600,000 people lost their jobs last year, when Venezuela’s economy shrank by more than 7 percent. Officially, unemployment is 13 percent. Business groups and economists say it’s 20 percent.
As a consequence, society is breaking down. Alcohol and drug consumption is rising and violence is rampant. More than 200 people were slain in Venezuela over the three-day Christmas weekend; the “normal” figure is one hundred.
Chavez’s grip on Venezuela is not by far what Castro’s is on Cuba. The private sector is still alive, if not well. Last week, the top businessmen organization, Fedecamaras, publicly stated that it cannot share official optimism on the economy’s growth in 2000, as all kinds of businesses closed their doors and personal insecurity increased, adding that the only sectors that benefited by the government-claimed boom were those connected with armored cars and security systems.
Rather than attempting to press Chavez towards change, the best thing the Bush administration can do is to adopt a “wait-and-see” stance. His foreign minister, Jose Vicente Rangel, said last week that “there’s no reason to believe” that the next U.S administration will harden its relations with Venezuela. “On the contrary, the attitude taken by Bush and his closest collaborators when dealing with the topic of Latin America has been very discreet, very thoughtful, and has not produced any negative comment on Venezuela.”
This comment suggests there is a very real possibility that the Venezuelan president will make use of the change of administration in Washington as a face-saving device in seeking a better rapport with the United States which will help him to deal with the serious economic Venezuela is going through.
Claudio Campuzano (claudio-campuzano@hotmail.com) is U.S, correspondent for the Latin American newsweekly Tiempos del Mundo and editorial page editor of the New York daily Noticias del Mundo. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com