USA: THE SOUTHERN FLANK. HUGO CHAVEZ AND US POLICY IN LATIN AMERICA – October 18, 2006

“I sting those who rattle me.” – Hugo Chavez (Time Magazine, May 8, 2006)

Hugo Chávez, outspoken socialist president of Venezuela, has emerged as a vocal new figure in Latin America, calling for broad social reforms and Latin American unity in the face of American imperialism and economic hegemony. Originally a disgruntled army officer, Hugo Chávez was elected in 1998 in a groundswell of popular revulsion against Venezuela’s established ruling elite. Re-elected in 2000, Chávez beat down a violent coup attempt in April of 2002, a coup which Chávez insists was supported by the United States. How should America deal with Hugo Chávez and his Bolivarian Revolution?

Let’s examine the background of events in Venezuela. For many years Venezuela was dominated by an arrangement known as puntofijismo, a formal agreement between the main Venezuelan political parties to share power and political patronage. Behind this arrangement stood a class system dating back to the Spanish Colonial era, where a White, Spanish-descended minority held the reigns of power, keeping down a large Native American, mestizo, and Afro-Venezuelan underclass. The fruits of Venezuela’s oil boom since the 1970s have gone mostly to this entrenched ruling class. Hugo Chávez and his Movimiento Quinta República (5th Republic Movement) gave voice to the long neglected masses of Venezuela.

This is not to make Hugo Chávez into a saint. He has an unabashed demagogic streak, as seen in his recent attacks on President George Bush before the UN, his friendship with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, and the hearty welcome given to visiting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. All these moves are calculated to outrage the US government. Chávez clearly relishes his role as international gadfly.

Chávez is also of concern to the US for more serious reasons. He has built up a large popular militia, and has sought to break Venezuela’s reliance on American arms supplies. He has sought new arms deals with Russia, China, Brazil, and Spain, and has called for a Latin American version of NATO independent of US participation. Chávez also is a staunch advocate of OPEC price hikes, and has stated that he wants to transform the terms of global trade, which he argues favor the industrialized countries and entrenched elites. Chávez is trying to become what Fidel Castro wanted to be: the charismatic leader of a resurgent Latin America, and face the US from a position of strength.

What then should US policy be toward Venezuela? We can narrow it down to four main options. 1) War. We can decide to go after Chávez directly, invade the country, and attempt to install a friendly government. 2) Covert action. We can try to remove Chávez by supporting a military coup or armed insurrection, or try to assassinate him. 3) We can attempt conciliation. 4) Wait on events. Let us consider each.

There is no doubt that the United States has the military capacity of invade and overrun Venezuela and take control of the country. But this move would be disastrous for both countries. For one, the US military is already strained. Between Iraq and an all-out war in Venezuela the US would have no reserve for dealing with Iran, North Korea, or China. Also, if the situation in Iraq teaches us anything is that overrunning a country in a lightning campaign, and then keeping control, and instituting stable, working government are two different things. Venezuela is just over twice the side of California. Much of it is jungle, with limited roads and infrastructure.

Even if a lightning blow against Chávez were to work, it would open the way to real civil war in Venezuela, especially if nothing is done to ameliorate the conditions of the poor. Success in bringing down Chávez could actually create the worst possible scenario for the US, an endless occupation in support of a weak, unpopular government in a destabilized, divided country. We would also confirm, in the eyes of much of the world, the worst accusations Hugo Chávez has made against us. And we would make Hugo Chávez into a martyr, with the mythic status of a Che Guevara. The US would be seen as a bully, and an imperial oppressor. All this could bring about the very anti-American coalition in the world we fear the most.

Then there are the costs. Current estimates of the cost of the Iraq War so far run to over $300 billion dollars, about half the cost of the Vietnam War. Let us be very optimistic and posit a war in Venezuela costing one twentieth of what Iraq has cost us so far. That still comes to over $15 billion dollars. Where will we get that money from? We would have to raise taxes, something the Bush administration is committed not to do, cut other government programs, or increase the US budget deficit yet again.

Finally, we need to assess political realities in the United States today. It seems clear at this writing (mid-October, 2006) that the Bush administration will face a more hostile Congress after the November elections, possible much more hostile.  A second on-going war, without a settlement in Iraq, would weaken the Republican Party still further. The bottom line is, overthrowing Hugo Chávez by main force is probably not worth it. As Abraham Lincoln once said: “One war at a time.”

This leaves covert action or conciliation as new strategies. Attempting a covert operation against Chávez would have many of the problems of a direct military invasion. For one, it would scarcely be ‘covert’. The United States is well known to want Hugo Chávez out. Were Hugo Chávez to die in a plane crash, or be assassinated, even if the US had nothing to do with it, rumors would fly around the planet with the speed of the internet. Covert operations can work if the leader is already very unpopular, but Hugo Chávez has built enough of a base of public support through expanded social welfare programs, that it would be very hard to simply get rid of him. Again, we could open the doorway to our nightmare scenario, with the US propping up a weak government against a growing popular insurrection.

Finally, even if a covert action were to work, and be ‘plausibly deniable’ it would not get rid of our problems in Venezuela or in Latin America as a whole. In Bolivia Evo Morales has been equally adamant in his opposition to the free market ‘Washington Consensus’ supported by the US. One of the tragedies of this situation is that in many cases, many of the prescriptions favored by free market advocates, such as fewer barriers to trade, and the abolition of wasteful government subsidies, would ultimately be beneficial to Latin America, even the poor. An example is the plan to privatize the water supply in Bolivia. Economically it does make sense to treat water as a commodity and use revenue from its sale to improve the infrastructure. But here is where we run into trouble. This move was seen as a tactic to try to squeeze yet more out of the poor. Economic policies do not take place in a vacuum, but occur against a backdrop of social and cultural realities. From the time of the Conquistadors, Latin America has known oppression, poverty, and injustice by an often predatory ruling class. Say what you will about Hugo Chávez and other populist leaders in Latin America, they can point to genuine grievances; grievances which will not go away by sending in the CIA.

We could wait and hope that Hugo Chávez burns himself out. He might. His programs are expensive, and even Venezuela’s oil revenue is not limitless. But such a wait-and-see policy surrenders all initiative. This leaves us with one viable alternative: conciliation. There is a successful model for this. In 1939, Mexico nationalized its oil holdings. Technically the United States had a casus belli against Mexico. If we had wanted a war, we could have it. Instead, President Franklin D. Roosevelt reached an accommodation with Mexico. Mexico used its increased oil revenues to slowly modernize. Today Mexico imports some $139.4 billion in goods and services from the United States. In other words it is better to have Mexico, and Latin America as a whole, as satisfied customers than as disaffected opponents.

There are three ways we can transform the situation in Latin America without being seen as giving in to Hugo Chávez. One is debt forgiveness. As of 2005 Venezuela owes about $137 billion in external debts, mostly to the developed world. Argentina owes $118 billion, Brazil owes $188 billion, and so on. What if the United States were to push for a general forgiveness of debts across Latin America? It would instantaneously clear the air with Latin America. And it would free up countries to buy more American goods and services. After World War II the United States spent billions to help Germany and Japan, our former enemies, rebuild. It was the best investment we could have made, as Germany and Japan have been allies and vital US trading partners ever since. Yes, there would be problems with such a debt jubilee, but if nothing else, if we carry through such a debt forgiveness plan, Hugo Chávez will not be standing in front of the U.N. calling the President of the United States Satan.

We could also make a serious push for finding alternative sources of energy. Such a project, whether it involves fusion power, hydrogen fuel cells, solar power or electric cars, would be worth it, for a multitude of reasons. It would not only transform the situation in the Middle East, it would simultaneously strengthen our economy and significantly weaken Hugo Chávez’s hand. Moreover many of the poorest countries in Latin America are petroleum importers. If we share Green technologies with countries like Peru and Ecuador, those countries economies will benefit.

Finally, a little humility goes a long way. For years America has taken a high-handed attitude toward Latin America. For too long we have sent in a gunboat or the Marines whenever trouble came up in that part of the world. In the age of internationally televised news, cell phones and instant messaging, we are going to find these violent expedients less and less effective and more and more counter productive. It is time to acknowledge that Latin America has grown up. And it is time for Americans to take a good look at how we as a nation are perceived around the world. Almost fifty years ago, William Lederer and Eugene Burdick wrote The Ugly American as a warning to America’s leadership to reach out to the ordinary working people of the Developing World. Half a century later their warnings are still apt.

One reason why the Roman Empire fell was because the nomadic tribes that the Romans sneered at as barbarians began to get more sophisticated and better organized. When that happened, the calculus of power changed and Rome’s far flung imperial frontiers became untenable. By going into the Middle East with massed ground forces the US has already dangerously stretched its resources. If Latin America, our southern flank, blows up in our face our situation will become dire. We have to stop reacting to events and start taking proactive measures to change the underlying situation. Hugo Chávez is not our problem, as much as the poverty and injustice that brought him to the fore. We can still deal with these problems, if we have the vision and the will.

TIMOTHY NEENO

-----------------------------------------------------

The Author of the article holds M.A. degree in U.S. history from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. For the last 2 years he taught history at the University of Phoenix. Prior to that, he lectured in numerous countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and South America. He specializes in American history and U.S. – Asian relations.

---------------------------------------------