Meet Quentin’s next movie star: Hugo Chavez Thursday, Mar 2 2006
World Scene 11:19 am
In your thickest Central American accent, say the following line:
“I sting those who rattle me. Don’t mess with me, Condoleezza.”
If you said those words with that accent, you would sound a lot like Hugo Chavez when he lashed out at US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice after she stated that his country had become a “challenge to democracy”.
Who is Hugo Chavez? He is the current Presidente of Venezuela. And quite a character to boot. His open disdain of the U.S. and U.S. foreign policy is quite remarkable and in the forefront of his world persona. He has been labelled somewhat of an ‘anti-Bush’ in the media as he has made it clear that he does not approve of the U.S. influence over the world. He is certainly raising a stink and attracting cagey allies to become more than just some squeaky President of a small scene country. His criticisms up until now have lacked the bite for the U.S. to take action. But with his recent retort over the U.S. call to prohibit nuclear development in Iran, the U.S. is now starting to growl.
Now, I can understand Chavez is a little upset with the U.S. because of their major influence in Central America via the U.S. mega-corps that take up shop there, but it appears that Chavez mentally may not be ‘all there’. He may have become a little too obsessed with harrassing the U.S. Via the Washington Post article:
Gerver Torres, a former Venezuelan government minister who now runs a private development agency, said such statements illustrate one of Chavez’s key goals. “His main motivation now is to do everything he possibly can to negatively affect the United States, Bush in particular,” Torres said. “He is trying to bring together all the enemies of the United States. He believes the United States is the devil.”
Chavez is the type of person that could go a bit too far in his USA bashing. He hasn’t stopped the flow of oil to the US yet, but if he gets enough support from potential bed-partners Iran and North Korea, he could be brash enough to do so. And, if he can disassociate his economy on the dependance of the US $, there’s no knowing what tactics he could employ to further his obsession.
On his home front, Chavez is working some interesting plays. He is implementing tactics to stay in power that is akin to the strategy used by the Emperor in Star Wars. For a democracy, his tactics are a little startling. So now we have a popular, charismatic person who is alluding to re-writing parts of the constitution so that he can extend his presidency. Ouch! There is a certainly a little dictator in him.
If you go to websites like this one, you can see how Chavez is galvanizing his people and more so, Latin America as a whole, into becoming US bashers. He uses words like Imperialist and Empire to describe the US. The site does seem a little propagandist, painting a picture that Venezuela is being wronged and oppressed by the US but I’m sure there are pearls of truth in there.
How does this impact my life? Well, Venezuela is the 5th largest exporter of oil to the US. Therefore, the US has a great interest in how that country is run. When the US takes an “interest” in how a country is being run, and they start to use terms like “challenge to democracy” and “allusions to Hitler” (courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld) it’s time to stand up and take notice. Especially when a key resource is being threatened. So, it’s important to keep an eye on what happens here. Venezuela is geographically closer to North America than the other extremist countries that the U.S. is having problems with. Close enough to be a physical threat to U.S. soil. A place in fact where it is possible to travel to the US completely by land and cross a very large and difficult to monitor border (yes Minutemen, you are fallible) via Mexico. I’m not saying words like ‘invasion’ or ‘armed confrontation’, but Chavez is certainly at least throwing a bluff out there:
Still, Chavez’s comments and actions, including the purchase of a substantial amount of foreign arms, have drawn sharp criticism from U.S. officials. In her Senate confirmation hearings in January, Rice called Chavez a “negative force in the region.”
Chavez’s arms purchases from Russia, including 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles, have also drawn protests from the State Department. He has bought military aircraft from Brazil and announced plans to buy radar equipment from China.
In a recent televised speech, Chavez described the arms purchases and a plan to increase army reserve troops as “an honorable answer to President Bush’s intention of being the master of the world.”
Also take into consideration the nations that Chavez is courting these days: Iran and N.Korea. Could it be possible for terrorists and extremists to fly to Venezuela and travel up through Mexico? Well, let’s not get too carried away just yet.
In reality, assuming this is a sane man, Chavez could be seen as simply trying to stand up to the bully so that he can run his country the way he wants without meddling. In a different light, he could be seen as a valuable leader to Latin America where there really hasn’t been a strong voice to speak of the problems and issues in the region. It could certainly be of value to all those countries to have a spokesman that can stand up to The Man. And he does hold an ace over the US. The U.S. has a lot of investment in Latin America in the way of big corporation factories and facilities. It’s not a wonder that they are concerned about Chavez influence and are labelling him as a source of Latin American instability.
There is a plus side to this. I see the potential staunch of Venezuelan oil (although remotely likely at this point) as a boon for Canada’s oil relationship with the U.S. You may not be aware of this but Canada is the #1 exporter of oil to the U.S. This could mean an even higher dependance on the Great White North to sate the U.S. gluttony for oil. For better or for worse, as usual, we are bound by U.S. foreign policy.
At any rate – kudos to Chavez for biting out at Condi. Just be sure to watch your back little man.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:04 pm
I think Chavez’s plan of using Citgo to build goodwill with the American public, especially the working poor (see http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Business/030106_oil.html) is brilliant.
I especially like to see the Republicans working to stop poor people from getting cheap oil–because that’s really going to make the popular with the masses.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:56 pm
He who has-a the sugar, has-a the power
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
As long I can still get to Margarita Island for my vacation, I am all for someone telling the U.S. where to stick it.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Michel, “Central American” is not a language (I would have used “Spanish”).
When you say, “Could it be possible for terrorists and extremists to fly to Venezuela and travel up through Mexico?” Why would terrorists need to go so far to Venezuela to go to the U.S.? Mexico, or Canada are much closer to the U.S. than Venezuela is to, even, Central America–I can’t see the feasibility to traverse 6 countries just to get to the U.S.
You also mention Chavez not being happy about Central American influence from the U.S. I don’t think Chavez gives a flying cow about Central America since Venezuela is actually in South America. I don’t see the correlation at all.
You do actually mention something factual, though: the main issue is oil.
And the issues of U.S. foreign policy are a bit much larger and a bit more complex than just oil. It is nothing new that nationalization of industry threatens foreign economic interests (i.e., Cuba in the 50s). You also have to remember that the North American media is used as propaganda and disinformation to control a docile population. In all truth, the U.S. is very selective of what is being said about such said “axis” of evil.
I’m not siding with Chavez, at all. Communism is wrong 100%, but exploitation of natural resources without benefits to local populations is also wrong. (Getting every cent of oil-profits out of Venezuela before Chavez was in power was not viewed by many to be just.) It is true that the Capital to get the oil out of the guts of the earth was put by international conglomerates, but leaving nothing to the Venezuelan population shouldn’t have been allowed. Chavez changed that and the majority of the Venezuelan population actually thanked him for it. (Well, at the time–now adays, thing may start to change.)
Imagine British Columbia’s oil pipes being put in place with no compensation to land owners, or the indigenous rights not being respected at all because of profit. A more resent and similar problem in your country (Canada) and the U.S. is the dealings with lumber disputes.
What is the difference in all these cases? The main difference is that Canada and the U.S. are first world economies, and the daily going of both of their citizens are not affected by the billions of dollars being lost due to ignoring mutual treaties between both countries. These economies are so intermingled that the lost of returns in one industry are compensated by the gains on another. It’s the key to free-market economies and the explanation of market returns in “teens” of percentage points–even in recession times. In those poor countries like Venezuela, however, where everything is dependent on one export, things change a bit: if no profits of oil are left in the country, where will their population gain benefits where there are no jobs, or social programs to aid the weaker members of society? What about education? What about health care? Etc., etc.
You also don’t have to go so far to South America to find people against the U.S. imperialist tendencies (which are indeed a fact, and not just off-cuff remarks). There doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with being “anti-Bush” (even in the U.S. itself).
BTW, Cuba is thousands of miles closer to the U.S. than Venezuela, but you didn’t mention Fidel, at all? Why? Perhaps you were thinking (as I do) that Cuba has no oil and there is nothing in Cuba that can be exploited to have a big enough incentive to meddle in their economies, yet. Once Fidel dies (he’s an old man), though, it will be a different story and perhaps the media will once again deem them worthy of coverage.
Latin America has always been in the eye of the Washington agenda, not because of crazy, egomaniac presidents but because of the large population and the dislike of Capitalism as practiced by the U.S.A. in the poor and under-developed areas of those third world countries. Because of this blind eye to poverty you are actually seeing countries in South America that are electing socialist regimes into power: Peru, Brasil…Will they also be “interest” in the future?
Anyway, check out http://maps.google.com/ — Venezuela is really far away from the U.S. and separated from Central America by a big chunk of land called Colombia…
March 6th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
You are correct that Venezuela is not Central America and I apologize. I appreciate the geographical and cultural differences between both regions. However, the point I was trying to make is that he is quickly making alliances and forming a nice little block with other Central American countries including Fidel’s Cuba. You’re right, I should have mentioned Fidel. But it wouldn’t have been to deflect the growing concern over Chavez’s actions or to improve the quality of his character. In fact, I may have mentioned FIdel to further convey the questionable partnerships Chavez is undertaking. With charisma and a relatively powerful nation to back his cause, Chavez is gaining a following that is larger than his nation alone, and I’m pretty sure he knows this and does in fact “give a flying cow” that he is able to garner clout in other underprivileged nations.
I’m not taking sides either way, as I agree “Bush”-bashing is a very entertaining past-time. I could bring to light equivalent ‘interesting’ characteristics in Bush and his politics, and given enough time I’m sure I will.
I am only a witness to the dynamics of Venezuela so I can only speculate the personal day-to-day impact that a huge dependancy on an external nation can have. What I’m trying to convey here is that Chavez is doing a very effective job of drawing global attention to his actions and his relationship with the U.S. And the consequences of his actions are going to be felt well beyond the borders of his own country. This would include Canada. With such a volatile character as Chavez who is capable of who knows what, it makes it that much more difficult (or interesting) to predict how we will be impacted.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:28 am
From WikiNews today:
Chavez accuses US of plotting separation of oil rich state
March 9th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Mr Chavez
First to clarify, an accent is generally defined by a people, not a language. A Spanish accent is different depending on whether you are from Spain, or a Latin American country. So Central American, although a bit geographically broad, is accurate.
Your other arguments though, seem to dance around without addressing the topic of Michel’s article. It seemed to me that Michel wasn’t wondering about US foreign policy, or oil, or Cuba. He seemed fairly in line with all that and everything you mentioned later. I though Michel was commenting on how “the” Hugo was handling the situation.
Your reply doesn’t really respond to that at all.
Except maybe to say that Chavez doesn’t care about how the U.S. treats his near-neighbours in Central America… which is odd. Of course he cares. He doesn’t want to fight this battle alone. Bring in the oppressed; bring in the over-thrown; bring in the occupied; bring in the nuclear-poor countries to side against the big bully.
Funny how we as a people encourage our children to band together to stand up to bullies, but if an adult does it, he is unstable.
I can also see many reasons why Venezuela would be a perfect place for anti-U.S. soldiers to meet. (I shudder to think that anyone against the U.S. is a terrorist… kind of loses its meaning) Do you think people who are fighting a (political/legislative/violent/economic) war against an overwhelming opponent find it easy to plan, train or even meet? Do you expect groups of people to, say, meet at the Starbucks in some airport to begin their plan, whatever it may be?
They would need a safehouse. And a country that is opposing the Sauron-like eye of the U.S. is a good place to meet. And the closest “extremist” country that the U.S. is having problems with would be a good place to start. And I wouldn’t count Cuba either, unless you see U.S. is currently having major problems with Cuba again right now.
So, the question is back to you Mr. A. Hugo Chavez. What do you think of Mr. The. Hugo Chavez’s actions and policies in light of everything.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Well, apparently the Bush Administration is pulling out another old standard as an excuse for laying the smack down on Hugo: he’s “selling WMD ingrediants to countries that support terrorism”. Heh.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060313-121547-4071r.htm
Hugo outright calls them liars.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Cool blog.
I think it says something about weaknesses in the traditional US hegemony over Latin America. Chavez and newly elected pres Morales of Bolivia (champion of the coca growers) would never have come close to power in the days of the Cold War. The US made recent explicit threats to combat the threat of electoral victories by the FMLN in El Salvador or the Sandinistas in Nicaragua; but, when the US made the same threats in the Bolivian election, it actually galvanized the electorate, and had the opposite effect to the intended. The short-lived coup attempt and general strike (well, lock-out) against Chavez was bank-rolled by the US, yet both failed. Diplomatic attempts to isolate Venezuela and Bolivia in Latin America have been largely ignored, outside of the American-sponsored government in Columbia. These are all evidence of a decline in US influence there.
As for all this noise from the US press about Chavez, let’s face it. It’s always a good idea to have a convenient enemy to blame for domestic woes, and the US makes a convenient (and mostly legitimate) enemy for Chavez. By reacting to Chavez’s attempts to antagonize the US, certain US news makers, like Pat Robertson, are just playing into Chavez’s hands. Chavez seems to be a talented leader.
As for Venezuela teaming up with North Korea, or Al Qaeda, or building nukes, that’s just as laughable as the suggestion that Iraq was doing the same. The evidence for Venezuelan malfeance makes the evidence justifying the Iraqi invasion look rock-solid.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Hugo Chavez (Not “the” Hugo) writes:
“Perhaps you were thinking (as I do) that Cuba has no oil and there is nothing in Cuba that can be exploited to have a big enough incentive to meddle in their economies, yet.”
Are you implying the US is not meddling in the Cuban economy? Where do I start? How about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms-Burton_law
“…which strengthens and continues the United States embargo against Cuba.”