The Failure of Hugo-Bashing
By Mark Weisbrot
This article was published in the following news outlets:
Los Angeles Times - March 9, 2006
Cincinnati Post (OH) - March 13, 2006
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - March 19, 2006
It was yet another public relations coup for Venezuela: Vila Isabel,
the samba club sponsored mainly by the Venezuelan government, won the
parade competition in Rio de Janeiro's Carnaval last week. A float with
a giant likeness of Simon Bolivar, combined with thousands of ornately
costumed participants parading down the avenue, trumpeted the winning
theme: Latin American unity.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just last month called for "a
united front" against Venezuela, continuing a long-term policy of
trying to isolate the country. But Washington has been spitting into
the wind. Venezuela's influence in the hemisphere has continued to rise
while the U.S. has succeeded only in isolating itself more than at any
time in at least half a century. It might be worth asking why.
First, Venezuela is a democracy — despite the best efforts of the Bush
team to use President Hugo Chavez's close relations with Cuba's Fidel
Castro as evidence to the contrary. Its elections are transparent and
have been certified by observers from the Organization of American
States, the Carter Center and the European Union. Freedom of speech, of
the press, of assembly and of association prevail, at least as compared
with the rest of the hemisphere.
In fact, most of the media remains controlled by the opposition, which
attacks the government endlessly on major TV channels. It is the most
vigorous and partisan opposition media in the hemisphere, one that has
not been censored under Chavez.
Like all of Latin America, Venezuela has governance problems: a weak
state, limited rule of law, corruption and incompetent government. But
no reputable human rights organization has alleged that Venezuela under
Chavez has deteriorated with regard to civil liberties, human rights or
democracy, as compared with prior governments. Nor does the country
compare unfavorably on these criteria with its neighbors in the region.
In Peru, the government has shut down opposition TV stations; in
Colombia, union organizers are murdered with impunity.
From a Latin American point of view, Venezuelans should have the right
to choose their own president — even one who sometimes insults the
American president — without interference from the United States. And
Chavez's anger at Washington, from Latin Americans' point of view,
appears justified. U.S. government documents released under our Freedom
of Information Act indicate that Washington not only supported but was
involved in the military coup that temporarily overthrew Venezuela's
elected government in April 2002. Here in Washington, there is a "Monty
Python" attitude toward the coup: "Let's not argue about who killed
who." But in Latin America, a military coup against a democratically
elected government is still considered a serious crime. To top it off,
Washington continued to finance efforts to recall Chavez and, having
failed miserably, still regularly presents him as a threat to democracy
in the region.
With oil at nearly $60 a barrel, Venezuela has used its windfall
proceeds to win friends in the hemisphere, providing low-cost financing
for oil to Caribbean nations. When Argentina needed loans so that it
could say goodbye to the International Monetary Fund, Venezuela
committed $2.4 billion. Venezuela bought $300 million in bonds from
Ecuador. Washington has historically had enormous influence over
economic policy in Latin America through its control over the major
sources of credit, including the IMF, the World Bank and the
Inter-American Development Bank. Venezuela's role as a new "lender of
last resort" has reduced that influence.
Chavez's opposition to the "Washington consensus" on economic policy
has fallen on sympathetic ears in a region that — since 1980 — has
suffered its worst long-term economic failure in a century. Over the
last 25 years, income per person in Latin America has grown by a meager
10%, according to the IMF. This compares with 82% from 1960 to 1980,
before most of Washington's economic reforms were adopted. And
Venezuela's government has kept its promise to share the oil wealth
with the poor. The majority of the country now has access to free
healthcare and subsidized food, and education spending has increased
substantially.
Meanwhile in the U.S., while Vila Isabel was winning the Rio Carnaval,
Connecticut became the eighth American state to participate in the
program by which Citgo Petroleum Corp. provides discounted heating oil
for poor people. Citgo is owned by the Venezuelan government. In the
contest for the hearts and minds of the hemisphere, Venezuela is
clearly winning.
Mark Weisbrot
is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research.
|