Over the years, I have read extensively about Hugo Chavez
and his Bolivarian revolution. Hugo Chavez passed away on Tuesday and the way
it has been depicted on the western media, troubles me. He clearly was never on
Washington’s good graces, but the possible force of western public opinion and
the toll it may incur in Venezuela is worrisome.
Hugo Chavez was
not perfect, of course. I do agree several things went south--mainly regarding freedom of expression. Yet, I would like to step
away from the man himself focus on why I think he is being demonized by the
West. Its about Dinero.. yes, you guessed it!!!
Why did SOB,
bastard Hugo did not like Washington if they are all-loving
Hugo Chavez was
a charismatic and popular radical who blamed the U.S.’s influence as the root
cause for underdevelopment and the decades of economic hardship, exploitation and
inequality in Latin America. As a avid student of history, he had an array of
examples of U.S. forced submission in Latin America. Contemporaneously,he
specifically blamed it on the imposed policies of neo-liberalism and the
so-called “Washington Consensus”.
The Washington
Consensus is set of ten macroeconomic prescriptions; Fiscal discipline; a
redirection of public expenditure priorities; tax reform (to lower marginal
rates and broaden the tax base); interest rate liberalization; a competitive
exchange rate; trade liberalization; liberalization of inflows of foreign
direct investment; privatization; deregulation (to abolish barriers to entry
and exit); secure property rights. All these were promoted by Washington-based
institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and U.S.
Treasury Department.
Using its
economic and military power as leverage, the United States obtained
extraordinary political and economic influence over the region. While it is
clearly over-simplistic to blame it all of Latin America's ailments on the
U.S., clearly this model of economic development and democratic
governance failed to secure social progress. Poverty, inequality,
and outrage brew throughout Latin America.
Retaliation
against the failed system has permitted Latin American countries to implement
their own economic policies, thus shifting the balance of power within their
countries and internationally. This was specifically powered by Chavez’s coming
to power.
Why do you
challenge me dude? I am sky-walker, your father.
Chavez’s
unusual revolution has proven successful and historic U.S. allies in Latin
America turned to Chavez. Hugo Chavez’s foreign policy has received the most
attention internationally because of the direct impact on other Latin American
Countries. Chavez has demonstrated that oil truly can be used as a geopolitical
weapon. The traditional U.S. interests (the prominent, the 1% and the owners of
big multi-nationals, oil companies and banks) in Latin America and Venezuela
contradict those of the Chavez administration.
As the leader
of a new and invigorated revolution (Bolivarian Revolution), and pushing his
vision of Latin-American integration, democratic socialism, and
anti-imperialism, Hugo Chavez came through in the 1998 elections in a historic
landslide. The United States government immediately recognized him as a
democratic elected President. Able to
sponsor his own initiatives, because of booming state petroleum sales, Chavez
immediately embarked on his social revolution. He would rapidly emerge as a
popular national hero, the flag bearer and financer of the Latin American left.
Venezuelan
black bling bling and the Ascent of a egocentric leader who we all have to hate
coz Fox says so!!
Petroleum is
the foundation of Venezuela's economy, accounting for almost one quarter of the
gross national product and nearly 80% of exports. Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter in
the world and the fourth largest supplier to the United States after Canada,
Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. After his election, Chavez immediately sought to
utilize oil revenue to carry out his ambitious social revolution by bringing
PdVSA, Venezuela’s National Oil Company, under solid government control—PdVSA
was state-owned, but controlled by representatives of privately owned foreign
oil companies—and considerably increasing taxes on foreign oil companies.
Chavez indeed, used this increased revenue to carry out an array of ambitious
social plans in education, housing, health, and, perhaps more controversially,
land reform. As it was expected, Foreign oil companies and Venezuela’s top 10%
middle and high class were outraged with the new policies and plans.
Chavez would
come to international attention when he was overthrown in a coup in 2002. Pro-Chavez uprisings and looting across the
country prompted thousands of people to surround the presidential palace in
Caracas, and many other important government buildings. Venezuelan soldiers and
citizens loyal to Chavez called for massive popular support for a counter-coup.
Hugo Chavez returned to power by popular demand after only two days; the
rebellion that took him from office, would ultimately link his cause with the
state. His global and domestic popularity boomed instantly, giving him
unprecedented power.
After turning
back the coup and later the oil lock-out, Chavez went on to expand his
political agenda throughout the South American region. Venezuela committed
$25.6 billion to programs throughout the region, including: $10 billion for a
Latin America-wide anti-poverty program; $4.3 billion for Brazilian energy
projects; $30 million for Bolivian social welfare projects; and an estimated $2
billion for nearly 100,000 barrels of low-cost oil daily for energy-strapped
Cuba. In 2006, $1.7 billion of PdVSA
$15 billion budget was allocated to fund social programs; as a result of Chavez
intervention, this contribution later went up to $4 billion a year. Chávez also
helped Argentina pay off its remaining $9.8 billion debt to the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), thus eliminating the IMF's supervisory role in Argentina's
economy, and announced plans to build a 5,000-mile oil pipeline to Argentina.
These efforts by Chavez generated tremendous good will among the many countries
and national leaders who benefited from them.
International
left-rock star, the reason Nixon is rolling over his grave, and the
unrest of Chevron
Widely seen as an unpredictable
figure, Hugo Chavez became a major irritant to Washington—one of the biggest
frustrations of the Bush white house. Venezuela, with Chavez as its leader,
became a major international player. Financed by the national oil industry, Chavez
took over Fidel Castro’s leadership of the Latin American left movement, and
strengthened his hemispheric ties. (unlike 1960’s Cuba of Castro, today’s
Venezuela of Chavez is not dependent on a sponsor state and can finance his own
ideas). Chavez has made many allies around the world, mostly with countries
that oppose U.S. policies and ideology; case in point is Cuba, with whom Chavez
has developed warm ties. REPETITIVE Fierce critics of the United States
including Iran and Syria, countries the Bush administration sees as supporters
of terrorism, as well as North Korea, which Bush has included in an "axis
of evil" have aligned with Chavez on a number of issues. Venezuela also
embarked on a military buildup, acquiring Russian assault rifles, combat aircraft,
and surface-to-air missiles to counter alleged U.S. plans to invade his
country.
Did Venezuela arm itself because of
terrorist associations, or because of reasonable defense purposes? Should
Venezuela sit back, relax and trust that with the Obama administration will not
try to overthrow the old economic order/distribution of
wealth/subjugation? One needs to look at
history to substantiate this fear. Today, it is known that the reasons given by
Washington to go into Iraq, combat terrorism and eradicate weapons of mass
destruction were not only lies, but a terrible decision which has cost the
United States its credibility and resources. One does not to be a wise, and it
is widely debated across the country, to believe that the reason the United States
invaded Iraq was to pursue its energy goals. Iraq’s oil fields were secured and
brought under U.S. control. For this reason, and because of Venezuela’s oil
wealth, and political dissidence, Chavez believed his country could be next—no
matter who is running Washington. Hugo Chavez, many argue, rightly armed his
country against a possible plausible U.S. invasion.
Latin America’s Follows Newest Drift
Led by Hugo Chavez, Latin America
observed a major leftward turn, and distinctive backlashes continue under way
in opposition to predominant trends in numerous issues. With Chavez as model
and even a financer, other Latin American leftist leaders rose in opposition to
U.S. foreign policy and Washington based institutions. The new dynamic left is
taking over Latin America; after Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, it was the Workers'
Party in Brazil who elected Lula and now Dilma, then Néstor and Cristina
Kirchner in Argentina, Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay, Evo Morales in Bolivia.
Nicaragua's ex-Marxist leader, Daniel Ortega won the presidential elections two
years ago. In Ecuador, leftist Economic Minister Rafael Correa, a strong critic
of the IMF, free trade and the United States also won the 2006 elections. The
long shot Ollanta Humala almost won the 2006 presidential election in Peru, and
López Obrador in Mexico lost by only .05% a few years ago. Other Latin American
countries such as El Salvador cannot be dismissed. All this has happened in
less than 10 years.
The main reason for this change has
been the many decades of failed policies in which political ambiguity, economic
hardship and income inequality, have suppressed the underclass great majority
of inhabitants. Most Latin American Economies those economies are still being
manipulated to shield state or family-owned monopolies while placating the
middle class and poor with social programs.
Is it because of human right violations, and oppression, and freedom of speech, etc that the Government hated Chavez so much? Or is it because he was not very handsome?
My Token:
For many decades now, the U.S policies in Latin America have contradicted the very values that the United States professes to spread around the globe—the improvement of human kind. Development has been mistakenly interpreted by the people running the most powerful countries (the super-rich, multinationals, oil industry, banks, etc) and the rise of capitalism and industrial technologies has been used to exploit, isolate, antagonize and destabilize countries—all for profit. American foreign Policy in Latin America should not be based on domestic interests (MNC’s) or on political ideology; it should be a way to promote true development for and protection for Americans and Latin Americas alike—Obama also seems to believe so in public. There was an urgent necessity for politicians in Washington with capacity for rational thought, so new policy would benefit the U.S. and its Latin American counterparts alike.
--David Frijolito
1 comment:
Amen.
Post a Comment