Ian Boyne

The controversial Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez was back in the headlines this week, not only with his swearing-in after a massive victory, but for his intention to nationalise the energy and telecoms sectors and to build "21st century socialism".

His decision to close the country's oldest commercial television station, RCTV, and to take control of non-governmental organisations under a new law, is bound to heighten concerns in Washington. But Chávez is back in power democratically for another six years and there is no indication that his popularity among the masses is waning. The United States, which proclaims itself as the world's biggest promoter of electoral democracy, is in a quandary as to how to deal with a man who is not imposing himself on his people but who is the popular choice.

The United States should reconsider its acerbic anti-Chávez rhetoric and instead find constructive ways of engagement, for Chávez has both the backing of the people and the power of oil wealth to fuel whatever he fancies. His attack on freedom of the press for "counter-revolutionary activities" and his control over NGOs accused of taking money to oust him will not galvanise any outrage on the part of the masses.

And the United States, suffering a serious credibility problem with regard to its own sincerity as a promoter of democracy and human rights, does not have the moral authority to launch any successful polemic against Chávez's abuse of civil liberties. Besides, Chávez's largesse with his regional neighbours is not likely to elicit waves of protests from them about denial of civil liberties in Venezuela. The U.S. has to approach this issue with strategic wisdom and foresight, rather than with the knee-jerk reaction of a hydra-power, intoxicated with a sense of its own invincibility and moral superiority.

look beyond

In a paper issued in November by the prestigious Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations (Living With Hugo: U.S. Policy Toward Hugh Chávez's Venezuela), Richard Lapper says, "U.S. officials must look beyond [ Chávez's] blustery rhetoric, examine his weaknesses and think strategically about the way forward.

"The most suitable policy approach is to avoid demonising Chávez which only diminishes U.S. credibility and provides fodder for many of the Venezuelan leader's accusations." Instead, suggests the respected Financial Times Latin American editor, "As long as Chávez does not take steps that fundamentally threaten essential U.S. interests in Latin America, the United States should demonstrate that it is willing to work with Venezuela on a pragmatic basis on issues such as counter-narcotics and energy policy."

Just as the U.S. should respond to the increasing pressure from moderate forces in the United States to open dialogue with belligerent states such as Syria, Iran and North Korea in the interest of U.S. and international security, so the U.S. will be under increasing pressure to tone down its rhetoric on Chávez and use its economic leverage with that country to maintain influence there.

Despite the blustering of Chávez and his virulently anti-American rhetoric, Venezuela is dependent on the United States for 60 per cent of its oil exports. While Chávez has bluffed about using China as an alternative export market, that is not realistic in the short term. But in August last year Chávez did sign several energy accords with China. The Chinese currently import 100,000 barrels a day from Venezuela and plans to hike that to 500,000 barrels per day by 2011. But of concern to the U.S. would be the fact that China has agreed to provide Venezuela with supertankers for transoceanic shipment and to construct twelve new offshore drilling sites.

substantial trade

But currently, of the 2.7 million barrels of oil which Venezuela produces daily, 1.5 million go directly to the United States. So the trade between the two nations remains substantial. Besides - and this is significant - non-oil exports to the United States grew by a whopping 116 per cent in the first three months of last year. Also, Venezuelans are importing more U.S. products such as cars, construction machinery and computers. So, despite the rhetoric between the two countries, this is not allowed to affect the thriving business between them.

This is why it is such grating hypocrisy for some to suggest that it is somehow improper for Jamaica to increase its economic ties with Venezuela because of the radicalism of Hugh Chávez. We will no more be necessarily corrupted than we would be with trading with the United States. Granted,

we do not have the strength of the United States, but if our economic weakness vis-a-vis Venezuela means that ipso facto we must sell out our integrity, then what does that say about our economic weakness vis-a-vis the world's only superpower?

The U.S. should not try to bully Latin American nations to isolate Chávez.

Latin America and the international community have demonstrated that they are quite able to make the proper judgement on Chávez as they did wisely, in my view, by denying Venezuela a seat on the critically important Security Council.

While one understands the conundrum that Caricom was faced with by having to choose between Venezuela and a state with which one of its members has a territorial dispute, Guatemala, the final compromise decision to give Panama the seat was the best decision. People like Hugo Chávez must not be rewarded with positions of responsibility, such as the Security council affords. The international community was right to rebuff him.

That other unworthy nations are on the council and that "the chief violator of international human rights" is a permanent member is not an argument to increase the number of violators on the council. The fact of the matter is that Hugo Chávez presents a dilemma to progressives. On the one hand, he is carrying out an impressive and highly admirable attack on poverty and marginalisation, one of the most ambitious in Latin America's history. He is using power to uplift the poor, which is not usually done in Latin American societies.

people-centred

His people-centred model of development is a telling rejoinder to the Washington Consensus, though one has to consider the specificity of Venezuela's oil wealth before coming to the conclusion that his experiment is reproducible. Despite being a poster child of neoliberal reforms, Latin America today has 40 per cent of its over 500 million citizens living in poverty, according to the United Nations Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

The failure of neoliberalism and Western democracy to deliver economic and social benefits to the masses of Latin America has alienated ordinary people from capitalist development. The most respected polling organisation in Latin America, Latinobarometro, in a poll in October showed that support for democracy had declined in a number of countries across the region since the mid-1990s.

As the paper Living with Hugo says, "U.S. policy toward Latin America has consistently failed to address the region's most pressing social and economic problems: Widespread social exclusion and poverty. In the eyes of many Latin Americans U.S. support for democracy is inextricably linked to past support of anti-communist dictators and now defunct political parties whose economic stewardship deepened inequality and poverty."

Poverty levels fall

Poverty levels in Venezuela have fallen significantly since 2003. Chávez is pumping approximately US$7 billion for the social and economic development of the poor and has pledged to push that to $11 billion. Hundreds of small co-operatives are being created with government support. New banking regulations require that one-third of all loans go to small businesses. A massive land reform programme is under way, taking away property from big capitalists and placing them in the hands of peasants.

And he is not only helping Venezuela's poor, but the poor of the region as well as the poor in the United States. National Government revenues have risen from $8.6 billion in 2001 to $49 billion last year, as greater royalties are being squeezed from the oil companies. So this is a socialist with lots of money - unlike our Michael Manley. (And perhaps that's the lesson - it takes cash to be a successful socialist!)

Chávez has so much money that he is willing to support political parties of his choice in the region. This has caused some upset, naturally. In Peru Chávez supported Ollanta Humala, a radical nationalist who was eventually defeated by an anti-Chávez leftist. Peru's Alan Garcia's tough stance toward Chávez did not hurt him in the elections. (This week Bruce Golding was making noises about Chávez's allegedly pumping money into the PNP, which was quickly denied by that party's general secretary).

Here is another piece of hypocrisy: The United States through its Democracy Promotion programme gives financial and other assistance to groups of right-wingers. Many don't see anything wrong with that. They don't call it political interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. But also Chávez is clamping down on NGOs because of their supposed links to U.S. interests and yet he would have no problem in supporting revolutionary comrades in Latin America.

We in Jamaica and in the region must make it clear to Mr. Chávez that our acceptance of his genero-sity cannot mean that we are for sale. He must know that we will not carry his line just because has given us some good deals. We should not be willing to swap the U.S. master for a regional master. We in Jamaica must continue to stand on principle, though the Realists in foreign policy scoff at such idealistic notions.

express grave concern

We must express grave concern about Chávez's illiberal democracy. Chávez proves the point that electoral democracy is necessary but not sufficient for real democracy. I hope the West is learning from Chávez and Hamas that elections are not enough, a point the left has made for decades. Chávez has been extending executive powers over more areas of national life and his constitutional reforms have given him more power, including over the judiciary. This new move to control civil society groups is reprehensible. Civil society groups have a right to receive international funding - even from reactionaries - to promote their own ideas. There is nothing wrong with the U.S. financially supporting groups which support its interests.

We must say to people like Hugh Chávez that your progressive policy for the poor does not give you a licence to suppress civil liberties. Man shall not live by bread alone.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who maybe reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com.