Edited by Josie Mulberry
Barack Obama and the Elections in Venezuela
Published in Analítica
(Venezuela) on 16 July 2012
by Fernando Mires (link to original)
(Venezuela) on 16 July 2012
by Fernando Mires (link to original)
Translated from
by Cydney Seigerman.
Edited by .
Some people did not like what Obama said on July 10, 2012. What did Obama say? Obama said the pure and honest truth. Obama said that Venezuela under Chávez does not pose any threat to the United States.
How is Venezuela under Chávez’s rule going to pose a threat if Chávez has increased the nation’s economic dependence on the United States more than any other Latin American leader?
This is not a criticism. Each government has the right to develop the economic relations that it deems fit. Nonetheless, it continues to call attention to the enormous asymmetry that exists between the presidential rhetoric and international economic governance.
While other Latin American leaders travel a route characterized by diversification of exports (more than a few countries already have China as their main trading partner and not the U.S.); while the Pacific Alliance (Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru) opens to the Asian markets; while trading with the EU grows in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay; Chavez, contrary to all he espouses, has strengthened Venezuela’s traditional, single-export structure, increasing its dependence on the “empire” he hates so much.
According to a report by the Venezuelan-American Chamber of Trade and Industry (Venamcham), imports from the United States totaled an additional 50.9 percent compared to the $2.46 billion registered in 2011. This is because in March, the products purchased by Venezuela reached $1.32 billion, an amount not seen for more than three years, when in October of 2008, it stood at $1.40 billion.
Exports have risen to $10.35 billion in the first third of the year, representing an increase of just 0.16 percent. In all, sales of petroleum represented 96.02 percent with $9.94 billion, reflecting a decrease of 1.07 percent from 2011, when these sales reached $10.51 billion. The export of other goods barely represents 3.98 percent of the total, reaching $411 million and showing an increase of 43.25 percent with respect to 2011, when they were $287 million.
In light of these figures, Chavists argue that economic relationships are one thing and political relationships another. They will repeat, without doubt, that Chávez “takes money and products from the gringos” in order to finance his grand revolutionary masterpiece (for example, his massive election campaign). They will claim, of course, that in virtue of Chávez’s anti-imperial speech, Venezuelans have regained their dignity (no one knows who took it from them) and many others will add that Chávez is forging an international alliance destined to isolate the empire. Among the most radical, they will ask, “Aren’t these all ways that Venezuela is a danger for the United States?”
Chávez will continue, of course, shouting against the “empire,” but now his words will be empty, with zero reference to concrete action against the North American government. The truth is Chávez cannot compete with Obama, who has not left the show and is much more popular than Chávez in Latin American countries. Even Raúl Castro’s daughter, an educator in the field of sexual health, traveled to the United States in order to praise Obama. Obama — let’s talk colloquially — drives Chávez crazy. Compared to Obama, Chávez is a “nothing.”
How beautiful were the times when President Bush would give arguments to Chávez and Chavism as gifts! Indeed, Chávez, more than any other president, gained electoral capital thanks to Bush’s brutal international politics.
Imitating Fidel Castro as always, who during the first years of his long rule stirred crowds by appealing to the “David effect”— a small nation challenging the largest power in history — Chávez used the international forums to ridicule Bush. I would dare to say, without a hint of irony, that Bush even became one the most important allies for Chávez in the election.
Bush, like Chávez, operated within the logic of the Cold War. In a large way, the two spoke a similar language (historical missions, manifest destinies, political crusades, empire of the sea, pseudo religious pleas). And like Chávez, Bush needed to create hypertension within the political environment in order to show his presence locally.
In the recent past, Bush — although he eliminated a fierce tyrant — appeared symbolically as an instigator of unjust wars, a stigma capitalized on by the Venezuelan head of state. Obama, on the other hand, appears as a strategic ally for popular and democratic revolutions, especially those in the Arab world. Conversely, today Chávez acts as an ally to the bloodiest dictatorships in the world. Not only did he give Libya’s corrupt the sword of liberation, but he also welcomes, with military honors, the one who massacred a thousand students during Iran’s “Green Revolution,” and if this weren’t enough, he identifies with the assassin of Syrian children, who Chávez calls “humanistic.” The roles have changed. Chávez is no longer the “good guy” but rather one of the “bad guys” from the movies. In the new international environment, Chávez finds himself very out of place. This fact is bound to have repercussions in the Venezuelan elections.
It’s certain that the 2012 elections will take place under very different circumstances than those of 2006. In this way, while Rosales’ candidacy was the result of hollow agreements, the candidacy of Capriles emerged legitimately — like that of Obama in the USA — through vibrant primary elections. While in 2006 Chávez seemed to represent a revolution that advanced towards the future, today, against the tireless Capriles, he appears with the past painted on his face. While in 2006 Chávez succeeded in presenting himself symbolically as a vigilante against Bush, today Obama, like Capriles, appears as one of the most decided defenders of democracy. And if this weren’t enough, Capriles is using the same strategy in Venezuela — controversial but not confrontational — that gave Obama so many successes within and outside of his country. And like that, just as Chávez resembles Bush politically, the similarities between the political styles of Capriles and Obama are noticeable.
If Chávez is defeated in October — and there are reasons to think about this possibility — it will be necessary to ask to what extent the new international context added one more point to the triumph of democracy in Venezuela. Thanks to Obama. Thanks to Capriles.
How is Venezuela under Chávez’s rule going to pose a threat if Chávez has increased the nation’s economic dependence on the United States more than any other Latin American leader?
This is not a criticism. Each government has the right to develop the economic relations that it deems fit. Nonetheless, it continues to call attention to the enormous asymmetry that exists between the presidential rhetoric and international economic governance.
While other Latin American leaders travel a route characterized by diversification of exports (more than a few countries already have China as their main trading partner and not the U.S.); while the Pacific Alliance (Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru) opens to the Asian markets; while trading with the EU grows in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay; Chavez, contrary to all he espouses, has strengthened Venezuela’s traditional, single-export structure, increasing its dependence on the “empire” he hates so much.
According to a report by the Venezuelan-American Chamber of Trade and Industry (Venamcham), imports from the United States totaled an additional 50.9 percent compared to the $2.46 billion registered in 2011. This is because in March, the products purchased by Venezuela reached $1.32 billion, an amount not seen for more than three years, when in October of 2008, it stood at $1.40 billion.
Exports have risen to $10.35 billion in the first third of the year, representing an increase of just 0.16 percent. In all, sales of petroleum represented 96.02 percent with $9.94 billion, reflecting a decrease of 1.07 percent from 2011, when these sales reached $10.51 billion. The export of other goods barely represents 3.98 percent of the total, reaching $411 million and showing an increase of 43.25 percent with respect to 2011, when they were $287 million.
In light of these figures, Chavists argue that economic relationships are one thing and political relationships another. They will repeat, without doubt, that Chávez “takes money and products from the gringos” in order to finance his grand revolutionary masterpiece (for example, his massive election campaign). They will claim, of course, that in virtue of Chávez’s anti-imperial speech, Venezuelans have regained their dignity (no one knows who took it from them) and many others will add that Chávez is forging an international alliance destined to isolate the empire. Among the most radical, they will ask, “Aren’t these all ways that Venezuela is a danger for the United States?”
Chávez will continue, of course, shouting against the “empire,” but now his words will be empty, with zero reference to concrete action against the North American government. The truth is Chávez cannot compete with Obama, who has not left the show and is much more popular than Chávez in Latin American countries. Even Raúl Castro’s daughter, an educator in the field of sexual health, traveled to the United States in order to praise Obama. Obama — let’s talk colloquially — drives Chávez crazy. Compared to Obama, Chávez is a “nothing.”
How beautiful were the times when President Bush would give arguments to Chávez and Chavism as gifts! Indeed, Chávez, more than any other president, gained electoral capital thanks to Bush’s brutal international politics.
Imitating Fidel Castro as always, who during the first years of his long rule stirred crowds by appealing to the “David effect”— a small nation challenging the largest power in history — Chávez used the international forums to ridicule Bush. I would dare to say, without a hint of irony, that Bush even became one the most important allies for Chávez in the election.
Bush, like Chávez, operated within the logic of the Cold War. In a large way, the two spoke a similar language (historical missions, manifest destinies, political crusades, empire of the sea, pseudo religious pleas). And like Chávez, Bush needed to create hypertension within the political environment in order to show his presence locally.
In the recent past, Bush — although he eliminated a fierce tyrant — appeared symbolically as an instigator of unjust wars, a stigma capitalized on by the Venezuelan head of state. Obama, on the other hand, appears as a strategic ally for popular and democratic revolutions, especially those in the Arab world. Conversely, today Chávez acts as an ally to the bloodiest dictatorships in the world. Not only did he give Libya’s corrupt the sword of liberation, but he also welcomes, with military honors, the one who massacred a thousand students during Iran’s “Green Revolution,” and if this weren’t enough, he identifies with the assassin of Syrian children, who Chávez calls “humanistic.” The roles have changed. Chávez is no longer the “good guy” but rather one of the “bad guys” from the movies. In the new international environment, Chávez finds himself very out of place. This fact is bound to have repercussions in the Venezuelan elections.
It’s certain that the 2012 elections will take place under very different circumstances than those of 2006. In this way, while Rosales’ candidacy was the result of hollow agreements, the candidacy of Capriles emerged legitimately — like that of Obama in the USA — through vibrant primary elections. While in 2006 Chávez seemed to represent a revolution that advanced towards the future, today, against the tireless Capriles, he appears with the past painted on his face. While in 2006 Chávez succeeded in presenting himself symbolically as a vigilante against Bush, today Obama, like Capriles, appears as one of the most decided defenders of democracy. And if this weren’t enough, Capriles is using the same strategy in Venezuela — controversial but not confrontational — that gave Obama so many successes within and outside of his country. And like that, just as Chávez resembles Bush politically, the similarities between the political styles of Capriles and Obama are noticeable.
If Chávez is defeated in October — and there are reasons to think about this possibility — it will be necessary to ask to what extent the new international context added one more point to the triumph of democracy in Venezuela. Thanks to Obama. Thanks to Capriles.
Previous article![]( "Chinese Families Are Wealthier than American Families: What a Joke")
