Obama, McCain and Hugo Chavez

After the completion of the North American presidential debates, it may be worth taking stock of what can be perceived as the attitude of the future U.S. president to the ill-fated lieutenant colonel who guides the destiny of our country.

The first obvious thing is that for the first time, to my knowledge, the major candidates vying to be president of the United States spoke, not once but three times (once per each debate) about the ruler of a third country. In the first debate McCain reproached Obama for stating that he’d be willing to meet with the lieutenant colonel president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Obama responded by reaffirming his willingness to do so. In the other two debates, Chavez emerged in the wake of the energy issue and both candidates agreed that their governments would reduce their dependence on Venezuela for oil. Venezuela and Iran were specifically referred to as countries with hostile regimes. In the event they are elected, both candidates’ key advisors on national policy have assessed the likely direction of Obama or McCain’s relations with Chavez.

Otto Reich is McCain’s adviser for Latin America, an area with which he is widely familiar. Having served as ambassador to Venezuela, his views are of particular interest. According to Reich, cooperation with governments that are hostile to the U.S. and who maintain a permissive attitude to corruption will be assessed. In addition, a review of the purchase of Venezuelan oil will also be examined.

“We have to study all elements of the relationship bilaterally with Venezuela, including oil,” Reich said in El Nacional’s Oct. 12, 2008 issue. “Venezuelan provisions can be replaced more easily than what is believed over there, especially now, when oil prices have fallen … [Chavez] has followed the failed policies of twenty-first century socialism, which is the socialism of the twentieth century. In addition, there are high levels of official corruption tolerated by the majority of people who cannot do anything. That is what happens in Venezuela. Officials, soldiers, Chavez’s cabinet members and businessmen who have become millionaires benefit from the trade relationship with the government … We have to ease on provocations. The insults toward Chavez hurt his image and that of Venezuela. He is a dangerous buffoon, but a buffoon nonetheless … Another thing is when he supports the FARC; he intervenes in the affairs of Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina. A third provocation would be to arm and invite extra-continental powers like Russia. There are assaults to which we must respond and respond appropriately.”

For his part, Daniel Restrepo, director of international matters for Obama, whose interview was published in El Nacional’s Oct. 19, 2008 issue, reiterated that the Democratic candidate is willing to talk with the lieutenant colonel president “but not to have a coffee.” What does this last bit mean? According to the Restrepo Interview, it would be “to clarify points.” Obama himself had said that meeting with the lieutenant colonel president would require “conditions” but did not say which ones. In his interview to El Nacional, Estrepo seems to contradict this latter assertion that Obama would be willing to meet “without precondition.”

“It would be without preconditions but not without purpose,” Estrepo said. “[We] would be willing to do so if it is an effective way of protecting our interests and values. It would send a direct message to the Venezuelan government on the need to respect basic human rights.”

According to Restrepo, “There is no reason to enter into a confrontation with Venezuela’s government rhetoric.” Obama said he is concerned with the antidemocratic actions of Caracas, such as eliminating oppositional candidates in November’s regional elections. The expulsion of Ambassador Patrick Duddy was negative.

However, he insists that Obama is willing to have” direct diplomatic contact “with him. It appreciates two opposite attitudes and approaches. Obama’s adviser naively seems to lean toward dialogue with the lieutenant Colonel president. This shows a profound ignorance of reality and especially the personality of the Venezuelan president. It is well known that with him there is no dialogue possible. When he enters agreements with someone, he goes off and does the complete opposite of what he offered to do.

In any case, I agree with Michael Shifter, vice president of the Organization Inter-American Dialogue, when he says that effectively converting the electoral discourse is not easy. (El Universal, 19-10-08, Pg. 21) 1 matter is to say these things during an election campaign and another matter entirely is to exercise them when president. “They must weigh the reality of their proposals on Venezuela” and that despite their being willing to talk with the lieutenant colonel president, “must demonstrate its ability to firmness in the field of national security and to assess whether it’s worth to work closer to a president who maintains close relations with Iran and Russia.” I would add, and with the Colombian narco-terrorism.

In addition, the Democratic Party, as its name suggests, is traditionally characterized by their defense of democracy, by its rejection of schemes authoritarian or dictatorial and for its dedication to the protection of human rights anywhere in the world. These are values that, if elected, Obama cannot dismiss in its relations with any government and particularly with Venezuela.