|
|
VENEZUELA: U.S. Set to 'Grin and Bear' Chavez Victory
Analysis - By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Aug 11 (IPS) - Just days before Venezuelans vote on whether to recall Hugo
Chavez, U.S. officials and analysts appear increasingly resigned to
at least another two and a half years of a government headed by
the fiery populist.
They have watched Chavez surge in the polls in the past few
weeks and, what with a leaderless opposition united only in its
contempt for the president, they now see Fidel Castro's biggest
foreign admirer as likely to prevail, if not in the plebiscite itself, then
in new elections that must take place within 30 days of the recall
vote.
''He's definitely got momentum on his side'', conceded one Bush
administration official, who admitted that Washington is unlikely to
be happy with the outcome.
In fact, some analysts here prefer a clear win by Chavez at this
point, rather than a close finish that could provoke charges of fraud
from either or both sides, particularly if observers from the
Organisation of American States (OAS) and the Carter Centre
hedge their own assessment as to whether the election was free
and fair.
The possibility of civil conflict breaking out in one of Washington's
most important and reliable sources of imported oil at a time when
global oil prices are hovering around historic highs is a nightmare
that George W Bush's political handlers would rather not face less
than three months before the November elections here.
''The administration really doesn't have any good options for
bringing pressure to bear on Chavez at this point if he does win'',
according to William LeoGrande, a Latin America expert at
American University here. ''The last thing it wants to do is alienate
another big oil producer. If Chavez wins, they're just going to have
to grit their teeth and live with him''.
''If the oil is flowing and U.S. investors are happy, this
administration isn't going to do much'', Michael Shifter, a
Venezuela expert at the Inter-American Dialogue (IAD), a
prominent think tank here, told IPS. ''What the U.S. wants above all
else is stability''.
Sunday's recall election marks the third attempt by a diverse and
generally pro-Washington opposition to unseat Chavez, who was
first elected on a tide of revulsion against the corruption of the two
establishment parties that had dominated Venezuelan politics
since the 1950s.
The first attempt took place in April 2002, when a
business-dominated group attempted to grab control during an
apparent barracks coup that was put down by loyal officers and
demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of the urban poor who
have long been Chavez's most fervent supporters.
Public statements by U.S. officials in support of the government
established by the coup-plotters, as well as a record of U.S.
political and financial support for some opposition groups that
supported the coup before it collapsed badly, embarrassed
Washington and further aggravated already-strained relations
between Chavez and the Bush administration.
A second attempt was mounted in December 2002, when
management staff at the country's sprawling Petroleos de
Venezuela (PDVSA) launched a prolonged strike that was
eventually settled by an accord on the terms of the pending recall
election. The agreement was mediated by the OAS and the Carter
Centre, whose assessment of the fairness of Sunday's election will
likely be the decisive factor in determining whether or not serious
violence breaks out in the country and how the Bush
administration will itself react.
''After it endorsed the 2002 coup, the administration was really
burned and forced to back off and put all of its eggs in the
OAS-Carter Centre process'', said John Walsh, a Venezuela
analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a
human-rights group.
''If the OAS and the Carter Centre judge the process, warts and all,
as clean enough to bestow legitimacy on Chavez, the U.S. is going
to be very hard-pressed to take a different position, much less
bring other countries in the hemisphere along with it,'' he added.
To win, the opposition must not only get more ''yes'' than ''no'' votes
in the plebiscite, but they must also get more votes than the
roughly 3.8 million Chavez received in 2000. And even if the
opposition gets over those two hurdles, most analysts here do not
see anyone emerging from its ranks who can defeat him in a
two-person race.
''The opposition hasn't united around a single candidate or put
forward a coherent platform that would likely be persuasive to
someone who voted for Chavez'', according to Walsh.
"The administration has little confidence in the opposition'',
according to Shifter, ''and frankly, they don't inspire a lot of
confidence''.
Chavez has benefited both from the opposition's shortcomings and
from the record oil prices. The latter ''has given him the resources
not only to reduce PDVSA's outstanding debt, but also throw
almost two billion dollars in new resources into social programmes
for the poor'', according to Larry Birns, director of the Council on
Hemispheric Affairs (COHA).
''In recent years the poor had become more apolitical because they
came to see Chavez as just one more leader who has deceived
them, but now that he has put more resources into social and
education programmes and subsidised food markets, his natural
constituency has returned to him'', said Birns, who has generally
defended the Venezuelan leader against some of the more strident
attacks mounted by the administration and right-wing critics here.
Those attacks, which have featured prominently in the 'Wall Street
Journal', the 'Washington Times', the 'Washington Post', and 'U.S.
News and World Report', include reports that Cubans are working
inside Venezuela's paramilitary and intelligence apparatus; that
the government is supporting left-wing guerrillas in Colombia and
other nearby Andean countries; that it is creating a new ''axis of evil
in the Americas'' with Cuba, Brazil and Argentina; and providing
identity documents and refuge to Middle Eastern terrorist suspects.
Despite such alarms, some of which have been fostered by
hardliners from within the government, the Bush administration,
having been burned in 2002 and now consumed by Iraq and its
''war on terror'', has shown no appetite for new adventures south of
the border.
Birns, for example, noted that Washington may have provided only
about four million dollars to opposition sectors, a fraction of the 20
million dollars it devoted to the campaign to get Violeta Chamorro
elected president in Nicaragua, a country with only about 15
percent of Venezuela's population, in 1990.
As much as the administration's ideologues favour ''regime
change'' in Venezuela, Bush's policy has been guided by its need
for stability and no oil-market disruptions, according to Walsh.
''This has been Chavez' formula for staying in power'', according to
Shifter. ''He lets the oil flow and then he rails against the U.S. and
the Bush administration, and he can get away with the latter
because of the former. The irony is that it's Bush's policies that
have given Chavez higher oil prices to win this referendum. He
trashes Bush but he should be grateful''.
''You can't underestimate the power of oil'', said LeoGrande, who
noted that the other historical example of Washington ''gritting its
teeth and living with'' a left-wing government in Latin America took
place when, like today, access to oil was a top priority in a world
threatened by military conflict.
Thus, after imposing a boycott on Mexican oil after President
Lazaro Cardenas nationalised it in 1938, President Franklin
Roosevelt - worried about diminishing global supplies and rising
prices - resisted stronger action as urged by U.S. oil companies
and suggested by historical precedent. Instead, he lifted the
boycott and negotiated a reparations deal that ensured continued
access to Mexican oil as the United States prepared to enter World
War II. (END)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is RSS?
