“Dangerous” is how top US officials Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld recently described Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. The former lieutenant colonel, who calls President Bush “Mr Danger”, has bedevilled Washington since his election in 1998.
Once in office, Mr Chávez began dismantling Venezuela’s democratic infrastructure. Today he effectively controls all major public institutions and governs with virtually unchecked power. What makes him particularly menacing, however, is his regional, even international, ambitions – and vast oil revenues, which allow him to pursue them.
He has supported friends and allies in half a dozen or more countries – sometimes to provoke instability in volatile nations, other times to sway elections. His links with Colombia’s guerrilla groups are a continuing worry but Mr Chávez’s ambitions go beyond stirring up trouble in neighbouring countries. His bombastic rhetoric makes clear his intent to forge an anti-US coalition and develop his own hemispheric agenda – which rejects representative democracy, market economics, free trade and any serious US presence in the region.
Mr Chávez is working hard to build webs of influence throughout Latin America. He provides subsidised oil to the Caribbean countries, wants to establish Petrosur, a consortium of South America’s state-owned petroleum companies, and proposes to build a $20bn gas pipeline from Venezuela to Argentina. He has bought more than $1bn in Argentine bonds, facilitating Argentina’s split with the International Monetary Fund, and about $25m of Ecuadorian paper. Venezuela is becoming a full partner in Mercosur, South America’s most important trade pact, and Mr Chávez maintains close ties with Fidel Castro. Alarms are also sounding in Washington about his ventures with Iran and Hamas.
All this has gained him some heft in hemispheric affairs. He enjoys popular support in many nations, where his anti-US stance and relentless emphasis on social injustice strike resonant chords. Many Latin American governments are unhappy about Mr Chávez and his policies, but they value their commercial relationships with Venezuela and are unwilling to pay the political costs at home of opposing him.
Mr Chávez is not to blame for the social unrest and popular frustration that is evident in so many Latin American countries, though his fiery rhetoric may exacerbate the alienation of many Latin Americans who feel abandoned by their leaders and disillusioned with economic policies that are not producing growth or new jobs. However, their disaffection mostly reflects the failure of the region’s governments to address the critical concerns of their citizens: unemployment, inequality, poor schools and criminal violence.
Venezuela is certainly a disruptive force in inter-American relations. Its conduct in regional institutions have made it harder to reach the compromises needed to take decisions on key issues, including the protection of democracy and human rights. Mr Chávez’s antics contributed to the misadventure of last year’s Summit of the Americas in Argentina, which generated more antagonism than cooperation among the assembled heads of state. He could well provoke Washington into taking aggressive action against Venezuela. Any of a number of issues could trigger this, such as curtailing oil deliveries to the US or drawing closer to Iran. The outcome of an open clash is hard to predict but it would surely further embitter hemispheric relations and shrink prospects for constructive US-Latin American ties.
Despite Mr Chávez’s efforts, most Latin American governments remain committed to democracy and understand the pitfalls of populist economics – and they acknowledge the importance of good relations with the US. Also, Mr Chávez has not yet produced any real followers or imitators in Latin America. However, he may still have time to pursue his ambitions. This December, he will almost certainly be elected for a second six-year term but he also faces the problems and vulnerabilities of any authoritarian, personalistic regime – corruption, dissension among allies, disillusioned supporters and a more determined opposition – leaving the future, as always, uncertain.
Peter Hakim is president of the Inter-American Dialogue.
