quote:

---

"Who lost Latin America?" is the question the next Democratic contender for the presidency may legitimately be able ask. For since the election of Hugo Chavez as President of Venezuela in December, 1998, there has been an inexorable erosion of U.S. influence south of the Rio Grande. The most recent manifestations are the election victories last month of the coca-chewing populist Evo Morales in Bolivia and the socialist Michelle Bachelet in Chile. Some opinion polls currently point to similar victories for the militant Ollanta Humala in Peru's elections this coming April and the staunchly anti-gringo Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador when Mexicans go to the polls in July. And it's anyone's guess what will happen in Brazil and Ecuador.

---

Socialists! Militants! Anti-Gringoists! Coca-chewing populists!

It didn't used to be this way. No, it didn't used to be this way at all...

quote:

---

Repeatedly throughout the 20th century, the United States has exercised that supposed right [to invade and police Latin American countries]: in Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama ... How long have you got? In fact, virtually the only Central American state not to find itself on the receiving end of at least one U.S. military intervention has been Costa Rica.

Yet since 9/11 all that -- more than a century of consistent U.S. foreign policy -- has gone out the window. The Monroe Doctrine seems to have given way to the "Moan No" doctrine -- as in: "Mr. President, we've just heard that another Latin American country has elected a wild-eyed populist." "Oh, noooooo ..."

---

By the way, what makes populists' eyes go so wild? Is it all the coca-chewing?

quote:

---

The new populists are coming to power in large measure because of the successful mobilization of indigenous peoples against the Hispanic or Ladino elites who have dominated Latin American politics since the era of conquest and colonization. What we are seeing are not like the coups from left and right that used to go on in the Cold War. They are the results of the democratic process, albeit -- in the Venezuelan case -- a process that is rapidly being undermined by those whom it has brought to power. So you don't need to go all the way to the Middle East to find evidence that democracy doesn't always produce liberal governments. Sometimes it can in fact produce governments that explicitly promise to violate property rights and political rights.

- The kind of policies that populists pursue are a recipe for trouble. Only one economy in the region has performed worse than Haiti's since 1995 and it's Venezuela's. Despite the oil bonanza, Venezuela's GDP per capita has contracted at an annual average rate of 1.1% a year. The first five years of Hugo Chavez caused it to collapse by 23%.

---

And that Venezuelan economy sure is a stinker: must be why we see all those Venezuelans fleeing to Haiti by raft, where the much lower life expectancies, much higher infant mortality rates, much lower per capita GDP numbers, and much higher unemployment rates are all offset by, um, never mind.

quote:

---

Now, what do Latinos do when their home economies tank? The answer is that many of them try to emigrate. And where do they head for? The answer is of course the United States. In 2004, according to the Department of Homeland Security, 42% of immigrants to the United States were from Latin America (including the Caribbean) and literally 99% of illegal immigrants deported. I was in Arizona recently. Guess what the folks there grumble about most these days? Clue: it's not Islamic fundamentalism.

---

Darn tootin': the Minutemen at least have their priorities straight. They could give us all a lesson in thinking imperially, acting locally.

Link.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

This is why I don't read the National Pest -- the 100% fact-free news diet is bad for my blood pressure.

In some countries, it does -- Venezuela is probably one of them, although you don't get that impression from the official statistics. Some of the poverty reduction in Venezuela is undoubtedly the result of highly-subsidized groceries through the state-run national chain Mercal; on the other hand, Mercal has been criticized for buying imported products instead of supporting growth of Venezuelan businesses. In any event, free health care and subsidized groceries don't show up in poverty figures, unless the poverty line is adjusted; if Venezuela were to do that, they would be accused of cooking the books as they have been with respect to their GDP figures. So it's a complicated issue and technical discussion about economic statistics generally serves to distract from the real debate.

Venezuela is a special case, of course. Well, every country is a special case; there are few things you can say about South America in general aside from the obvious commonality that all South American countries have suffered first from European colonialism and then from North American economic domination. But Venezuela is a particularly special case; in many ways, it has replaced Cuba as a symbol in the simplistic discourse of bombasts from both the right and the left.

It seems to me that Ferguson's ravings are part of a kind of campaign of murmurs inside the neocon movement which seeks to rein in George Bush's almost religious rhetoric about what he calls democracy. Over the last year I've seen more and more right-wing commentators making references to this, usually in the form of "look, we gave them democracy, and now they're using it to attack us."

quote:

---

Originally posted by thebabblerformerlyknownas'larry':
It's also important to note regarding GDP in Venezuela that...

---

Sure. But my point is that there is no clear correlation between GDP and reduction of poverty. Limited as they are, the
Millenium Development Goals at least provide a more meaningful view of the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rici Lake:

Democracy is a critical issue for the South, and in my opinion we should be concerned about the authoritarian tendencies of Chávez's government

---

Chavez has faced a hell of a lot more elections than most governments in the North and he openly advocates a deeper form of participatory democracy.

Parliamentary democracy has been a horrible failure in the south (as well as arguably in the north), so while democracy is important, it should be bound up in the discourses of the North that straightjackets any alternative visions of democracy.

You are right though that Ferguson is trying to reign in the hubris of the neoconservatives, by trying to get them to work with more finesse and understanding of the rapidly changing Latin American reality. However his goals are the same -- permanent Northern hegemony.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
Yeah, like the Bush administration is a paragon of democracy.

---

quote:

---

ceti:
Parliamentary democracy has been a horrible failure in the south (as well as arguably in the north), so while democracy is important, it should be bound up in the discourses of the North that straightjackets any alternative visions of democracy.

---

I think you mean that it shouldn't be bound up in the Northern discourse, and I believe I said that as well. Quoting myself (with a couple of things in italics):

quote:

---

rici:
The danger of this discourse is that it places the debate about democracy squarely within the context of neoconservatism and neocolonialism. Democracy is a critical issue for the South, and in my opinion we should be concerned about the authoritarian tendencies of Chávez's government even while supporting the significant progress that is being made by that government, just as we need a balanced discourse about Cuba (or any other country). If we let the right define the debate, we can only end up losing

---

quote:

---

ceti:
You are right though that Ferguson is trying to reign in the hubris of the neoconservatives, by trying to get them to work with more finesse and understanding of the rapidly changing Latin American reality.

---

quote:

---

ceti:
Also another thing about Venezuela's economic performance is that the country is witnessing a boom in auto sales and consumption. Pollution and traffic has unfortunately increased, but the standard of living has definitely risen.

---

I see a lot more cars in Lima (and increased pollution), too, and no-one would say that the Peruvian government is left-wing (except some members of that government, but no-one believes them about anything). Under-five mortality figures are a much better metric of how much life has improved for poor people, who are not the ones buying cars. And there has been a noticeable improvement in this statistic for Venezuela.

quote:

---

rufus poulson:
I never hear about any specific authoritarian things Chavez's government ever does.

---

All I said was that there is an authoritarian tendency. For example, there is a lot more military control than one might really like. The reformation of the Supreme Court in 2004 was -- and continues to be -- worrisome. Hugo Chávez promotes himself as a cult, and it is hard to believe that he really is prepared for someone else to take over. The The Tascón list raises disturbing issues, although Chávez himself demanded that it be withdrawn (but only after it had been available for almost a year).

Now, if you're thinking something like "oh, yeah, that's nothing compared with ____", please go back and read my first comment in this post I probably agree. But I also believe that in any system which deserves the name democratic, there is no authority figure who ought not to be challenged now and then.

Just to be perfectly clear: I have never described Hugo Chávez as a dictator, and I think that to do so would be ridiculous. He is clearly the legitimately elected president of his country and enjoys majority support; I cannot see him being defeated in the election later this year, either. He has done a lot to help poor Venezuelans and he deserves full credit for that.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Rici Lake ]

Interesting how this parallels Ferguson's discourse:

quote:

---

Addressing a congressional hearing on Thursday, Ms Rice accused Mr Chavez of leading a "Latin brand of populism that has taken countries down the drain".

---

This is clearly unacceptable. Canada should immediately distance itself from this antidemocratic rhetoric. Not that I have any expectation that the newly-named Canadian Ambassador for Free Trade will do so.

The left-wing daily Página/12 of Buenos Aires reported this story under the headline "Cuando Condi mira abajo" (When Condi looks down); it's a short note, so I've just translated and included it: (Note the last sentence.)

quote:

---

"The union makes us strong" is the new militant slogan of US Secretary of Stat Condeleezza Rice, who yesterday called for the creation of "a united front" against Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, who she presented as "a challenge for democracy" and a "danger" for the region because of his relationship with Cuban president Fidel Castro. Rice admitted having asked Brazil, Spain and the European Union to "pay attention" to Chávez's government. "Just two days ago I talked on the phone with my counterpart in the EU, the minister of Austria, with the foreign affairs minister of Spain and Brasil, and I said to them: you have to know what is going on there [in Venezuela]," said Rice. The diplomat insisted that the government of Chávez is a "bad influence" in Latin America, using as an example the judgement against the NGO Súmate, which acts as an opposition and recieves American funding. Rice believes that Washington must work together with other "responsible leftwing" Latin American governments to counterbalance Chávez's government. One of the strategies to try to weaken the link between Caracas and Havana, Rice said, is seeking free trade agreements with their southern neighbours.

---

quote:

---

Original:

“La unión hace la fuerza” es el nuevo lema belicista de la secretaria de Estado norteamericana, Condoleezza Rice, que llamó ayer a crear “un frente unido” contra el presidente venezolano, Hugo Chávez, al que presentó como “un desafío para la democracia” y un “peligro” para la región por sus relaciones con el presidente cubano, Fidel Castro. Rice admitió haber pedido a Brasil, España y la Unión Europea (UE) que “presten atención” al gobierno de Chávez. “Hace apenas dos días hablé por teléfono con mi contraparte de la UE, el ministro de Austria, con el canciller de España y con el de Brasil y les dije: tienen que saber lo que está sucediendo allí (en Venezuela)”, dijo Rice. La diplomática insistió en que el gobierno de Chávez es una “mala influencia” en América latina y puso como ejemplo el juicio contra la organización no gubernamental Súmate, que actúa como entidad opositora y recibe fondos de EE.UU. Rice consideró que Washington tiene que trabajar junto a otros gobiernos latinoamericanos “responsables de izquierda”, como los de Brasil y Chile, para contrarrestar la “influencia” del gobierno de Chávez. Una de las estrategias para intentar debilitar el lazo entre Caracas y La Habana, dijo Rice, es la búsqueda de acuerdos de libre comercio con sus vecinos del sur.

---

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Rici Lake ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rici Lake:

All I said was that there is an authoritarian tendency.

---

I see what you're getting at, now, but I'd suggest that your comment as it stood is misleading. There are authoritarian tendencies in every country in the world, perhaps every organization. Normally, then, if someone says that pretty much in isolation, the inference is that the tendencies they're thinking of are unusually strong or otherwise unusually worrisome relative to other parts of the world. If that isn't what you mean people to gather, you do need to be a bit clearer.

quote:

---

For example, there is a lot more military control than one might really like.

---

Well, yes. But there are two significant points there. First, there always has been--this isn't a feature of the Chavez administration or movement but of Venezuela. The second is that Chavez' approach to this problem, which has hamstrung many leftist and/or populist movements throughout Latin America and indeed worldwide, has been to my mind a positive and creative one. Essentially, rather than trying to beat the armed forces, he has instead increased the profile of the lower classes in the armed forces and worked to reduce the tendency of the armed forces to be a totally separate institution with its own separate politics and institutions, readily used to oppress the rest of society with which it has little contact. Instead he has tried to re-integrate them with the community, using them to help building projects and medical projects and so forth. And that strategy is probably as important a reason for the failure of the coup in 2002 as the public mobilization--in the end, most of the military would not back the coup.
More recently, I think the efforts to expand the reserves system are at the same time intended to potentially help defend the country, continue to reinforce military-community links so the military see themselves as part of the community rather than a separate one, and to some extent also dilute military power, leaving some fighting capability in the hands of an armed populace.

Really, I don't think any leftist group anywhere in the third world has dealt as well with the issue of the military.

quote:

---

The reformation of the Supreme Court in 2004 was -- and continues to be -- worrisome.

---

Doesn't worry me at all. Yeah, I know, I'm not happy about Bush packing the court with conservatives so I shouldn't be happy about this either, but dash it all, he'd inherited a court full of elite crooks. It's not a question of undermining the glowing institution of the independent judiciary--they'd never had one.

quote:

---

Hugo Chávez promotes himself as a cult, and it is hard to believe that he really is prepared for someone else to take over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
I see what you're getting at, now, but I'd suggest that your comment as it stood is misleading. There are authoritarian tendencies in every country in the world, perhaps every organization. Normally, then, if someone says that pretty much in isolation, the inference is that the tendencies they're thinking of are unusually strong or otherwise unusually worrisome relative to other parts of the world.

---

I went back and reread it, and I don't think it was written in isolation. Are you sure that you didn't just read it in isolation? But perhaps you're right. I'll make sure that I never again criticise Chávez without carefully reminding everyone that I'm basically pro-Chávez.

The ironic thing is that here (in Perú), most of my friends are Peruvian left-wingers, and about a year ago I realized that even when we're talking amongst ourselves, we never say anything positive about Chávez without prefixing it with a disclaimer. ("Bueno, sí es un caudillo mas, pero..."). I said, fairly publicly, I'm not going to do that anymore. He's done some good things and I don't see why I have to feel socially pressured into sandwiching that. And most of my friends came round to that, although in public it's harder. So I find it ironic that outside of South America, the sandwiching is necessary but in the opposite direction.

The fact is, yes, Chávez is a caudillo. And, yes, he has improved the lives of poor Venezuelans. But what is lurking at the core is that Venezuela is a deeply-divided country, and Chávez is not a conciliator; furthermore he basks in the international publicity and has successfully exported those political divisions in a way which is not particularly helpful, in my opinion.

I don't think it's Chávez's fault that Venezuela is a deeply-divided country. He's often blamed (at least in South America) for "dividing the country", but my impression is that the division was there all along; it was just suppressed by the elite. I've talked to quite a few venezuelans and peruvians who have worked in Venezuela, and most of them share that opinion at least to some extent.

However, if the "Bolivarian Revolution" is to succeed in the long term, the political division will have to be resolved, and that will take quite a bit of diplomacy from both sides.

Chávez has been president now for more than seven years, and assuming he wins the elections at the end of this year, which seems highly probable, he will have been president 14 years by the end of the next mandate. That ought to be enough time to develop a solid cadre of competent leaders at all levels who are capable of carrying the country forward, which is presumably at least one of the goals of Venezuelan-style participatory democracy. I haven't seen a lot of evidence of that process actually bearing fruit, but I don't live in Venezuela and I might be missing it; I do hope that it becomes apparent in the not too distant future. But it worries me.

quote:

---

I'm not convinced he really tries, exactly, to create a cult of personality--

---

Creating a tv show called "Hello President!" might be one indication.

As an example of the style of the show, the New York Review of Books tells a story of how he fired a bunch of bureaucrats at the oil company.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eau:
Give credit where its due..it was original.

---

Yes, but it was also mean-spirited. Chávez likes to play the buffoon, and he does it well -- and it certainly is part of his popular appeal. But he's quite different from my favorite South American buffoon, Antanas Mockus (who is currently running for president, although it would take a miracle -- still, miracles happen.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rici Lake:
The Empire Fights Back.

---

The English-language press doesn't seem to be picking up the follow up to this story, so I'll just continue the thread-drift instead of starting a new topic.

Brazil's Foreign Minister, Celso Amorim, was in Perú today, and was asked about Condi's phone call. He said that she had indeed called, to talk about Venezuela and Haiti, but that it hadn't changed Brazil's view, which is:

quote:

---

(my translation):

Chávez is a president elected by his people, by a majority, and is one of the few presidents who, in the middle of his mandate, has been subjected to a referendum; so there can be no doubt about the legitimacy of his mandate.

... Everyone knows that Brazil has a relationship of profound friendship with Venezuela. Our presidents have excellent relations... We understand that Venezuela and the United States could have different visions, and just for this reason we have always been ready to help when asked to with the dialogue between two countries who are friends. We are friends of Venezuela and also of the United states.

---

Well, pretty diplomatic, all round. He also found time to praise soon-to-be-outgoing Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo for doing such a good job over the last five years, a judgement not shared by more than 70% of the Peruvian population (according to the most recent polls; now that his term is nearly at an end, his approval rating has crept back over the 20% mark.)

Still, clearly Amorim was sending a message about Venezuela, and probably about the proposed sale of Embraer airplanes to Venezuela, a sale which the US opposes.

Meanwhile, Ricardo Lagos, president of one of the other "responsible leftwing governments" Rice referred to, has stated that he has had no conversations whatsoever with the US on the subject of Venezuela.

Moreover, the rule of law and adherence to norms serves the status quo. Unless we change the ways things operate, we won't be able to make much headway as the rules of the game have been rigged against the people for so many years. The ingenious way Chavez is trying to change things, with as little bloodshed as possible, really makes the Bolivarian Revolution exemplary. I think most movements in his position would have unleashed the tides of civil war to wash away the old bourgeois order and the manifold atrocities they had committed against the Venezuela people. There is so much blood on the oligarchy's hands, that they should thank Chavez for channeling popular anger in a democratic but very slow process of transformation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
I also don't find any problem with the military preparations. It's as if people prefer Allende as a martyr rather than Chavez as a living breathing actor on the world stage.

---

I'm not sure that I understand that analogy, since Allende was defeated by his own country's military. (Yes, I know it was with the encouragement of Dr. Strangelove, but those were Chilean jets flying over the Moneda.)

I do agree with Rufus that Chávez has worked very hard to create a loyal military, thereby significantly reducing the probability of a coup. Of course, unlike Allende, Chávez is himself a member of the military, which improves his odds.

quote:

---

I'm not convinced he really tries, exactly, to create a cult of personality--it's just that he has a bloody magnetic personality

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rici Lake:

I'm not sure that I understand that analogy, since Allende was defeated by his own country's military. (Yes, I know it was with the encouragement of Dr. Strangelove, but those were Chilean jets flying over the Moneda.)

---

quote:

---

It is firm and continuing policy that [the democratically elected government of] Allende be overthrown by a coup.... We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [United States Government] and American hands be well hidden. --
October 1970 cable to CIA operatives in Chile from Henry Kissinger's "Track Two" group

---

quote:

---

Mockus did succeed, in a very short time, in significantly reducing the death rate in Bogotá, using some wonderfully Ghandian tactics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

And he encouraged strike-breaking in Bogota, too. being a fascist and a bad actor is easy with military aid from Uncle Sam. A friend in Caracas tells me that Cuban icons, slogans and music are becoming popular in Bogota.

---

I really don't like the slinging about of the word "fascist" to mean "anyone I dislike". It's a real political ideology, in my sad opinion on the rise, and it needs to be confronted as such. And whatever you say about Mockus' politics (ideologically confused would be common), he is certainly not a fascist.

Colombia is a country with many fine actors, and I don't think Mockus has a career on stage. But I would have liked to have taken a class from him; he's a good teacher. I don't think he has a chance of winning the presidency, but I think he'd be better than the current president. Although I'm not sure that is saying much.

Cuban iconography and particularly music is very popular in Perú, by the way, not just Bogotá. It's great music. Of course, there was quite a bit of cultural interchange during the Velasco government. (And also with the Soviet Union; one of my best friends is named Boris.)

[ 21 February 2006: Message edited by: rici ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Creating a tv show called "Hello President!" might be one indication.

As an example of the style of the show, the New York Review of Books tells a story of how he fired a bunch of bureaucrats at the oil company.

He didn't send them dismissal notices. What he did was he discussed their work on his show, and then pulled a whistle out of his pocket, blowing it shrilly. He then said he was calling a foul and sending them to the showers.

---

Oh my god!

That cracks me up so much.

It's great! See, this is exactly the kind of populist politics that gets attention and solidifies the supporters and might even grab a few undecideds. When you do things the unbureaucratic way, you get attention.

And it doesn't matter if it comes from the left or the right; in fact, the right has been all-too-successful with the kind of showboating tactics you so despise. (the tone of your post is clearly disapproving, Mr. House)

You can't win unless you can beat someone else at his own game, because he often hasn't prepared the countertactic. And that's what Chavez is doing. He's a military man. He KNOWS the effectiveness of adopting the enemy's tactics and striking at the weak spot, or sidetracking the enemy completely.

Put it this way. You can reach across a gaping chasm for a gold ring one of two ways: You can try stretching across the chasm, or you can walk around the ledge to the other side.

Which one's easier?

[ 22 February 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]

"While we wander from summit to summit, our people go from abyss to abyss."

ETA: The trouble with Google is that it's too easy to catch your own mistakes; I found the original and corrected my translation. Here's a reference, with a slightly different translation: http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y99/apr99/19e10.htm

[ 22 February 2006: Message edited by: rici ]

I gather from reading the article that Hakim tends towards the liberal end of the sprectrum of foreign affairs commentators in the US. There is, therefore, plenty of criticism of the Bush administration for failing to address the Latin American nations' concerns on immigration, trade, human rights, the need for international consultation, etc.

Latin American states come in for criticism, too, however, since their leaders have, according to Hakim, sometimes neglected necessary political and economic reforms, failed to address social and political tensions, and sometimes turned to populist anti-American rhetoric.

Predictably, Chavez figures prominently in the analysis of what's wrong with US-Latin American relations: Chavez is a 'vexing and potentially dangerous adversary' with ties to Cuba, a desire to increase his regional influence (via Petrocaribe and Telesur), and plans for other forms of regional integration and cooperation in trade and energy fields.

Also troubling to Washington, according to Hakim, is the fact that so few other nations are willing to speak up against Chavez.

While Hakim notes a few bright spots in US-Latin American relations, he seems largely pessimistic about the short term, because the Bush administration, in his view, is in no position to respond to some of the southern nations' outstanding concerns, and because further leftist-populist governments threaten to come to power.

When Hakim was writing, Morales' win was still only an unwelcome possibility. Now a fact, it may also be followed by other changes Hakim says Washington worries about, including the possible return to power of Ortega in Nicaragua later this year.

While certainly more sophisticated than Ferguson's piece in the Post, Hakim's essay recounts a not-dissimilar narrative about Latin America unhappily slipping out of Washington's orbit. My guess is we'll see more and more of this narrative in the coming months.

Unfortunately, the Hakim essay is sub-only, but you can read a summary and an introductory excerpt here: Link.

A tartly alternative point of view on US-Latin American relations is offered by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, in a comment on some of Condoleeza Rice's recent efforts in the region:

quote:

---

This isolation of the U.S. has passed beyond the realm of the symbolic and now is having real, concrete policy repercussions. As Washington continues to press its campaigns against leftists throughout the region, lashing out not only at Chávez but Bolivia’s Morales as well, it will find fewer and fewer nations who are willing to deal with their sclerotic northern Jacobite. In fact, aside from glowing “Sister Republic” boilerplate rhetoric, Latin America almost always has been at odds with Washington, but relations have hit a new low today, which has surpassed even the dark days of Elliott Abrams during the Reagan presidency. But only under Bush has Latin America found itself as estranged from the U.S. as it is today, a result of Bush’s Keystone Cops, Otto Reich and Roger Noriega, carrying out their shrill regional policy which brought the alienation to unprecedented heights. The situation has hardly improved now that Rice is taking a much more direct hand in hemispheric issues. We must face the fact that with her acts of boorish incivility towards Cuba, and her new role as leader of the “get Chávez club,” Rice has become the neo-con leader of a new Cold War which is long on rhetoric but painfully short on wisdom. While this is undeniably an ominous outlook, the hope remains that greater congressional pressure and vocal international resistance may help push the administration towards swallowing a badly needed draught of reality.

---

Link.

Edited, partly to pose this question: Which phrase wins the rhetorical boxing match?

'Coca-Chewing Populist' (Ferguson describing Morales);

or

'Sclerotic Northern Jacobite' (COHA authors describing the Bush administration).

I'm plumping for the latter.

[ 03 March 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

The novel thing is that definitely the country is sowing or planting oil [revenues] in the productive sectors of the economy.... A portion of the oil revenues is used as a funding source to structure and strengthen the domestic market ("endogenous development") and jumpstart a sovereign process of industrialization and definitive economic independence....
...
These seven mechanisms account for the fact that, since 2004 and in spite of the strong growth in oil prices, the non-oil GDP grew significantly faster than the oil GDP, demonstrating the positive impact of oil exports on activities not directly related to crude extraction. While in the second quarter of 1999 the share of non-oil GDP was 70.5 percent of total GDP, today it stands at 76.0 percent. And, partly as a result, in this period, the share of the oil GDP in total GDP shrunk from 20.1 percent to 14.9 percent.
Even more significant is the acceleration in the manufacturing industry between early 2003 and the present. Manufacturing was the sector that grew the fastest in the period, recently surpassing oil GDP -- for the first time since 1997, starting year of this statistical series at the BCV. This dynamism can be verified especially by the consistent increases in electricity consumption, automotive vehicle sales, cement, durable products for civil construction, iron, and aluminum....The share of manufacturing in total GDP, which shrunk to 14.7 percent during the "oil sabotage," is now reaching 16.7 percent with a momentum to grow briskly....These policy instruments seek to limit the exports of raw materials and to guarantee basic inputs -- like aluminum, iron, steel, and wood -- to the Venezuelan producers. From early 2003, the share of final consumption goods in total imports has gone down from 37.6 percent to 24.2 percent, accompanied by an increase in the acquisition of goods devoted to gross capital formation from 12.3 percent to 25.7 percent of the total. That is to say, Venezuela has invested its foreign exchange in purchasing machinery, parts, and equipment that make it possible for the process of sovereign industrialization to proceed.
....
All these plans have been directed by the Venezuelan government, which will control at least 51 percent of these initiatives, although many will involve strategic associations with other countries or private -- national or foreign -- investors. The goal is to strengthen international relations, especially with other nations in Latin America, with China, Spain, India, Iran, and Italy, in the spirit of building an Alternativa Bolivariana para la América (ALBA) and contributing to creating a multi-polar world. Instances of this are the recent initiative to build the oil refinery Abreu e Lima, in the Brazilian state of Pernambuco, agreed between PDVSA and Petrobrás; the agreements with Argentina to build oil tankers at the Santiago River shipyards; and the bi-national tractor factory Venirán Tractor, with the government of Iran, which has already turned out its first 400 units.

---

quote:

---

In Venezuela, a demagogue awash in oil money is undermining democracy and seeking to destabilize the region.

---

They don't like him because they need his oil and he knows it.