In Search of Hugo Chávez

Michael Shifter

From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2006

Summary:  The debate over Hugo Chávez has been dominated by opposing caricatures -- a polarization that has thwarted a sound policy response. The Venezuelan president has an autocratic streak, no viable development model, and unsettling oil-funded aspirations to hemispheric leadership. But Washington and its allies should ''confront'' him indirectly: by proving they have better ideas.

MICHAEL SHIFTER is Vice President for Policy at the Inter-American Dialogue and Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.

Chávez's supporters and opponents have both attributed to him considerable responsibility for the resurgence of Latin America's left -- most recently with the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia. There is no question about the affinity and mutual admiration among Morales, Chávez, and Castro; there are already signs of cooperation among them on social and economic issues. Although no hard evidence has yet come to light, critics often charge that Chávez has helped fund the rise of like-minded political figures, such as Morales. It is scarcely a secret that particular groups throughout the region -- and presidential candidates in Ecuador (Rafael Correa), Nicaragua (Daniel Ortega), and Peru (Ollanta Humala) -- regard Chávez with sympathy.

But even as Chávez can help shape a regional environment favorable to such populist politicians, it is inaccurate to blame the rise of left-wing candidates on his influence or his scheming. Those figures are products of particular circumstances, and they would be contenders without Chávez. Chávez's shrewd use of resources, calls for social justice, and fierce attacks on an unpopular U.S. administration have had such resonance in Latin America precisely because leaders such as Morales are responding to many of the same frustrations that gave rise to Chávez in Venezuela. Chávez's adherents include not only remnants of the region's unreconstructed left, but also many who are simply frustrated by failed economic and political models and are searching for answers. Accordingly, many Latin American leaders, such as Lula and Kirchner, indulge him and accept his attractive economic deals without really endorsing his agenda.

Even the conservative Colombian president, Álvaro Uribe -- Washington's staunchest South American ally -- has hardly had an unambiguously hostile relationship with Chávez. To be sure, Uribe has charged the Chávez government with failing to cooperate in pursuing Colombian insurgent groups, who use Venezuelan territory as a sanctuary, and Venezuela's initial neutrality in the Colombian armed conflict heightened suspicions about where Chávez's sympathies actually lie. But such strains predate Chávez, and the economic value of the Colombian-Venezuelan relationship ($3 billion in annual trade) has encouraged Chávez and Uribe to keep their distrust in check and deal with each other pragmatically. A confrontation, both leaders realize, is in neither country's interest. In early 2005, when the capture of the Colombian rebel leader Rodrigo Granda on Venezuela soil threatened to escalate into a full-blown crisis, Uribe called on Chávez's friend Castro to intervene and defuse tensions.

The recent politics of the OAS are a telling illustration of Chávez's true place in the region. As Washington has been trying to put more teeth in the existing Inter-American Democratic Charter, in an effort to sanction what it sees as Chávez's undemocratic actions, the Venezuelan government has been insisting that a new social charter emphasizing particular tenets associated with the Bolivarian Revolution should be adopted. While the U.S. and Venezuelan representatives have been at loggerheads, most OAS members side with neither. They do not see Chávez as a model, but they also harbor a deep dislike for the Bush administration. The U.S.-Venezuelan rift ends up being a diversion that thwarts cooperation on more urgent issues.

The primacy of petroleum has also given Chávez leverage beyond Latin America. He defended his visits with Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi on grounds of Venezuela's membership in OPEC. He has also worked to forge stronger ties with key countries such as India and China, in keeping with his declared intention to eventually direct Venezuelan oil away from its current principal market -- the United States. He has vowed to build a pipeline through Panama for trans-Pacific shipments, and PDVSA opened an office in Beijing last year.

Chávez has also used oil money to buy weapons, which he justifies by invoking the threat of a U.S. invasion. He has purchased combat helicopters and 100,000 AK-47s from Russia and has struck a deal with Spain for some $2 billion in military equipment. Although it is uncertain whether the deals that have been announced will actually materialize (Washington has tried to block arms purchases from Spain and Brazil), it is clear that such moves are part of Chávez's mission to increase his own power vis-ŕ-vis the world's only superpower.

The most worrying manifestation of that mission has been Chávez's solidarity with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran. Venezuela's was one of only three no votes -- the others came from Cuba and Syria -- when the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency voted to refer Iran's nuclear energy case to the UN Security Council in February. Chávez has defended Iran's right to develop nuclear energy and has declared that Iran and Venezuela are like "brothers who fight for a just world." The two countries are negotiating a variety of trade and economic agreements. Chávez, too, has talked about pursuing a nuclear energy program and has sought assistance from Argentina and Brazil to explore that possibility. An emerging alliance with Iran and the development of a nuclear program would raise the stakes in Washington's relations with Chávez.

CRUDE AWAKENING

Chávez's defiance of Washington has been a defining characteristic of his regime from the outset. His unrelenting critique of Venezuela's old order -- which he refers to as "the rancid oligarchy" -- has often focused on the support it received from U.S. administrations over the decades; he sees the U.S. government and the Venezuelan opposition as indistinguishable. His speeches are peppered with virulent anti-U.S. rhetoric, charging Washington with imperialist designs and systematic exploitation of the poor.

Unfortunately, the dominant attitude toward Chávez in Washington also seems stuck in a different era -- it represents a mindset reminiscent of the Cold War, when Latin America became a fierce battleground between the United States and the Soviet Union. Ever since Chávez came to power, Washington has been at a loss as to how to deal with him. Its messages -- sometimes conciliatory, sometimes confrontational, usually contradictory -- have been largely reactive and show little in the way of strategic thinking. The initial approach was to focus less on what Chávez said than on what he did. But by leaving his inflammatory, often antidemocratic rhetoric unanswered, the United States missed an opportunity to make clear that it rejected what Chávez was espousing. After September 11, this hands-off approach became untenable. When Chávez publicly compared the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan to the unprovoked attacks on U.S. soil, the Bush administration, obviously incensed, struck back.