Note: This is the summary of a talk I have been delivering throughout audiences in the United States, about my country and its current state of affairs.
1.
When the Spanish explorers reached the territory of today’s Venezuela they found it inhabited by two main groups of natives: one, the Arawaks, friendly, enjoyed a diet of plantains and corn. The other, the Caribs, unfriendly, enjoyed a diet of Arawaks. Even today you never know which of the two types of Venezuelans you will have to deal with.
Venezuela is a country of young people but not a young country. When Chicago was founded, in 1833, the city of Caracas was already 266 years old. Today Chicago has a GDP of close to $500 billion, the fourth richest city in the world, while Caracas has a GDP of $28 billion, ranked 123 among 150 cities. In fact, Chicago’s GDP is almost twice as large as Venezuela’s. Chicago has about 120 universities while Caracas has about 15 universities and all of Venezuela about 50 universities. Venezuelan economic and cultural development has been slower than here in the U.S.
What is the reason for this? basically the different origins of our two societies. Venezuela is a society made up of Spaniards, Blacks and Indians. One of our best humorists, Jose Ignacio Cabrujas, once said only half in jest that Spaniards did not like to work; Indians did not see any need to work and Blacks felt that they should not work since, as slaves, they could not enjoy the product of their labor. To make matters worse Venezuela has been blessed or cursed with abundant petroleum, a source of wealth that takes less than 0.5 per cent of the working population to produce while the other 99.5 percent mostly work at trying to grab a piece of the cake.
While in the U.S. many came to stay, in Latin America Spaniards went to conquer, to look for mineral riches. Early society developed a mining camp mentality with a poorly developed sense or permanence. Our Spanish heritage included the obedience to King and Church, disdain for manual work and a terror of being and looking poor.
2.
Venezuela looks on the Atlantic Ocean to the north and is part of the Andean region to the west and of the Amazon Basin to the south. Possibly as a result of this geographic diversity Venezuelans tend to be outgoing and love to get involved in other people’s affairs. They love to rush and try to save a damsel in distress, even if the lady needs no help. In the best of cases this has led Venezuelans to go abroad to liberate other countries. In the worst of cases this has led Venezuelans to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries. In the XIX century Bolivar liberated five countries from Spanish rule and all of these countries had, at some point or other, a Venezuelan born president. Even in Chile, way to the south, a Venezuelan is one of the main national heroes. He was not a man on horseback but an educator, Andres Bello, the founder of the Universidad de Santiago and its president for over 20 years.
More recently Venezuela has had success in less important matters: we have had eleven world beauty queens, which shows that we have the most beautiful women in the world or, at least, the best plastic surgeons. At one point in time, during the 1960’s, we had four world boxing champions. We have had two major league batting champions. In particular we are very proud of a program called El Sistema, through which some 200,000 young Venezuelans, mainly from the poorer sectors, learn to play classical music. This program has been in activity for some 35 years and one of its distinguished alumni, 28 year-old Gustavo Dudamel, is now the Director of Los Angeles Philharmonic.
3.
On the negative side we have had our share of authoritarian regimes. We get a dictator every 40 years or so. It is almost like a Yellowstone-like political “old faithful”. Our good guys, politicians, poets and writers, frequently die in exile while the bad guys mostly die at home in their beds.
Recent Venezuelan history, the last fifty years, 1958-2009, can be divided in three stages: good, bad and worse. The good stage, 1958-1973, saw Venezuela, helped along by a magnificent, one million- strong European immigration, emerge as a political and economic showcase in the hemisphere. Those were the days of Romulo Betancourt and John F. Kennedy working together for democracy against military strongmen.
By 1974 Venezuela had a HDI higher than Chile’s, Mexico’s or South Korea’s. That year something terrible happened to us. Oil prices tripled and Venezuela became awash in oil money. Everybody went crazy, including the government. It was like a big cocktail party where even the bartenders got drunk. A “Great Venezuela”’ development program became a Latin version of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”, with equally disastrous results. After many grandiose and ill-planned projects of aluminum, steel and land reform failed, Venezuela ended up in debt. From then on, until 1998, we had a succession of mediocre governments, each one a little worse than its predecessors. This long decline into mediocrity was characterized by corruption and deterioration of public services. As elections approached in 1998 most Venezuelans wanted a radical change in the manner the country was being run. This change took place with the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998. No one thought that it could be for the worse but it was. The third stage, 1998- 2009 has been, so far, our worst nightmare as a nation. Let me tell you about it.
4.
Hugo Chavez is a pupil of Fidel Castro, something he says openly. From day one he adopted the three strategies that Castro put together in the 1960’s: consolidation of political power at home; the hemispheric expansion of its socialist ideology, and the structuring of a global alliance against the United States.
In developing these three strategies he has been helped by some $800 billion in income during his ten years in power. With this significant mass of money he has followed a policy of handouts, both at home and abroad. In a country with 50 percent poverty a massive program of handouts which includes free food, transport, medical attention and even direct cash transfers, has generated much goodwill for the regime and will keep doing so until money runs out. In Latin America, where countries are mostly small and accountability low money handouts from Chavez to Morales, Correa, and Ortega and to presidential candidates in Peru, Argentina, Paraguay, Mexico and El Salvador served to establish a somewhat shaky “socialist” alliance. I say shaky because money does not buy sincere love.
5.
How have these strategies worked?
Staying in power has, so far, worked. However, after ten years he has not been able to install a socialist regime in the country and only controls half of the population. By preaching hatred and class struggle he has split the country into two irreconcilable halves. There are no adversaries in Venezuela any longer, just enemies. As oil income has declined, he is losing followers. To keep in power he has structured a fascist, military-driven regime that has to rely, more and more on repression. This can only work for s short while.
The creation of a socialist hemisphere is not working well.
Right now he only can claim three unconditional followers: Morales, Ortega and Correa, while he reports to Fidel Castro. However, the rest of the hemisphere looks on him with increasing distrust, in spite of the $30 billion he has handed out or promised all over the region.
In creating a global alliance against the United States he has been moderately successful.
He is now a firm ally of Iran, Zimbabwe, Libya, Belarus, Syria and Cuba, all rogue states. He is aligned with the terrorist groups Hezbollah and FARC. Islamic terrorists obtain Venezuelan documents to enter the U.S. High-level Venezuelan bureaucrats have been identified as collaborating with terrorists. Even within the U.S he has made some inroads, in the academic sector, in Hollywood and among some intellectuals. He has acquired more than six billion dollars in weapons from Russia and other countries, in order to be able to create a hemispheric military crisis, if this suits his plans.
6.
A Five-year outlook: two main scenarios.
In one scenario Hugo Chavez stays in power due to his oil income and makes inroads in the hemisphere due to the passivity of his ideological adversaries. The OAS remains ineffective and the U.S. government considers him a harmless nuisance. Venezuela becomes pretty much the new Cuba of Latin America and Chavez replaces Fidel Castro as the leader of the anti-American alliance in the region. U.S. position is pragmatic: “As long as we get his oil we are OK”. Probability: 60 percent.
In the second scenario Hugo Chavez weakens politically due to his numerous errors in domestic and foreign policies which lead to much popular protests at home and to loss of followers abroad. The U.S. takes a more pro-active attitude against his regime and accuses him of open interventionism, cooperation with terrorists and of complicity with drug trafficking. The combination of pressures from other countries in the region and of domestic protests force him out of power somewhere in 2010 or 2011. Probability: 40 percent.
7.
The dilemma of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America is one between pragmatism and principles. Pragmatism often yields short-term success while principles tend to yield long-term victory. To tolerate undemocratic regimes because they serve the short-term U.S, interests have led to a steady erosion of U.S. influence in Latin America. The cases of Honduras and Venezuela illustrate this dilemma very well. In both countries the U.S. government seems to be following the wrong path.
8.
A word about soft power: U.S. creative efforts to establish a very strong cultural, educational presence in Latin America will probably be much more successful than trying to accommodate authoritarian leaders only because they serve short-term national interests. The U.S. is not admired in Latin America for its political pragmatism but for its adherence to the principles and values that created the nation.
1.
When the Spanish explorers reached the territory of today’s Venezuela they found it inhabited by two main groups of natives: one, the Arawaks, friendly, enjoyed a diet of plantains and corn. The other, the Caribs, unfriendly, enjoyed a diet of Arawaks. Even today you never know which of the two types of Venezuelans you will have to deal with.
Venezuela is a country of young people but not a young country. When Chicago was founded, in 1833, the city of Caracas was already 266 years old. Today Chicago has a GDP of close to $500 billion, the fourth richest city in the world, while Caracas has a GDP of $28 billion, ranked 123 among 150 cities. In fact, Chicago’s GDP is almost twice as large as Venezuela’s. Chicago has about 120 universities while Caracas has about 15 universities and all of Venezuela about 50 universities. Venezuelan economic and cultural development has been slower than here in the U.S.
What is the reason for this? basically the different origins of our two societies. Venezuela is a society made up of Spaniards, Blacks and Indians. One of our best humorists, Jose Ignacio Cabrujas, once said only half in jest that Spaniards did not like to work; Indians did not see any need to work and Blacks felt that they should not work since, as slaves, they could not enjoy the product of their labor. To make matters worse Venezuela has been blessed or cursed with abundant petroleum, a source of wealth that takes less than 0.5 per cent of the working population to produce while the other 99.5 percent mostly work at trying to grab a piece of the cake.
While in the U.S. many came to stay, in Latin America Spaniards went to conquer, to look for mineral riches. Early society developed a mining camp mentality with a poorly developed sense or permanence. Our Spanish heritage included the obedience to King and Church, disdain for manual work and a terror of being and looking poor.
2.
Venezuela looks on the Atlantic Ocean to the north and is part of the Andean region to the west and of the Amazon Basin to the south. Possibly as a result of this geographic diversity Venezuelans tend to be outgoing and love to get involved in other people’s affairs. They love to rush and try to save a damsel in distress, even if the lady needs no help. In the best of cases this has led Venezuelans to go abroad to liberate other countries. In the worst of cases this has led Venezuelans to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries. In the XIX century Bolivar liberated five countries from Spanish rule and all of these countries had, at some point or other, a Venezuelan born president. Even in Chile, way to the south, a Venezuelan is one of the main national heroes. He was not a man on horseback but an educator, Andres Bello, the founder of the Universidad de Santiago and its president for over 20 years.
More recently Venezuela has had success in less important matters: we have had eleven world beauty queens, which shows that we have the most beautiful women in the world or, at least, the best plastic surgeons. At one point in time, during the 1960’s, we had four world boxing champions. We have had two major league batting champions. In particular we are very proud of a program called El Sistema, through which some 200,000 young Venezuelans, mainly from the poorer sectors, learn to play classical music. This program has been in activity for some 35 years and one of its distinguished alumni, 28 year-old Gustavo Dudamel, is now the Director of Los Angeles Philharmonic.
3.
On the negative side we have had our share of authoritarian regimes. We get a dictator every 40 years or so. It is almost like a Yellowstone-like political “old faithful”. Our good guys, politicians, poets and writers, frequently die in exile while the bad guys mostly die at home in their beds.
Recent Venezuelan history, the last fifty years, 1958-2009, can be divided in three stages: good, bad and worse. The good stage, 1958-1973, saw Venezuela, helped along by a magnificent, one million- strong European immigration, emerge as a political and economic showcase in the hemisphere. Those were the days of Romulo Betancourt and John F. Kennedy working together for democracy against military strongmen.
By 1974 Venezuela had a HDI higher than Chile’s, Mexico’s or South Korea’s. That year something terrible happened to us. Oil prices tripled and Venezuela became awash in oil money. Everybody went crazy, including the government. It was like a big cocktail party where even the bartenders got drunk. A “Great Venezuela”’ development program became a Latin version of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”, with equally disastrous results. After many grandiose and ill-planned projects of aluminum, steel and land reform failed, Venezuela ended up in debt. From then on, until 1998, we had a succession of mediocre governments, each one a little worse than its predecessors. This long decline into mediocrity was characterized by corruption and deterioration of public services. As elections approached in 1998 most Venezuelans wanted a radical change in the manner the country was being run. This change took place with the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998. No one thought that it could be for the worse but it was. The third stage, 1998- 2009 has been, so far, our worst nightmare as a nation. Let me tell you about it.
4.
Hugo Chavez is a pupil of Fidel Castro, something he says openly. From day one he adopted the three strategies that Castro put together in the 1960’s: consolidation of political power at home; the hemispheric expansion of its socialist ideology, and the structuring of a global alliance against the United States.
In developing these three strategies he has been helped by some $800 billion in income during his ten years in power. With this significant mass of money he has followed a policy of handouts, both at home and abroad. In a country with 50 percent poverty a massive program of handouts which includes free food, transport, medical attention and even direct cash transfers, has generated much goodwill for the regime and will keep doing so until money runs out. In Latin America, where countries are mostly small and accountability low money handouts from Chavez to Morales, Correa, and Ortega and to presidential candidates in Peru, Argentina, Paraguay, Mexico and El Salvador served to establish a somewhat shaky “socialist” alliance. I say shaky because money does not buy sincere love.
5.
How have these strategies worked?
Staying in power has, so far, worked. However, after ten years he has not been able to install a socialist regime in the country and only controls half of the population. By preaching hatred and class struggle he has split the country into two irreconcilable halves. There are no adversaries in Venezuela any longer, just enemies. As oil income has declined, he is losing followers. To keep in power he has structured a fascist, military-driven regime that has to rely, more and more on repression. This can only work for s short while.
The creation of a socialist hemisphere is not working well.
Right now he only can claim three unconditional followers: Morales, Ortega and Correa, while he reports to Fidel Castro. However, the rest of the hemisphere looks on him with increasing distrust, in spite of the $30 billion he has handed out or promised all over the region.
In creating a global alliance against the United States he has been moderately successful.
He is now a firm ally of Iran, Zimbabwe, Libya, Belarus, Syria and Cuba, all rogue states. He is aligned with the terrorist groups Hezbollah and FARC. Islamic terrorists obtain Venezuelan documents to enter the U.S. High-level Venezuelan bureaucrats have been identified as collaborating with terrorists. Even within the U.S he has made some inroads, in the academic sector, in Hollywood and among some intellectuals. He has acquired more than six billion dollars in weapons from Russia and other countries, in order to be able to create a hemispheric military crisis, if this suits his plans.
6.
A Five-year outlook: two main scenarios.
In one scenario Hugo Chavez stays in power due to his oil income and makes inroads in the hemisphere due to the passivity of his ideological adversaries. The OAS remains ineffective and the U.S. government considers him a harmless nuisance. Venezuela becomes pretty much the new Cuba of Latin America and Chavez replaces Fidel Castro as the leader of the anti-American alliance in the region. U.S. position is pragmatic: “As long as we get his oil we are OK”. Probability: 60 percent.
In the second scenario Hugo Chavez weakens politically due to his numerous errors in domestic and foreign policies which lead to much popular protests at home and to loss of followers abroad. The U.S. takes a more pro-active attitude against his regime and accuses him of open interventionism, cooperation with terrorists and of complicity with drug trafficking. The combination of pressures from other countries in the region and of domestic protests force him out of power somewhere in 2010 or 2011. Probability: 40 percent.
7.
The dilemma of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America is one between pragmatism and principles. Pragmatism often yields short-term success while principles tend to yield long-term victory. To tolerate undemocratic regimes because they serve the short-term U.S, interests have led to a steady erosion of U.S. influence in Latin America. The cases of Honduras and Venezuela illustrate this dilemma very well. In both countries the U.S. government seems to be following the wrong path.
8.
A word about soft power: U.S. creative efforts to establish a very strong cultural, educational presence in Latin America will probably be much more successful than trying to accommodate authoritarian leaders only because they serve short-term national interests. The U.S. is not admired in Latin America for its political pragmatism but for its adherence to the principles and values that created the nation.
Gustavo, I pretty much agree with what you've written. However this comment "The third stage, 1998- 2009 has been, so far, our worst nightmare as a nation" is, quite simply, not true.
ResponderEliminarYou know our history, Chavez is far from being the worst thing that has happened, when you compare it with 100 years of civil war, Boves, Gomez, Perez Jimenez, etc.
Hi Alek:
ResponderEliminarThis is, of course, highly debatable. You might very well be right, although we were not there at the times of Boves, Zamora, Gomez, etc. Let's say that this period, 1998-2009, has been one of our worst nightmares as a nation.
Mу spouse and I stumblеd over herе by a
ResponderEliminardifferent web ρage and thought I might check
things out. I like what Ӏ seе so now i am folloωіng you.
Look foгωard to looking аt your wеb page again.
mу web-sіte :: payday loans online
Check out my blog ; Online Payday oan