« On screen and in space | Main | Big talk, foregone conclusion »
May 19, 2005
Live and let live
I've long been confounded by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. He elicits unusually intense, polarized feelings among supporters and detractors alike, and these feelings are shared by many of the media outlets covering Venezuela. As a result it's tough to find sober, even-handed assessments of Chavez and his policies
In my view, one of the more reliable of the anti-Chavez media outlets is the Economist. Occasional cheekiness aside, the Economist has always provided a reliable, honest, well-written glimpse into the world of the center-right. Most of their Chavez reportage, while lacking a certain foaming intensity, has been rather predictably negative. I was a bit surprised, then, when I read the following assessment of U.S. policy toward Chavez:
So what should be done about Mr Chávez? The short answer is not much. The first point to understand about Venezuela's president, a former army officer, is that, like Mr Castro, he thrives on being Washington's bogeyman. For much of the past few years, American policy towards Venezuela has been run by junior officials who have appeared to flirt with regime change. In 2002, the United States failed to condemn, and may have connived in, a short-lived coup against Mr Chávez. That not only sent the wrong message in a region where democracy still needs to be nourished. It played into Mr Chávez's hands, giving him an excuse for repression.
This strikes me as a remarkably sober and altogether logical assessment, and it confirms my faith in the Economist. Chavez is undoubtedly popular among many Venezualan communities, and I don't think he needs an imperialist bogeyman in order to stay in power. But U.S. meddling, or even the impression thereof, only plays into Chavez's demagogic instincts. Ignoring Chavez might deprive him of some of the spotlight that he so craves, leaving him with less of an excuse for his military expenditures and autocratic inclinations.
It would be impossible for the United States to completely ignore Chavez, of course. Not only is he practically a neighbor, but he's one whose oil is vital for the U.S. economy. So by all means, the U.S. government and U.S. firms should continue to conduct fair and equitable business with Venezuela. As for Chavez? Just let him be. Maybe he'll act up in an attempt to garner attention. But without the United States as a clear provocateur, the subsequent international response would justifiably be more broad-based and multilateral.
But a non-interventionist U.S. policy in Latin America? Never gonna happen.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 10:10 PM to Americas
