 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 24 - 30 August 2000 Issue No. 496 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 24 - 30 August 2000 Issue No. 496
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Befriending the bêtes
By Hisham El-NaggarHe has done the unthinkable. Hugo Chàvez, recently elected on a comfortable majority as president of an economically battered Venezuela, has defied the United States and become the first foreign head of state to visit Iraq's Saddam Hussein since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. The State Department did all it could to pressure, warn, and discourage him, but Chàvez went ahead anyway.
He then met with Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in an apparent bid to break a one-week record of courtesy calls to Washington's bêtes noires. Chàvez made sure to reprimand the US for meddling in Venezuela's internal affairs, insisting it was his own business whom he visited. And indeed it is. Chàvez's reason for dropping in on Hussein and Gaddafi is mainly business-related. The price of oil, Venezuela's most valued export, could drop precipitously if OPEC does not maintain its precarious production discipline.
A short visit to Hussein, who is smarting under a nine-year oil embargo which shows no sign of softening, does no harm. And if Venezuelans perceive their president as snubbing an irate Department of State, that can only boost his popularity. It sounds much like the 1940s, when Argentina's Juan Domingo Perón won his country's presidency by a landslide, in part because he skillfully exploited the US ambassador's open hostility toward him.
Of course, times have changed. Washington now makes a point of reserving its critical pronouncements for allegations of human rights violations. And relatively few Latin American leaders -- Cuba's Fidel Castro excluded -- care to pick a fight with their mighty northern neighbour. Indeed, it looked as if the US had found an equilibrium in its dealings with Latin America. The end of the cold war made it unnecessary to champion anti-Communist strongmen. And US interests in the region now hinge on mainly two items: free markets and the war on drugs.
The insistence on liberalisation is, of course, related to the outcome of the cold war. As Washington sees it, the world must now conclude that there is no alternative to laissez-faire economics. And Latin America, once known as the US' backyard, is expected to chime in.
Protectionism goes into the dustbin. Bring down the trade barriers and stop subsidising home-grown industry. If that means American goods come pouring in -- as often they do -- so much the better. And if it means greater income inequality -- as it not infrequently does -- well, that is an unfortunate by-product which greater deregulation will surely remedy. The war on drugs is another American concern, and Latin America is a key battlefield. A sizeable portion of drugs sold in the US is believed to have been cultivated and processed in Latin America. Hence, Washington's intense pressure to combat drug production, notably in Bolivia and Peru, and processing, notably in Colombia. Much US aid to the region is also tied to energetic efforts to extradite the more notorious cartel leaders.
Beyond that, the US has eschewed direct interference in domestic Latin affairs. By all means, let democracy rule. At any rate, figures Washington, most leaders are either in favour of free markets or end up falling into step once they appreciate the potential benefits -- not least to themselves -- of privatisations galore. Of course, appropriate criticism has to be mouthed if human rights violations or electoral fraud get out of hand. But even so, the gringos are treading cautiously. Witness their recent decision not to condemn Peru's Alberto Fujimori for his flagrant electoral fraud.
And so it looks as if US-Latin American relations were headed for a new era. For the first time since John F Kennedy talked about an "Alliance for Progress", many Latin Americans take US talk of economic co-operation, and perhaps customs union à la NAFTA -- the North American Free Trade Area to which Mexico belongs -- rather seriously.
Perhaps Argentina's ex-President Carlos Menem, who talked about "carnal relations" with the United States, was going a bit too far; his countrymen certainly seem to have thought so. But most Latin American presidents talk about the need for good relations with the great Republic of the North, and few can hide their interest in preferential access to the lucrative US market.
Then came Chàvez with his rude reminder of the good old days, when slinging mud at the US was the surest way of currying favour with voters. Of course, one must not overlook the fact that Venezuela is the biggest exporter of oil to the US. So Washington, eager not to rely too heavily on Middle Eastern oil, has reason not to get too angry with Chàvez. Nor can Caracas afford to break away from the US, its major export market.
This is why most observers interpret Chàvez's foray into Middle Eastern diplomacy as a fleeting attempt to consolidate his position in OPEC. Most analysts expect no major changes; Venezuelan oil will continue flowing into the Gulf of Mexico for delivery to the gringos, US peevishness over Chàvez's new compañeros notwithstanding. Still, Chàvez's stunt was not entirely in vain. To most of his countrymen, the episode will have proved highly entertaining, if somewhat low on substance. Rather like the soap operas of which Venezuelans are so fond.
