Getting to Know the Venezuelan Opposition

July 9, 2012 by 1 Comment

Daniel Crump @dannycru 

Image © Globovision

Later this year, the citizens of Venezuela will go to the polls to decide whether the Hugo Chavez era will continue for another six years. His opponent, Henrique Capriles, head of the Democratic Unity coalition (MUD), promises Venezuela social and political reform and a return to bosom of the International Community after years of suspicion and a stint in George Bush’s Axis of Evil.

Despite the clear battle lines currently being drawn by both candidates, Mr Capriles appears to be refusing to charge in head first into an absolute criticism of the President’s rule, instead preferring to score his opponent well on some issues whilst maintaining a ‘could do better’ approach to others. This may well be because of the nature of the Chavez years, at best a passionate, nationalist defence of the spirit of Simon Bolivar, and at worst, a couple of election results away from being the 21st Century’s most unpredictable dictatorship.

Thanks to the President’s media hegemony following a failed 2002 coup against him, Venezuelans are treated to daily Presidential addresses and regularly see scheduled television programming interrupted by speeches with no set time limit. This has no doubt permeated Venezuelan way of life to the extent that even Chavez’s opponents must struggle to visualise an MUD period of power. Being so used the familiar, even when not finding it favourable, has the effect of casting dark shadows over the alternative and this is something Hugo Chavez looks set to exploit. Perhaps wisely, Capriles stays firmly on the side of caution when voicing his desire for reform.

When it comes to Venezuelan policies on oil manufacturing, the opposition recognises that the largest state owned firm, PDVSA, has become a symbol of national pride, much in the same way as YPF has come to personify the credibility of the Argentinean state and its leader Christina Fernandez. Therefore, despite being more inclined to privatisation in principle, Capriles proposes to keep PDVSA in state hands whilst introducing a more professional and cost effective system of management, making the company ‘de-politicised’. This is in line with his wider vision for Venezuelan business, arguing that a sweeping wave of privatisation is not what the country currently needs, but promising to look at each case on its merits.

If Hugo Chavez has become synonymous with oil policy and wealth redistribution, Mr. Capriles has sighted education as his flagship policy. He has been vocal in praising the President for building more schools, along with more health centres, in the country’s most deprived areas, something the opposition leader promises to continue. However, he has called for a more professional approach to the running of new schools and aims to curb the high levels of corruption and political partisanship that has been an unfortunate side effect of Chavez’s social policies. Capriles sights education as the long-term solution to Venezuela’s high crime wave, the issue that most Venezuelans claim to worry most about.  Read more of this post

Filed under America, Democracy Tagged with , , , , , ,

It wasn’t supposed to be like this

April 24, 2012 by

Daniel Crump 

Image © Que Comunismo

Initially, South America’s near continent-wide economic expansion meant great advantages for the rest of the Western world. In the opening decade of the century, with Argentina largely at the mercy of the IMF, South America was led mostly by governments that the West could do business with. For better or worse for the people of South America, this meant that the West had stronger trading partners, a decline in drug related violence and yet another example of liberal, free-market economics becoming the default setting for any nation that wished to exist within the international community.

This was also a time when we knew how to differentiate the good guys from the bad. Across the border from Colombia, and 90 miles off the coast of Florida, lay Latin America’s answer to the Axis of Evil. With the menacing prospect of further international terrorism following September 11th, US President George W Bush was able to maintain a healthy distance between Pro and Anti US Latin America. Nowhere was this more evident than between neighbours Colombia and Venezuela. The Bush administration was able to manipulate this relationship by placing US military bases on Colombian soil which were, in the US’s own words, designed as a launch pad for military operations against Anti US Latin American Governments.  South American politics seemed to fit so neatly into the US world-view.

Fast forward to the present day and something rather unexpected seems to have taken place; South American governments are increasingly beginning to think for themselves. Last month’s Organisation of American States (OAS) Summit was the biggest indication yet of the diverging paths taken by South and North America. At the discussion table were measures such as the legalisation of the drugs trade, British claims over ‘Las Malvinas’ and Cuba’s absence from the summit talks. With better relations between Colombia and Venezuela and an increasing desire to settle internal matters through UNASUR rather than the OAS, South America is speaking with its own voice and making its own decisions. The most significant development of South American integration is surely the growing contribution of the Continent’s left-wing bloc.

South American Integration

During the Bush Administration it was clear that the OAS took the majority of decisions affecting the American region. The Organisation was largely designed to satisfy North American goals such as the fights against terrorism and the illegal drugs trade. Cuba was suspended from talks between 1962-2009 and there appears to be no pressing need to reinstate them.

Since then, both the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) have gained a more influential voice. ALBA stands for a rejection of trade liberalization and free trade agreements, preferring to project a vision of mutual economic aid transfers, bartering and social welfare. UNASUR is becoming ever more effective at curbing the influence of the US in South America by resolving the Colombian Venezuelan conflict and agreeing to prohibit US military bases in Colombia being used for military purposes outside of Colombian soil. Read more of this post

Filed under America, Culture, Economy, Europe, Foreign policy, Liberty, Tax and spend Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are you with U.S or against US?

April 15, 2012 by 2 Comments

Daniel Crump 

Image © eltiempo.com

Some may view the behaviour of the US secret service agents this week in Colombia as a further sign of the growing discontent between the US and the rest of Latin America. The sheer audacity of these professional individuals, tasked with securing the safety of President Obama, carries with it an ugly reminder of the disrespect that characterised US attitudes towards Latin Americans in a period of time thought to be long resigned to history.

A recurring theme at this year’s Organisation of American States (OAS) was the ever- growing divide between North and South America, ranging from issues such as the British claim over the Falkland Islands, to the de-criminalisation of the drugs trade. This is in line with the economic dissociation that has seen the decline of US influence in the region and the gains made by China as a result. Chile and Peru, along with Brazil, the economic powerhouse of the continent, now have closer trading links with the Chinese than the US, with Colombia and Argentina likely to follow suit. Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think-tank stated in a pre-summit report that ‘”Most countries of the region view the United States as less and less relevant to their needs and with declining capacity to propose and carry out strategies to deal with the issues that most concern them.”

For instance, South American leaders argue that the legalisation of drugs would put a large dent in the profits made by the trade and help to reduce drug related violence that has crippled South American economies and deprived them of much needed foreign investment. Predictably, any hopes of US enthusiasm for the policy were soon dashed, but Obama did concede that the United States is the region’s biggest consumer of illegal drugs and has a responsibility to reduce demand.

Also, on the 30th anniversary of the conflict, Argentina’s request for a negotiation of the Falkland Island’s sovereignty from Britain was supported by a handful of leaders including Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro who said ‘there should be no colonial possessions in our America’. Again, the US opposed this sentiment.

Perhaps most significant of all was the debate surrounding the makeup of the organisation itself. Rather unsurprisingly, Cuba was ostracised from proceedings as it has been since the birth of the OAS. A more surprising development was the Bolivian President Eva Morales’s claim that this ought to be the last OAS summit without Cuba. Latin America is largely united in their opposition to the US trade embargo of Cuba, and the absence of Castro provoked Ecuador to boycott the summit altogether. Read more of this post

Filed under America, Democracy, Economy, Foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,263 other followers