How should the U.S. treat Chávez?
On February 28th, my partner and I handed a memo to the “National Security Council†– which is the format our class, led by Arturo Valenzuela, Clinton’s former special advisor on Latin American affairs, is styled after – composed of three options for U.S. policy toward Venezuela. Yesterday, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez sent 10 battalions of the armed forces to the border with Colombia. This came in response to a Colombian incursion into Ecuador, in which 17 members of the FARC, a Colombian revolutionary militia that has earned “terrorist†status, were killed. Fortunately, our memo is still relevant.
The memo began with the following premise: “An opportunity to bolster U.S. interests in Venezuela may have arisen due to Venezuela’s economic disarray, Chávez’s domestic vulnerability after losing a referendum to consolidate his control of [the Government of Venezuela], and the freezing of $12 billion in assets of PDVSA, the state oil company.â€Â  I’ll quickly explain this assessment.
Although the Venezuelan economy has been prodigious in recent years, high oil prices have concealed the catastrophic effect of Chávez’s economic and fiscal policies (featuring: exchange and price controls, an overvalued currency, and decreasing oil output). Evidence of the damage is manifest in food shortages, rising inflation, and a terrible crime rate. The Economist predicts that the Venezuelan economy will grow just 5% this year, and 3.7% in 2009.Â
In December, 2007, Chávez lost a referendum that would have amended the 1999 Constitution to, among other things, end presidential term limits.  The ‘no’ vote was championed by a loose coalition of oppositionists, including student groups, the urban middle class, the Catholic Church, and business groups. Even some significant regime supporters came out against Chávez. His loss imparted momentum to a fairly weak political opposition that Chávez seeks to recapture prior to the regional and local elections coming up later in 2008. Meanwhile, the freezing of $12 billion of PDVSA’s assets, the result of a lawsuit brought by Exxon Mobil, is a serious problem for a country that lacks investment its oil infrastructure. Even OPEC doesn’t believe Venezuelan production claims of 3 million b/d in oil; it has the Venezuelan’s quota at 2.5 million b/d (barrels per day). Aside from being an oil company, PDVSA, thanks to Chávez, provides many Venezuelans with public services. When the oil boom ends, that $12 billion in frozen assets is really going to be missed.
Given these constraints, my partner and I proposed three options for dealing with Venezuela: engagement, containment, and confrontation (only in the case of an oil embargo against the U.S. or a military attack on a Venezuelan neighbor).Â
The engagement option was based on idea that Chávez needs an exit strategy.  We felt that Chávez is unlikely to beg the U.S. for mercy. If the U.S. were to offer him a way back into the hemispheric order - in exchange for some serious signs of behavioral reform – then he may just be willing to take it. After all, Chávez is an elected leader and if the Venezuelan government collapses, we don’t know what it will be replaced with.
The containment option was essentially to continue what we are doing now, but this hasn’t really worked. Our allies in the region have been hard pressed to join the U.S. in isolating Chávez because the U.S. is so unpopular in the eyes of their citizens. This is not to suggest that the U.S. needs to be “popular,†but we do need to have enough clout to make it within the interests of other countries to do what is in our interest. But siding with the U.S. is bad politics throughout most of Latin America. Our containment option also called for increasing democracy and economic assistance for Latin allies to create a ‘reward’ for being on the U.S.’s good side. The Bush administration’s 2008 budget request for foreign assistance to Latin America has been slashed, and much of what remains is earmarked for counternarcotics and security training.
Finally, the confrontation option was designed to prepare the U.S. for a dip in oil imports and the possibility of a Venezuelan military incursion. On the latter issue, we thought the U.S. should be prepared for an airstrike on Venezuelan military targets if Chávez attempts to invade either Guyana or Colombia. Venezuela has a longstanding boarder dispute with Guyana (it actually claims ownership of a good chunk of its resource-laden neighbor), and plenty of tension with Colombia. I’d be shocked if Bush didn’t have a similar plan sitting in his desk drawer: Venezuela has imported $4.6 billion worth of arms and military equipment since 2006.Â
Given that Chávez has a financial crisis looming and no exit strategy, we should not be surprised that he’s flexing his muscles on the Colombian border right now. As President Bush knows, wartime offers a number of advantages to a sitting president. For Chávez, the advantages are far more fantastic. He can augment his decree powers by calling a state of emergency, silence his political opposition, and, perhaps, find a cause around which he can unite his military. He can also deflect domestic political and economic pressures by blaming Colombia and the U.S. for Venezuela’s increasingly precarious footing. If he’s lucky, maybe he can convince some worried country or international institute to pay him to take the soldiers back to the barracks.Â
Does Chávez’s military maneuver yesterday render option 1, “engagement,†anachronistic? If this option does actually exist in the Bush administration’s policy quiver, the situation would have to die down before it could be employed. So far, it appears that the administration is ignoring the threat from Chávez, which I consider a wise move (yes, I just agreed with the Bush administration).  At present, Chávez is little more than a mouth with an overdrawn bank account. His armed forces are weak and divided, and I’d be shocked if a rebellion doesn’t occur were Chávez to attack. Someone in the Venezuelan military must realize, if Chávez doesn’t himself, that Bush and Cheney would relish the opportunity to bomb that place. They are probably swimming in a pool of their own drool right now, just waiting for Chávez to breach the Colombian border.Â
Greg Sanders on 03 Mar 2008 at 8:22 pm #
Makes sense to me.
I tend to think it’s a good thing that the coup attempt against Chavez failed. Seems to me there’s an excellent chance he’ll leave office both personally and ideologically discredited. Of course it’s easier to say that now that his referendum failed (and he acknowledged its failure).
My pet theory is that elections are not just a way of communicating with and replacing those in power. They also may serve as a learning experience to shape the norms of the general population. Coups or excessive outside intervention interrupt that learning process while providing a short term benefits in terms of leader selection.
Of course if a democratically elected leader takes Putin’s path and prevents truly contested elections the process is also interrupted. So, no guarantees.
andrew g. mandelbaum on 04 Mar 2008 at 4:24 pm #
As a democrat, I’d agree that the coup’s failure was a good thing. Coups against democratic regimes are never good, regardless of who is replacing who. They undermine the political system when, in most countries, the fundamental problem is that the political system and its institutions are too weak. Thus, coups don’t solve problems - they only make problems worse.
The Bush administration’s behavior in the wake of the coup was unacceptable. The U.S. should not have even considered accepting it. Sure, Chavez was a punk to begin with, but that experience demonstrated to him that the U.S. was after his head. Bush tried to make it up to him afterwards, even joining a coalition called “Friends of Venezuela,” but these efforts clearly didn’t work. The world could very well be a different place if the U.S. did not accept the coup.
Your point about Putin is well taken, but I’d argue that even that situation, if transported to a country like Venezuela, is preferable to a coup. We’re getting quite hypothetical now, but we’re better off trying to make a democratically elected autocrat more democratic than we are an unelected autocrat more democratic. At least there is a history of free and fair elections and oppositionist political parties in the first scenario (by virtue of the country having been a ‘democracy’ at some point in time).
Getting back to Chavez, I find that the mechanisms he has used to consolidate his authority differ little than those used by Venezuela’s previous leaders. This is significant because Chavez is working under the 1999 Constitution, while the others were governed by the 1961 Constitution. Chavez, like his predecessors, uses the ‘decentralized public administration’, consisting of state-run organizations like PDVSA, to distribute rents and run social programs. The public institutions remain bloated and underused, just as they had before. Neither the parliament or its replacement, the national assembly, provide serious checks on the president; to the contrary, they encourage hyperpresidentialism as a result of the option to give the president decree powers.
So one would hope that people learn from elections, but Venezuelans tend to demand results, not processes. The Venezuelan political system will remain a mess until Venezuelans force their politicians to abide by ‘the rules of the game’ regardless of which rules these are.
Greg Sanders on 05 Mar 2008 at 6:59 am #
I do quite agree on the Putin case, I just think it’s the tougher argument of the two. I think I could easily make the Chavez case to someone who wasn’t committed to democratic means, I think I could do the Putin one, roughly along the lines you outlined, but I’d have to work for it a bit.
(Again assuming Putin transposed into Venezuela, it’s pretty easy to make even an unenlightened self-interest case against meddling much in Russian politics).
I didn’t actually know that much about Venezuela’s constitutional structure so thanks for that quick summary. Unfortunate that the new constitution didn’t prove much of an improvement
However, I think it is worth looking at the mechanism by which people come to care about ‘the rules of the game’ and not just results. I think one key step may be discrediting alternatives to the system such populist strongman and theocrats. In addition, as you say earlier coups makes things worse but I think democratic succession tends to make things better.
One of the really clever bits about democracy is that it allows the ruling party to act as a scapegoat for both the problems it caused and the problems that were beyond its control. Throwing the bums out, even when its not necessarily said bums fault, can be quite satisfying and can strengthen faith in the process.
Anyhow, I really need to find a good data set on democratic norms and start to test some of this speculation.