Right-Wing Diplomacy

I guess I really don't know what else to say about Pat Robertson's nuttiness that hasn't already been said, but it is worth pointing out this post by Adam Isacson about Donald Rumsfeld's recent attempt to alienate more of Latin America gather support in Latin America against Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro. Isacson counters the argument that Chavez and Castro are helping fuel the unrest in Ecuador and Bolivia and he also offers some specific recommendations, a couple of which I'll mention:

Keep your mouth shut and don’t take the bait. In a letter to Rumsfeld last week, Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter wrote, “I suggest it may be very helpful to U.S. efforts to secure Venezuela's co-operation in our joint attack on drug interdiction if the rhetoric would be reduced.” That’s good advice. Chávez and Fidel Castro thrive on public criticism from U.S. officials. Whenever Rumsfeld or another senior official criticizes him in public, Chávez invokes the stereotype of the big bully to the north, keeps his supporters on the alert and diverts the debate away from legitimate concerns like militarization, arms purchases, curbs on the media or persistent unemployment. By contrast, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earned praise for avoiding public name-calling during her April trip to the region. [my emphasis]

I couldn't agree more. Nothing makes Chávez happier than when Washington is demonizing him. Nothing motivates his supporters even more.

Cut back dependence on imported oil. It’s ironic that even Hugo Chávez’s biggest detractors are increasing his revenue every time they fill up their SUVs – especially now, as oil closes in on $70 per barrel. If the Bush Administration really loathed and feared Chávez that much, it would reduce the flow of dollars to him by investing far more in developing alternative fuels and encouraging fuel conservation. Since absolutely none of that is happening, we can conclude that the administration’s concerns about Chávez and the spread of “radical populism” don’t go that far.

While I will acknowledge that there are some sweeping generalizations in there, I think that by and large Isacson is right. As much as Chávez complains about Washington (and Pat Robertson's lunacy will not help), he still needs to sell oil there (although China is looking appealing to him now) in order to finance his projects. As much as Bush complains about Chávez, with Washington's antipathy for conservation and reckless spending, a source of oil about three hours from Houston is very appealing.

It's a match made in hell.

Comments

[John Ellis]

The US/Chavez antipathy is all part a serious collapse of US influence in South America that has passed largely un-noticed because of our problems in other parts of the world. Social inequalities have resulted in a steady stream of left leaning governments being installed while some ham handed US bullying on issues like the International Criminal Court and AID's hasn't helped. For the first time in history a US candidate for the presidency of the Organization of American States has been rejected and it's looks highly likely that very left leaning candidate will win the Mexican presidency next year. Basically our back yard is in a mess.

All the speculation about Venezuela not selling oil to the USA betrays a lack of knoowledge of how the process works. Oil is traded on an international exchange like stocks where it goes depends on who is willing to pay the highest price. That is not to say that Chavez could not make waves and the fact that the USA was implicated in a coup against him two years ago hardly makes it surprising he is not very favorably inclined towards us. He also claims the US was involved in a plot to assassinate him although unlike the coup involvement there is no evidence of this. However, when GOP fatheads like Robertson start making comments like this it all adds fuel to the fire.

[boz]

In case you missed it (or wondered why your traffic spiked), CNN mentioned this post from your blog this afternoon. Congrats.

[Randy Paul]

All the speculation about Venezuela not selling oil to the USA betrays a lack of knoowledge of how the process works

You do know that Citgo is owned by PDVSA, don't you? So while I'm sure some Venezuelan oil is sold on the open market, I would imagine that a great deal goes through CITGO:

CITGO This is the main PDVSA’s affiliate abroad. It’s located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. More than a million crude oil barrels per day are refined through the refinery network that has been opened in the United States to supply the American domestic market. The network includes 8 refineries: Corpus Christi and Houston, in Texas; Lemont, in Illinois; Paulsboro in New Jersey; Saint Croix, Virginia; Lake Charles and Chalmette in Louisiana, and Savannah in Georgia. CITGO also owns more than 13,000 branded retail outlets in the United States and Puerto Rico, which represent 10% of the market. These figures place the affiliate among the first five main gasoline distributors in the United States, the fourth largest jet fuel distributor and the largest distillate distributor.

Which I think merely underscores my point that Chávez is not likely to cut off his nose to spite his face.

Citgo -a PDVSA affiliate in the United States- paid 500 million dollars in taxes and generated revenues estimated in 640 million dollars by the end of 2003.

Boz, that explains it. Thanks!