Relations between Venezuela and the United States Essay

To create a speech/presentation approximately Venezuela- get together States relations, with a condense on the politics activity of Venezuelan chairperson Hugo Chavez. Topic Relations amidst Venezuela and the United States, with a focus on the Chavez administration. Purpose To be qualified to analyze the roots of the current state of Venezuela-United States relations as pointspring as its future, given the existence of the Chavez g e rattlingwherenment. To say that relations between Venezuela and the United States are very shaky is already an beneathstatement.This is because the foreign policy of the US in Latin the States is a rhetorically concealed coalescence between popular pick outions and imperial appointments (Landau 29). The US has a enormous accounting of overthrowing Latin American governments that show even the slightest hint of favoring the poor. As in brief as they get word ab kayoed a pro-poor Latin American leader, the US government would flex its polit ical, stinting and military muscles in instal to replace him or her with a pro-US head of state. The end of the Cold contend did not change this scenario.Since 1999, seven Latin American leaders were overthrown repayable to their pro-US stance. Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada resigned from the Bolivian presidency in 2005 due to massive popular revolts over his pro-US economic strategies. Paraguays Raul Cubas stepped blue in 1999 due to charges of corruption and pursuit in the assassination of Vice President Luis Maria Argana. Ecuadorian President Jamil Mahuad was toppled from power in 2000 because of his adherence to free trade (Landau 29). The regime of Perus Alberto Fujimori ended prematurely in 2000 mainly due to his bloody crushing of anti-US political dissent.The collapse of the Argentine economy in December 2001 because of neo-liberal policies resulted in popular revolts that obligate President Fernando de la Rua to resign (Landau 29). simply Venezuelas Hugo Chavez is a Lat in American leader that can be simply described as a Washington lapdog. His pro-poor policies earned him immense pry and support from the Venezuelan masses, three consecutive presidential terms and anguish from the White House. The relationship between the US and Latin America has traditionally been that of a master and a slave.Since its first arrival on Latin America in the 19th century, the US clearly wanted zip more(prenominal) from the continent but unlimited access to its natural resources (OBrien 180). that changing political realities in the twentieth century prompted the US to turn over this objective in a more subtle fashion. For nearly of the 20th century, therefore, the US projected itself to Latin America as the good neighbour (Gilderhus 71) an indispensable ally in the continents struggle against the slap-up Depression, the Axis Powers and Communism.But it was not until the postwar era that this good neighbor facade of the US became even more pronounced. Inten sifying Latin American patriotism in the 1950s threatened US political and economic interests in the continent. The US, needing all the resources and allies it could get in order to take exception the Soviet Union in the global contest known as the Cold War, looked for an explicate to intervene in Latin America. Thus, American policymakers associated nationalism and Communism (OBrien 181). This association between nationalism and Communism on the percent of American lawmakers is valid to a certain extent.Prevailing economic conditions during and like a shot after World War II led to the emergence of left-winger governance and labor combativeness throughout Latin America. In Mexico, brazil and Argentina, for instance, postwar economic recovery and programs promoting industrialization resulted in the growth of manufacturing workers from almost 50 to 60 percent. Increasing urban workforces, in turn, translated to bigger and more militant labor movements that called for better w orking conditions and greater economic benefits.Furthermore, commie parties in Cuba, Chile and Brazil obtained considerable gains in terms of rank and file and voter support (OBrien 182). The aforementioned developments did not invest well with Latin Americas elite, who were fearful that leftist politics and labor militancy would make them lose their firm hold over the continents politics and economy. They therefore took advantage of the reemerging anti-Communist militancy of the US, using it as an excuse to roll back political reforms, outlaw Communist parties and crack down on in parasitical unions (OBrien 182).The American government, meanwhile, rewarded them by bestowing on them the political and economic leadership of their respective countries. A bloody, CIA-engineered coup in 1973 toppled the socialist regime of Chiles Salvador Allende and ushered into power the pro-US Augusto Pinochet (Menjivar and Rodriguez 35). The US-backed Somoza dynasty ruled Nicaragua from 1937 to 19 79, robbing the plain blind and savagely suppressing all forms of legitimate political opposition (Leonard 1134).Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier became the dictators of Haiti from 1957 to 1986, living off munificent amounts of political and military aid from the US (Leonard 243). The dictatorship of the Dominican nations Rafael Trujillo lasted from 1930 to 1961, primarily due to his exploitation of US fears of Nazism during the thirty-something and Communism during the Cold War (Leonard 244). Although socialism in Latin America declined in the 1990s, certain economic developments in Venezuela led to its resurgence in the country. Venezuela had abundant oil resources, but its oil industry was developed at the expense of equally important non-oil industries.As a result, the value of the Bolivar fuerte was dependent on fluctuating oil prices. Dropping oil prices forced the Venezuelan government to take out foreign loans and to debauch the currency. Inflation ensued, plunging the Venezuelan economy into poverty (Reid 161). Since Chavez was first elected President in 1998, Venezuelas oil policy had represented a dramatic break from the medieval (Ellner and Salas 54). This was mainly because he used the countrys oil gain to come up with numerous social programs that were intended to help the most marginalized sectors of Venezuelan society (Ellner and Salas 54).One of Chavezs first programs was Plan Bolivar 2000, a civilian-military program that included road building, house construction, mass vaccinations, land reform, the get down of infant mortality rates, the implementation of a free state- subsidized healthcare musical arrangement and a system of free education up to the tertiary train (Peet and Hartwick 192). By the end of 2001, the aforementioned program led to an increase in primary school enrollment by 1 million students (Peet and Hartwick 193). Chavez maintain his administration by using oil as a nub of forging alliances with like-minded leader s.In 1999, he announced that the Venezuelan state-owned oil colour company PDVSA and the Brazilian state-run oil and gas giant Petroleo Brasileiro were reviewing plans of forming a larger joint oil company. The result of these plans would be Petrosur, an enterprise that was situated on the southern cone of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. Petrosur was intended to supply oil to countries under preferential financial terms, encourage large-scale infrastructure such as pipelines and refineries and coordinate oil distribution, exploration and processing.The profits of Petrosur would be used to subsidize social programs for education, healthcare and employment (Kozloff 105). Chavezs populist reforms earned him a second term in 2000 and a third in 2006. But his manner of using Venezuelas oil re servings did not sit well with Washington and the Venezuelan elite. Prior to Chavezs regime, Venezuela was the second largest provider of oil to the United States (Noreng 74). In addition, PDVSA was controlled by the Venezuelan elites (Ellner and Salas 122). Thus, it was no long-lasting surprising if these two parties joined forces in order to expel Chavez from power.On April 9, 2002, the CTV (Venezuelas largest trade union organization), Fedecamaras (Venezuelas largest business federation) and board members of the PDVSA carried out a general strike against Chavezs oil policies. Three long time later, CIA-backed elements of the Venezuelan armed forces staged a coup against him. The coup succeeded in temporarily ousting Chavez and replacing him with Fedecamaras president Pedro Carmona Estanga. Widespread popular protests, however, forced Estanga to resign from the presidency to make way for Chavez (Trinkunas 206). But the CTV, Fedecamaras and the PDVSA would not allow in themselves to be defeated.On December 2, 2002, they called for the resignation of Chavez by staging another(prenominal) general strike. The strike lasted for 63 days the aforementioned parties were forced t o in the long run call it off due to subsequent detrimental effects on the Venezuelan economy. The strike was say to have devastated the Venezuelan economy by costing the latter about 7. 6% of its GDP (Kohnstamm, Bao, Porup and Schechter 28). Venezuelan politics remained turbulent until Chavez consolidated his power by winning a 2004 referendum. Having obtained dangerous political support and immense oil-generated wealth, he then proceeded to strengthen pan-American socialism.He openly established strong political and economic ties with other left leaders in Bolivia, Argentina, Cuba, Uruguay, Chile and Brazil. Despite being ridiculed by chaparrals officials as Castros little buddy (Landau 30), Chavez won about 63% of the vote in Venezuelas 2006 national elections (Kohnstamm, Bao, Porup and Schechter 28). At present, it is very obvious that majority of the Venezuelan people continue to support Chavez. In February 2009, 54% of Venezuelans (ONeill n. pag. ) supported an amendment that would scrap presidential term limits in their country (Llana n. pag. ).Simply put, he would finally be allowed to run for the presidency in 2012. This development is ironic, considering that they rejected in 2007 a constitutional referendum which included the said issue. Moreover, Chavezs regime was recently criticized for its failure to address acute urban problems such as transport, crime and waste disposal (ONeill n. pag. ). But the very existence of Chavezs administration showed Latin Americans that it is possible for them to freely elect their own representatives, as well as choose the form of government which they deem appropriate (ONeill n.pag. ). His open defiance of Washingtons dictates turn up that a Third World nation, with sheer political will and iodin of the part of its citizenry, can actually assert itself to the powerful nation on earth. Through Chavez, Venezuela showed that democracy is not measured in terms of how long a leader stays in power. Rather, it is whether or not this head was in fact chosen by the people and would truly serve their interests.