The politics of credible threat
Thinking through Hugo Chávez’s recent threat to cut off oil exports to the United States, which he has made numerous times, it seems like a strategic mistake to make a threat that isn’t credible. Even the markets largely ignored him.
I can’t help but think there is a crying wolf angle to this situation. Unfortunately for Chávez, Venezuela remains heavily dependent upon the United States, which despite rhetoric has not changed significantly since Chávez first took office. Cutting off exports would hurt Venezuela much more than the United States, which would exacerbate already existing domestic political tensions.
Making threats you cannot follow up on ultimately leads to being ignored and taken less seriously, which then weakens Chávez politically. If he carries it out, I will eat my words, but it is hard to imagine.
Update: I hadn't seen Boz's post, which makes a very similar argument.
4 comments:
Noo need to eat your words. Chavez loves money.
It'd be awesome if he tried it. What's a thug like Chavez going to do when his bribe money dries up?
I think it's possible that some day he'll carry out his threat, but it really doesn't seem likely right at the moment.
I find it funny that oil markets reacted more to a random shooting in Nigeria today than they did President Chavez's comments. It says something about his credibility at this point.
Chavez yesterday:
“We do not have plans to stop sending oil to the United States,”
Apparently even he realized that the threat wasn't credible...
Post a Comment