Thursday, April 03, 2008

Venezuelan dependence

Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Senator and now head of the Senate Republican Policy Committee (though fortunately not on any foreign policy-related committees) argues that Venezuela should perhaps be put on the State Department terrorist list. This is not remarkable, since a number of conservatives have argued the same, but she has her own special twist. Chávez threatens to cut off oil, but let’s call his bluff because if he cuts off exports to the U.S., he will be overthrown by the Venezuelan military.

While imposing additional sanctions on Venezuela could cause adverse short-term economic consequences, Mr. Chavez needs us more than we need him. Venezuelan oil has an extremely high-sulfur content, which requires special refineries to turn it into gasoline. Most of those refineries are in the Southern U.S. along the Gulf Coast. In short, Venezuela would have a very hard time finding other buyers if it loses its most important customer.

And with the increased willingness of Venezuela’s military to stand up to Mr. Chavez — not to mention his sinking popularity among the public — the United States is one customer Mr. Chavez can’t afford to lose.

I don’t recall the last time I saw this type of argument made so bluntly by a U.S. official. Or made so gleefully.

15 comments:

Paul 10:55 AM  

"I don’t recall the last time I saw this type of argument made so bluntly by a U.S. official. Or made so gleefully."

Why not be gleeful? Chavez has aligned himself with the absolute scum of humanity. The world would be a better place without him and the poison he is spreading across Latin America and beyond.

So much the better if we could be rid of him without firing a shot. We're under no obligation to buy his oil, but those who whine about the evil gringos plundering their resources will wake up to the "be careful of what you wish for" reality.

Anonymous,  1:12 PM  

Paul,

Please google "Inter-American Democratic Charter," the terms of which we have sworn to uphold.

I'm certainly no fan of Chávez, but any attempt to remove him from office absent his losing an election is wrong and illegal.

Anonymous,  2:41 PM  

Randinho is correct. We can let the Chavez situation take care of itself. The war in Iraq and the Bay of Pigs are lessons still yet to be learned by Americans about nationbuilding and blowback.

The Venezuela situation draws close parallels to the USSR's situation in the early 1980s. Oil prices were through the roof, and the USSR was stuck in an economy of exporting low value-added resources (oil and gas) to the West in order to sustain themselves. Similar to the USSR, the reason for Chavez's dependence on US purchase power is due to lack of capital investment in domestic technological industries such as refineries. So, if oil prices come to decline as they did during the 1985-86 energy crisis, then we will see an even more dire situation for Venezuela and a more relaxed Chavez.

Almost no one will disagree that Chavez is a radical, but I think he knows his role and the nuts and bolts of his oil economy.

Boli-Nica 2:48 PM  

Oppenheimer quotes an oil expert who says about the same thing. Venezuelan oil and refined products can be made up.

Chavez needs the cash, and he needs US imports. Plus, there would be hell to pay from the Boli-burgesia if they can't go to Miami and buy Hummers.

Paul 3:02 PM  

"I'm certainly no fan of Chávez, but any attempt to remove him from office absent his losing an election is wrong and illegal."

Boycotting the oil he keeps threatening to cut off is not the same as actively removing him from office. I don't see any moral imperative to keep paying him the blood money he uses to promote his barbaric revolution. If there's any international "illegality" to it, too bad. The United States is a sovereign nation. It's our right to say we won't fund our enemies.

Paul 3:05 PM  

Jordanvandyne,

I don't know what the war in Iraq or the Bay of Pigs have to do with a sovereign nation's right to choose with whom it does business.

And I'd say, given PDVSA's rapidly declining production numbers, it's highly disputable whether Chavez "knows his role and the nuts and bolts of his oil economy."

Anonymous,  3:29 PM  

Paul,

With respect, don't be disingenuous. You're correct that we are not obliged to purchase Chavez's oil, but if he is overthrown in a military coup we are obliged under the IADC not to recognize the coup and demand for his return to office.

Anonymous,  3:42 PM  

It usually helps Chavez when US officials run their mouths like this.

Paul 5:05 PM  

"if he is overthrown in a military coup we are obliged under the IADC not to recognize the coup and demand for his return to office."

You mean like we did in 2002? But even if you're correct, a Chavez without blood money is not a Chavez to worry about. He'd just be a fat thug in Caracas screwing over his own people.

Anonymous,  5:23 PM  

You mean like we did in 2002?

Yes, as a matter of fact, after the initial glee, Colin Powell reminded the president of his obligations:

We, the Inter-American Community, convene here today in Special Session to underscore our strong support for the people of Venezuela and for their 44-year democracy.

We condemn the blows to constitutional order that Venezuela has suffered. We look to the legal authorities of Venezuela to hold accountable all who violated the law both before and during the recent crisis. And we call upon President Chavez to follow with deeds his new pledges of national reconciliation and respect for democratic principles.


Always best to dig a little deeper. And yes, I am correct.

As much as I dislike Chávez, I condemn any attempt by anyone to remove him from power via a coup.

boz 8:01 PM  

You're wrong on this one Paul. A military coup anywhere in Latin America is a step backwards for the region. Nobody should be hoping for that option.

Paul 4:04 PM  

randinho, boz,

"Always best to dig a little deeper. And yes, I am correct."

Ok, so we issue some perfunctory statement and then go on about our business. I'm cool with that.

"A military coup anywhere in Latin America is a step backwards for the region. Nobody should be hoping for that option."

Reyes' laptop demonstrates just how many steps backwards Chavez is for the region. I think it's highly disputable whether Fatboy in his present position is worse for Latin America than his removal from power.

But again, he'd be much less to worry about if we simply stopped supplying him with the $ he uses to
spread mischief across the region. Perhaps he can survive that, or perhaps he'd hang from the gallows.
Either way, problem solved. I don't see why we are obligated to sell him the rope to try and hang us, and freedom seeking people elsewhere, with. We should do it if we can make up the difference in oil somewhere else.

Anonymous,  4:54 PM  

Ok, so we issue some perfunctory statement and then go on about our business. I'm cool with that.

It's much more strict than that. If Chávez were overthrown in a coup, recognition of those who overthrew him would violate the IADC.

Anonymous,  11:56 PM  

Paul,

The contrasts draw to U.S. interventions that have gone awry. Highly desputable? How highly? There's such a thing as protectionism as regards to oil prices and supply and demand. Just take a look at OPEC operations. Keeping oil production down, if purposive, could be a reason why oil prices have skyrocketed.

clash 1:56 PM  

Hopefully he might get some barrels for the newly elected Maoists comrades in Nepal.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP