Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been called "Fidel Castro
with oil." Now that description can be elaborated to -- "Fidel
Castro with popular referendum." Unless charges of massive voter
fraud by the Venezuelan are upheld, we are now stuck with another
autocratic ruler in Latin America, an anti-American demagogue and
an ally of Castro - with a democratic mandate.
With the recall petition against him rejected by 58 percent of
Venezuela's voters, Mr. Chavez pulled off a calculated gamble. He
is now here to stay, possibly for a third presidential term. On the
losing side in this equation, we find the anti-Chavez opposition
and U.S. foreign policy in the region.
By supporting the recall vote in the first place, the U.S.
government placed its bet on a loss for Chavez. This was a
reasonable and understandable decision, given the Venezuelan
leader's record as an international troublemaker and supporter of
terrorist groups, among them, the vicious Colombian FARC. He has
shown scant respect for democratic institutions, but wields
international clout because of Venezuela's oil reserves, the fifth
largest in the world. The conundrum for U.S. officials will be how
to adjust U.S. policy in the region to minimize the damage.
Six years of Chavez demagoguery has totally polarized Venezuelan
society. Given Venezuela's political turmoil over the past two
years, February's soaring levels of unrest and demonstrations in
Caracas, which left 11 people dead in clashes with police, and
given the resentment caused by Mr. Chavez's record of failed
populist policies, his easy recall victory was stunning, to say the
least.
Some 2.5 million Venezuelans had risked everything to sign the
recall petition at great personal risk of harassment. The National
Election Council, packed by Mr. Chavez with supporters, initially
rejected one million signatures for failing to include sufficient
personal data. Even fingerprinting was required. In May, under
international pressure, Mr. Chavez changed tack and agreed to allow
the recall to go forward.
One reason was surely that the recent spike in crude oil prices
helped Mr. Chavez buy his way back into favor with Venezuela's
poor, with a fund of $1.7 billion set aside for the purpose. And in
return for oil deliveries to Cuba, he was able to import numbers of
Cuban doctors, nurses and teachers to staff clinics and schools.
All of which are time-honored populist practices, undermining an
opposition that had no such resources at its disposal. And let's
not forget, Chavez commands control of the electronic media.
In the end, furthermore, Chavez calculated that even if he did lose
the referendum, he could run again in the presidential election
that would be held 30 days later, in which he would probably defeat
a disorganized Venezuelan opposition. All this maneuvering rested
on shaky constitutional ground, but that has never presented an
obstacle for this man.
So where do we go from here? International scrutiny of the
election result is certainly the first order of business. With new
voting machines, a record turnout and agonizingly long waits at
polling stations, where hours had to be extended beyond 8 pm, the
voting process certainly had problems. So far, two members of the
National Election Council have refused to sign onto the result,
calling into question the fairness of the process. If fraud is
proven, the U.S. government should demand a recount and threaten
international punitive measures like cutting off World Bank loans
to Venezuela.
If the result stands, however, we must continue to work with the
Venezuelan opposition. Given Mr. Chavez's penchant for running
roughshod over political and legal processes, a robust democratic
opposition will still be needed to prevent his worst excesses. That
would at least be different from Cuba, where the political
opposition speaks from jail cells, if at all.
And finally, though Mr. Chavez has yet to make good on his
occasional threats to cut off oil to the United States, it would be
much in the U.S. interest to minimize the 15 percent of its crude
oil imports that it gets from Venezuela. We need to diversify.
Alternative oil suppliers in this hemisphere with more reliable
governments include Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, and Mexico. (And let's
not forget the Alaskan Nature and Wildlife Refuge.) Moreover, we
should help dependent Latin American and Caribbean nations
diversify their own energy sources to minimize Mr. Chavez's clout.
Depriving Mr. Chavez of his life-blood will curtail the damage he
can do in the future.
Helle Dale is director of Foreign Policy and Defense Studies at
the Heritage Foundation. E-mail: [email protected].
First appeared in The Washington Times