Angelo Rivero Santos, the deputy chief of mission of the Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and Andrés Martinez, senior fellow at the New America Foundation, discuss recent political and economic trends in South America: Are Latin American nations moving toward neo-liberal free markets or a 21st century form of Bolivarian socialism? Why are relations between Venezuela and the U.S. perceived as being so bad?  How might U.S. relations with South and Central American nations change after Barack Obama or John McCain takes over as president in January 2009?

Chavez Doesn't Provide a Good Model

Point: Andrés Martinez

Dear Angelo,

I think Americans have a rather warped view of developments in Latin America; I wonder how things look from your vantage point at the Venezuelan Embassy. People in this country with a passing knowledge of the region talk as if the whole region has gone left, following your fearless comandante, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. From all the hand-wringing out there, you'd assume the champagne must flow pretty freely at your embassy, with all that celebrating over the decline of American influence, both political and economic.

***

FOR THE RECORD: The headline for an earlier version of this story read, "Which way, Central America?" Also, the question previously read, "Are Central American nations moving toward neo-liberal free markets or a 21st century form of Bolivarian socialism?"

***

But I wonder. Isn't that sketch a caricature, one partly driven by Americans' own view of how George W. Bush must play overseas, and partly driven by an overly narrow zero-sum view of Latin American politics (that stipulates that nations are either with us or against us)?

I think trends in Latin America are far less adverse to U.S. interests than conventional wisdom suggests. Indeed, this period will be looked at in retrospect when the Latin American left, which became ascendant as a reaction to the excesses and corruption of the neoliberal faith in the last decade, matured into a more democratic, economically responsible alternative. And no, I am not talking about your government, Angelo; but rather the governments of Luis Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Michelle Bachelet in Chile. In the long term, these social democratic Latin American leaders -- committed democrats who once stood up to military dictators -- will leave a far more lasting legacy than Chavez -- a military man whose dictatorial aspirations haven't abated -- and his hollow, demagogic project.

Throughout the continent, you have models of governance vying for influence: conservative pro-American ones like in Colombia, Mexico and much of Central America; social democratic administrations that respect the rule of law such as in Brazil and Chile; and what I might call the folkloric leftist authoritarianism of the Castro brothers, Chavez and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. I don't think this last model is all that interesting -- however entertaining Chavez's antics can be -- or sustainable as a model to emulate.

Again, what is happening in a place like Brazil is far more interesting. You have a lifelong labor activist leading the country, emphasizing his social policies without antagonizing foreign investors or ruining the nation's public finances. At the same time, Brazil's government has been incredibly savvy at modernizing Petrobras, the nation's state-owned oil giant, in such a way likely to catapult Brazil into the world's leading oil producers at a time when Mexico and Venezuela are running their state-owned oil companies into the ground.

Brazil's growing confidence and credibility on the global stage has presented problems for U.S. policy, to be sure, especially in stalling the Free Trade Area of the Americas and at the World Trade Organization (where Brazil has led a revolt by the developing world against northern farm subsidies). Still, the rise of a credible left that is not anti-democratic will prove beneficial to the region and to the United States.

On the economic front, Brazil and Chile are blending a social democratic project with market-based capitalism, and that trend is taking root across the region. Chile remains the gold standard in proving what an economic opening to the outside world can do for a nation's living standards, and the recently implemented Central American Free Trade Agreement is also paying dividends for that region, in terms of accelerated growth. It is interesting that for all his Chavista bluster, even Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua seems to understand that it is in his country's best interest to stay in CAFTA. I hope our Congress will soon extend the benefits of free trade to Colombia, a steadfast ally. In Mexico, meanwhile, voters two years ago rejected a leftist populist candidate who wanted to take the country back to a time of heavy-handed, destructive statism

Lots of ground to cover, and I look forward to covering it with you, Angelo.

***

What Central Americans Want

Counterpoint: Angelo Rivero Santos

Dear Andrés,

Let me stick to providing some reflections based on the question: Are Central American nations moving toward neo-liberal free markets, or a 21st century form of Bolivarian socialism?

After decades of regional conflict, Central American countries are overcoming domestic fragmentation and have elected governments through open elections. These societies are also facing the same questions all societies face when trying to redefine their political economy and socio-political structures: How much state? How much market? What are the responsibilities of the state and the private sector with regard to the economy? What goods should be provided by the state and which by private citizens?

In Venezuela, as in most countries in South America, there has been a lively debate over the past two decades regarding these questions. This debate has taken particular importance after the colossal failure of neo-liberalism and the failed "Washington consensus," which, albeit successful in controlling inflation, wreaked devastating social, political and economic effects on the majority of our people. The so-called "consensus" was one among elites that brought benefits to a few and unacceptable levels of social, economic and political exclusion to the rest.

Our experience tells us that the idea of self-regulating markets and economic liberalization leading to political liberalization is a fallacy. Under the assumption that the benefits of economic growth would eventually "trickle down," the neo-liberal project, just as the liberal paradigm of the 19th century, promised social and political benefits that did not materialize. Why? Because neo-liberalism conveniently ignores that power relations are present in the market as well as in the state and civil society. As it played out in Venezuela and other countries in South America, neo-liberalism minimized the role of the state, privatized gains and socialized losses with the blessing of elite-based democratic systems that, over time, protected the interests of a few and failed to represent the interests of the majority.

In Venezuela, we are convinced that the only way to promote growth and development is through participatory democracy and by empowering our people to, as the Nobel economics laureate Amartya Sen has stated, lead the kinds of lives they want to lead. The majority of Venezuelans have decided through 12 electoral processes over the past 10 years to do this in peace and democracy -- under a mixed economic system that promotes socially responsible private investment and a state that promotes massive government programs that attempt to correct the historical wrongs of social, economic and political exclusion. We also promote political integration and commercial exchange based not only on the narrow concept of "comparative advantage," but also on the concepts of solidarity and complementarity.

Central Americans, as sovereign people, will decide for themselves and through elections which system of political economy, nationally and regionally, best suits the enormous challenges they face in the 21st century. Our experience may or may not serve them as they accumulate wisdom. In Venezuela and most of South America, these debates are not seen as "anti-American," but rather as the normal maturing process of a region that seems to be finally accepting the call of Simon Rodriguez who, in the 19th century, called upon the newly liberated people of South America to think and act "creatively and with originality."

Complex matters indeed, Andrés. I also look forward to this week's debate.

***

Trade Isn't the Only Thing That Matters

Point: Angelo Rivero Santos

Dear Andrés,

This is a commonly asked question that requires a complex answer. It is true that trade between Venezuela and the United States increased from $29.7 billion in 2004 to $50.1 billion in 2007, and it is expected to be even more this year. Relations between the countries, however, are no longer influenced by the issues -- trade, energy interdependence and "democracy" -- that cast the U.S. and Venezuela as natural allies during the Cold War. Instead, U.S.-Venezuela relations are now primarily influenced by the current state of affairs in both the Western Hemisphere and the world.

George W. Bush's arrival to the White House brought with it a foreign policy heavily influenced by neoconservative ideology. That coincided with the birth of what we in Venezuela call the Bolivarian Revolution, which calls for greater political and economic autonomy from the United States and a bilateral relationship based on mutual respect among sovereign equals.

There are three key facts that you need to understand to evaluate current U.S.-Venezuela relations. First, the 2002 coup against the constitutional government of President Hugo Chavez and U.S. support for the 48-hour dictatorship of businessman Pedro Carmona initiated the diplomatic separation between our countries. The coup also marked the beginning of strong rhetorical exchanges and an absolute silence from Washington regarding the Venezuelan opposition's disruptive actions between 2002 and 2004. Among the disruptions were oil sabotages designed to bring our economy and government to its knees, which ended up costing Venezuelans $10 billion over two months.

Second, the Bush administration's foreign policy actions are opposed to the tradition and current orientation of Venezuela's foreign policy. Chavez's government has supported the fight against terrorism, but it opposes the U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have caused so many casualties. The U.S. government argues that defending its national security and fighting terrorism justify its wars. In contrast, Venezuela has defended the principles of self-determination and nonintervention as the essential foundation for the cohabitation of the peoples and nations of the international community.

Third, and as I mentioned yesterday, the failure of the "Washington consensus" and the Bush's administration insistence on trade as the only means to achieve regional integration and development -- and liberal democracy as the only means of sociopolitical organization -- generated a huge rejection of U.S. policies by Venezuelans. Washington's support for 2002 coup only made things worse. Since 1999, Venezuela has been more critical of the regional proposals promoted by the United States, which have long ignored the urgent social, political, economic and development needs of Latin America. U.S. policies have also ignored the structural constraints that have stifled our development and decision-making power at the international level for decades.

In a nutshell, Andrés, these three facts have impacted the state of U.S.-Venezuela relations in spite of the growing and pragmatic economic relationship between our countries. Our bilateral relations today respond to a changing reality and a transformation of the foreign policy priorities of both countries. U.S.-Venezuela relations will improve only if both countries find common points of understanding in their bilateral and hemispheric agendas.

***

The Real Chavez

Counterpoint: Andrés Martinez

Dear Angelo,

On the broader point, the figures on trade are misleading. It's true that despite political tensions, the United States and Venezuela do have an important trading relationship focused on oil, but it is hardly the healthy, growing relationship it should be. Indeed, Venezuelan oil exports to the United States have been declining. The dollar figures are misleading because they simply reflect the uptick in the price of oil; the actual number of barrels of oil coming in from Venezuela is falling. This is partly attributable to your government's desire to diversify your economic relationships, as you mention, and it's partly due to the fact that your government's poor stewardship of PDVSA, the state oil company, has had an adverse impact on its productivity.

I agree with you that the Bush administration's handling of the 2002 coup attempt in Caracas did not help matters, either in terms of the bilateral relationship or broader Latin American perceptions toward U.S. intentions. Clearly Chavez's authoritarian tendencies have polarized Venezuelan society, and there is something comical about a man who led a failed coup attempt in the 1990s being shocked, shocked to find himself targeted by a military coup. But the Bush administration would have been wise to consult with fellow hemispheric democracies, working within the Organization of American States, in responding to the 2002 coup. The rush to accept the status quo once Chavez had been temporarily deposed did raise questions about U.S. intentions and fed conspiracy theories about U.S. involvement. So on that point, I agree with you.

Which is good, because your second point is, well, absurd. To say that Venezuela supports the war on terror but opposed the military action against Afghanistan would be like me saying I am leading the charge against lung cancer but smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. Chavez's flirtations with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I once watched Chavez going on and on about him on the Venezuelan talk show "Alo Presidente," as if the Iranian leader were Gandhi) and his cheerleading (if not outright support) of Colombia's FARC narco-guerrillas further belie your assertion.

On debates over economic integration and trade, your oil riches give your government the luxury to play spoiler without paying much of a price. As stated above, barring all-out war someday, there will always be an important trading relationship between our nations because of simple energy supply-demand issues. Until and unless it diversifies its economy, Venezuela will not feel the same need as do Colombia or Peru for a regional or bilateral (with the United States) free-trading regime.

Still, I think all of Venezuela's alternative integration schemes (such as the ALBA or the Bank of the South) ring hollow and don't amount to much more than propaganda. Despite Chavez's exhortations, most Latin American countries will continue to seek better access to the American market and more foreign investment flowing in. And to the extent that American policies are blocked from time to time in South America, it's far more likely that the nation calling the alternative shots is Brazil, not Venezuela.

***

'My Enemy's Enemy Is My Friend'

Point: Andrés Martinez

Dear Angelo,

I suspect the reason Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez flirts with the likes of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar Assad is the same reason he enjoys insulting President Bush at the United Nations or serenading the moon on national TV, as I once saw him do. The man is a natural entertainer, with the personality and sensibility of a humorous, provocative talk-radio host. What he loves most about acting out on the global stage is what we Mexicans call el desmadre.

As a political matter, Chavez subscribes to the age-old "my enemy's enemy is my friend" doctrine, which is why he keeps such unpleasant company.

It makes some sense. Chavez gets the most attention in this country when he meets with the likes of Ahmadinejad, and his goal is to be taken seriously in Washington as a global player. Defying el imperio gives him street cred at home and abroad, especially throughout Latin America, where people admire leaders who stick it to the Americans. That's one reason Mexico's PRI governments always maintained good relations with Fidel Castro's regime. Chavez is playing the same game but on a larger stage.

Chavez has a pretty crude worldview, and I doubt he worries about nuance. His flirtations with Ahmadinejad don't necessarily mean he wants Israel wiped off the map; it's more about the mischief. He genuinely believes today's world order was created to benefit the Yankee empire, and so anything he can do to weaken it is a triumph for the world's disenfranchised. He thinks in Cold War terms, but instead of a world divided into eastern and western blocs, his dialectic is a north-south one. And it's in the interest of advancing that struggle that he allies himself with unsavory characters.

Chavez is surrounded by some people who are more radical than he is (and others more moderate), and it's important to bear in mind that one reason he engages in so much mischief abroad is to placate his more radical constituency, people who might be frustrated that the Bolivarian Revolution hasn't gone further at home. Chavez's more radical supporters may grouse that he has yet to nationalize all private industry or shut down those pesky opposition newspapers, but they relish his embrace of America's enemies, and that bolsters his credibility with the far left. It's the same reason Brazil's leftist leader, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, is so respectful and friendly toward Chavez -- it buys him goodwill with his more radical supporters at home who may otherwise be discontent.

***

Venezuela's Ambitious Foreign Policy

Counterpoint: Angelo Rivero Santos

Dear Andrés,

I have read with great interest your answer to a very provocative question. You have succinctly summarized the opinion of most neoconservatives -- and some liberals -- who share the perception fed by the U.S. media's portrayal of Chavez and Venezuela's foreign policy. Such opinions lack substantive evidence and argumentative power, though they are perfect for the headlines. Fortunately, perception is not necessarily reality -- and Dust-up readers deserve a sense of reality in this forum. Let me share with you and our readers some facts about Venezuela's foreign policy that you omitted in your response but will help in answering today's question.

Venezuela's Constitution, approved by voters in 1999, states that foreign policy should be based on the concepts of self-determination, non-intervention and multi-polarity. Since the late 1960s, Venezuela has agreed with but also challenged Washington's foreign policy in many areas. During Chavez's presidency, we have rejected the concept of unipolarity and consistently argued that the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 is no longer useful.

In seeking to defend Venezuela's interests, we have implemented a realist foreign policy by building alliances with a variety of nations to deal with the asymmetries of power and influence present since the end of the Cold War. Our efforts to promote energy integration in South America and the Caribbean, closer relations with India and China and establishing greater ties with nations in Africa, where we have opened more than 13 embassies in the past five years, are only three examples of the reach of our ambitious foreign policy. The Middle East is no exception.

Our strategic and long-standing relation with Iran and Iraq and most of the Middle East goes back to the early 1960s, when Venezuela, Iran, Iraq and Libya became founding members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. In fact, OPEC was conceived by the brilliant mind of a Venezuelan economist, Juan Pablo Perez Alfonso. The first foreign policy priority of Chavez when he came to power in 1999 was to strengthen OPEC. In 2000, he visited every single OPEC member state, including Iran and Iraq, to lobby for the OPEC Caracas Summit, which was held later that year. It is in this context that he made his first official visit to both countries. Our relationship with Iran today is absolutely pragmatic and no different from the relationship the United States has with countries with whom it may not share social and political values but are crucial to its national interest.

Chavez visited Syria in 2006 to seek support for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. That trip included Argentina, Benin, Angola, Mali, Qatar, Iran, China, Russia, Vietnam and Malaysia, among others. As a sovereign nation, Venezuela seeks dialogue with every country in the world that is respectful of our differences. We believe that respectful open diplomacy among equals promotes dialogue and understanding. It may be worth recalling that, seeking these same objectives, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also visited Syria in 2007 to look for ways to open dialogue with that country.

As you see, amigo Andrés, far from being "an entertainer" or loving el desmadre, Chavez and the country's foreign policy aim to promote and defend Venezuela's national interest in a changing world.

***

Two Candidates with Different Foreign Policies

Point: Andrés Martinez

Dear Angelo,

I think we can both agree that the departure of George W. Bush augurs well for U.S.-Latin American relations. As I said earlier this week, I don’t think trends in Latin America are as adverse to U.S. interests and values as is often assumed. But there is no question that these years represent a lost opportunity to strengthen ties and move on to a more mature north-south relationship.

It’s hard to remember now, but there were high hopes when Bush became president that relations with Latin America would acquire a higher priority in Washington. That was a so-called 9/10 aspiration – this former border-state governor was going to tackle immigration reform and reside over a more “humble” foreign policy. Presumably because of his distaste for humanitarian interventions and nation-building around the world, Bush would pay more attention to his neighborhood. The bad news was that 9/11 changed all that. That may have turned out to be good news for Latin America – maybe being ignored by Bush was better than the alternative.

One problem I have with this administration is that all Latin American policy is seen through the prism of Cuba. Cuba matters, yes, but to Bush’s coterie of Cuban American advisors on Latin America, it has mattered to the exclusion of almost everything else south of the U.S.

A McCain administration would probably replicate Bush’s Cuba obsession, with the same problematic consequences. The Republicans’ absolutist, dogmatic approach to Cuba gets in the way of closer ties with third nations in the hemisphere that don’t share our anti-Castro zeal (at least not to the same degree). This is counterproductive; Washington could do more to further the cause of freedom in Cuba and elsewhere if it worked in concert on hemispheric matters with nations such as Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Brazil. But the tendency of Republican Latin American hands, because they are so rooted in the Florida-Cuba dynamic, is to act alone, and that will always backfire in this region – most spectacularly in the case of the U.S. government’s reaction to the 2002 failed coup attempt in Caracas.

By de-emphasizing Cuba and looking for new ways to act multilaterally with Latin America’s most important democracies, there would be great potential for an Obama administration to improve the U.S. image in Latin America and enhance our influence.

At the risk of offending your president, Angelo, I don’t think it’s all that necessary for Obama or McCain to pay Hugo Chavez much attention. When it comes to Venezuela, benign neglect does go a long way. If Obama wants to meet with Chavez, fine, but I am not convinced it will lead to anything all that constructive. That said, Obama should definitely avoid confrontation, lest he play into Chavez’s need to play foil to Washington.

As I wrote earlier in the week, Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution is largely smoke and mirrors, offering little in the way of a coherent philosophy, lasting legacy or model to emulate. Despite all his oil wealth, we already see the Chavez melodrama extinguishing itself. It may be far less entertaining, but what is taking place in countries such as Brazil, Chile and Mexico is far more significant – and it’s those nations that cry out for U.S. engagement.

***

More Than Just Free Trade, Drugs and Immigration

Counterpoint: Angelo Rivero Santos

Dear Andrés,

Relations between Latin America and the U.S. will change if and when Washington acknowledges that the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 is now defunct. In the particular case of Venezuela (and more broadly South America), a President Obama or McCain would need to understand that "business as usual" is over. There are complex new actors and political forces in the region fostering a re-conceptualization of societal relations, integration and international affairs. The recent founding of the South American Union of Nations, UNASUR, is a case in point.

Venezuela patiently awaits a new U.S. administration's policy toward Latin America. An Obama administration could bring hope for significant changes in policy, as long as that policy fosters dialogue, understanding and mutual respect. However, ambiguous comments from Obama, who has taken a much harder line on Venezuela recently, make us cautious.

From what we have seen so far, a McCain administration could result in a continuation of Bush's policies. Particularly of concern to us is that McCain's top advisors on Latin American issues come from the Cold War era -- and the first Bush administration -- and favor interventionist policies in our region.

Regardless, we suspect that any new administration in Washington would continue to focus on free trade, the war and drugs and illegal immigration as the three most important issues in U.S.-Latin American relations. We hope a President McCain or Obama would also seriously address energy interdependence, poverty, inequality, social exclusion, access to healthcare, education and access to new technologies in the region. Despite what you may believe, Andrés, many Latin American countries will continue to promote integration schemes based not only on comparative advantage but also on solidarity and complementary relationships. Venezuela, as the country with the biggest proven natural gas and oil reserves in the hemisphere, will tirelessly continue to promote such alternatives. We have repeatedly stated our concern that the U.S. government still views the world through the lenses of the Cold War and refuses to see the profound and democratic sociopolitical changes taking place in Venezuela and most of South America. We believe that both sides ought to sit down and talk respectfully about these changes.

As for the question about immigration, I'd rather not comment. This is an internal U.S. policy issue. However, we are greatly concerned by attempts to build "walls" in border regions and enact local ordinances that restrict the rights of illegal immigrants. Disturbing policies have also emerged in the European Union, whose recent "law of return" -- which calls for illegal immigrants to be expelled from the continent, among other things -- has received unanimous rejection in Latin America. Venezuela, a country comprising native peoples and millions of migrants, has dealt with its immigration issue in a simple fashion. Over the last five years, Chavez's government has legalized hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants that were invisible to past administrations. These new residents of Venezuela now enjoy the full protection of the law.

Andrés, it has been a pleasure to exchange views in this forum this week. We obviously differ in our analysis of the region, but we do share a common concern for the well-being of our peoples. This is good. Just like in the old Athenian city-state, I hope this agora has been productive and informative to our readers. As far as Venezuela is concerned, we welcome all to visit and learn more about the complex processes taking place in the land of Simon Bolivar, where we are fostering new concepts of societal relations that are allowing the majority of our people to lead the kind of lives they want to lead.

So long.