Presidency of Hugo Chavez

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Hugo Chavez assumed office in 1998 after a landslide win by majority votes (Cameron 2001). While campaigning for the Presidency, Chavez had pledged his commitment to the set up of constitutional referendums to aid Venezuela’s poor majority (Cameron 2001). In April and December of 1999, he maintained his promise by organizing constitutional referendums, which were applauded by 72% of the voters (Cameron 2001). However, Chavez faced opposition from some sectors of the population, including the private media, business owners and the upper class citizens who feared being victims of the “tyranny of the majority” (James 2006).

Nevertheless, Chavez was reelected in 2000 and the Venezuelan government shifted its economic orientation; from being dependent on the US to being more independent as a state (Schyler 2003). As relationships with states from Latin America and other states around world improved, Venezuela’s partnership with the United States was being jeopardized as a result of this shift (Schyler 2003). Chavez, hoping to undermine the “US Modern Empire”, bitterly criticized a series of measures undertaken by the Bush Administration that included Neo-liberal practices, globalization and a series of Foreign Policies (Schyler 2003). The FTAA (Free Trade Association of the Americas), Plan Colombia, the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) policies are major parts in Chavez’ criticism (Schyler 2003).

Chavez’ political manipulation (i.e. oil politics) for the pursuing of his own political ambitions angered the Bush Administration (Schyler 2003). Therefore, the US government was determined to be actively engaged in the overthrow of the Chavez’ regime, but it had to find the right way to do so to avoid an international scandal; covert action seemed to be the right option (Schyler 2003). This paper provides an analysis of the CIA intervention in Venezuela through the examination of the causes for undertaken covert action and discusses the global repercussions of the unsuccessful attempt to oust President Chavez.

To understand the causes of the CIA intervention in Venezuela, several factors must be taken into consideration. (James 2006). To maintain alive its vital interests in Venezuela and to preserve its hegemony in the region, the US government —starting with the Clinton’s Administration and intensifying during the Bush Administration— has continued to follow its traditional foreign policies in this state (Philip, 2006). These objectives include: the secure access to oil and other existent natural resources, the prevention of the emergence of substantial regional threats (i.e. a regional alliance opposed to the US), and the maintenance of the regional allies’ stability (i.e. Colombia) (Philip, 2006). However, in order for these policies to be successfully implemented, the US had to look for effective strategies that maximized its gains and minimized its costs.

A new US approach to global affairs was undertaken during the Bush Administration. In order to maintain its global supremacy, and at the same time avoid to be seen as imperialist by other states, the US has adopted an “invisible” Imperial Strategy to maintain its hegemonic status (Carlson 2007, 1). However, differently from strategies used by previous empires throughout history — such as the British Empire in the 19^th Century— the US has opted for informality in its dominion (Carlson 2007, 1). This new US foreign policy tactic also includes the practice of economic and political pressures in the target areas (Carlson 2007, 1). If those pressures do not produce expected outcomes, the next step to be undertaken is covert action to overthrow opposition regimes and at the same time, make it seem like there is no external intervention on internal affairs (Carlson 2007, 1). For instance, because the actions Chavez has undertaken antagonized the US and obstructed its foreign policy, during the Bush Administration, the Venezuelan government was considered a threat to the US in the Latin American region. Therefore the US was looking for ways to overthrow Hugo Chavez (Carlson 2007, 1).

Foremost, an initial measure undertaken by the US government was to support strong American firms by encouraging them to “Get big, or get eaten”. Large corporations enthusiastically adopted the motto and were looking forward to their expansion, investment, and privatization (Carlson 2007, 1). However, as these entities were becoming more powerful, the Venezuela opted not to “get eaten” by the US capitalist system. The Chavista government’s nationalism resisted US domination. (Agee, 2006) Chavez stopped privatization and reversed the trend by re-nationalizing everything that was once privatized (Carlson 2007, 1). To worsen the situation, President Hugo Chavez started building regional alliances with other Latin American nations, (i.e. Bolivia) encouraging those nations to emulate steps taken by the Venezuelan government to undermine American control (Carlson 2007, 1).

Furthermore, as part of the New Imperial Strategy, “American Corners” were created throughout Venezuela with the purpose of “expanding” the American culture (Carlson 2007, 1). In addition, according to the Freedom of information Act documents, in 2002 the Venezuelan opposition groups received an increased funding by the US, aiming at the creation of a stronger opposition to President Chavez. The funding was developed through USAID (US Agency for International Development) and the NED (National Endowment for Democracy); the amount provided in 2002 reached the $2 million mark (Carlson 2007, 1). Nevertheless, Bush administration officials denied the involvement of US government in the coup. According to US Department Inspector General, “It is clear that NED, DOD, and the US assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chavez government…”

Besides, the grantees of NED were presented in the interim government. However, there was no evidence of promoting democratic involvement by the US agencies, such as USAID, and NED. (James 2006). The involvement of the US government in the coup against Chavez is recognized in Venezuela, though it leads to the antagonism-based formation plaguing US-Venezuela relationships (Cameron 2001, 260). The Bush Administration, which suffered an increased public opposition in 2004, was in need of a new foreign policy plan to deal with Chavez. Bush chose to rely on the improvement of the US relationships with states in the region, and attempt to isolate Venezuela from its neighbors in Latin America by undermining its interests. (Cameron 2001, 261) Unexpectedly, this new strategy failed because conflicts emerged between Venezuela and Colombia; the resolution of the dispute was supported by meditation from Peru, Brazil, and Cuba showing that Venezuela was not fully isolated, like the new US strategy US intended to be. Unfortunately for the US, the leaders from Latin America backed the democratic governance and Venezuela’s sovereignty providing a victory for Chavez against insinuations and slanders (James 2006, 1).

In 2006, the US developed yet another strategy aimed at a strong campaign for the purpose of de-legitimizing Venezuelan presidential elections. Venezuelan intervention caused the promotion of numerous media myths as to President Chavez’s role and elections. (Gindin 2005, 2) The consequences of the intervention led to the artificial anti-democracy in Venezuela media promotion. It is necessary to underline the idea that this step helped to generate negative opinion about Chavez, causing the support of the Venezuelans (Gindin 2005, 2). The strategic planning was aimed at developing the general opinion as to Chavez’ attempts to militarize the country and promote terror in limitations of national rights and freedoms (Gindin 2005, 2). The Bush administration’ officials referred to President Chavez as an “undemocratic leader”, characterizing him as a dictator (James 2006).

Furthermore, Chavez’ ineffective presidential campaign appeared to be the background of US strategic program fulfilled through ‘anti-Chavez US media editorials’. American government was aware of the fact, that Venezuela is considered to be one of the key oil suppliers to the USA and referred to the top partners of the country. The conflict between the states started from the moment of Chavez’ partnership cultivation with American enemies, such as Libya, Cuba and Iran. (The Other Side: An Interview with William Blum. 2006)

Historical roots of the conflict started when the CIA overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran when her (Iran) government started to control oil resources. The US would like to have the resources owned freely so as to have easier access. It also attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro and initiated the Bay of Pigs invasion, which failed (Prouty 1973). From that time, CIA interventions have touched varied fronts running from Congo, Angola and Ghana in Africa, between 1960 and 1990s, through Italy (to prevent the victory of the Communist Party of Italy) in Europe to Vietnam in support of the South during the Vietnam War in Asia (Agee 2006).

The International development agency of the USA actively participated in the ‘promote democracy’ program. In 1984, there was formed a new Democratic Initiatives Office, having the function of funds channeling to electoral processes and civil societies. (Escobar, and Romero, 75, 2002)

All this led to hostile relations between Venezuela and USA in terms of social and economic structures; interventions of 90s underwent sharp contrast between countries’ industrial development. It is necessary to stress that America experienced economical leadership, while Venezuela suffered political distress. (McBeth, 113, 2001)

This period ran under the slogan ‘freedom package for all the nations’, which was developed by American thought and included citizen democracy, governability, civic society promotion and free elections. (The Other Side: An Interview with William Blum. 2006) This issue appeared to be raised in Venezuela as the basic concern as to the state democracy. As Fernando Ochoa Antich, Venezuela foreign minister, stressed, ‘There is room for growth in the space between the United states and Venezuela’. (Escobar and Romero, 96, 2002) These words can be considered the identification of US-Venezuela relations at that period. The two realities keeping these relations were connected with PDVSA, being the oil corporation owned by the government, and Citgo, Unoven and Champlin, the key American companies referred to oil sector. (McBeth, 125, 2001)

This cooperation resulted in Chavez’ government’s experiencing of foreign accusation in social and economic violations. The time of Hugo Chavez’ democratic credentials caused distrust in the USA; the central problem lied in American fear of loosing Venezuela oil industry cooperation and its opening to new foreign partners. (Escobar and Romero, 98, 2002) The principle motivations for US CIA intervention were based on the following perspectives: believe in oil economic weight and stability of political system in Venezuela; tense US-Venezuela relations; Venezuela opposition to foreign intervention hint. (Bailey, 349, 2002)

The stability of US-Venezuela relations was broken with Chavez’ presidency, and his attempt to introduce new solutions to economy and democracy refreshment. The US suspected Chavez had an intention to weaken free market economy by introducing this social ideology. Moreover, the idea of popular mandate could make him cling to power. Economic independence could make him turn Venezuela away from the US and thus the latter could potentially lose her market share in Venezuelan exports (Agee 2006). Despite this, in 1999, Chavez introduced new Constitution and Venezuelan political structure was reformed; CNE introduced a number of new policies for the purpose of fair elections support; for example, through implementation of voting machine having the paper trial which can be verified. Chavez’s new constitution openly consolidated power in his hands thus the US saw it as a recipe to expand dictatorship and more so, the collaboration with her enemies in Colombian guerrillas and Cuban leadership. (Bailey, 341, 2002)

Moreover, the new constitution had little room for opposition to check his leadership thus the US saw this as a departure from democracy (Coronel 2006) As a result of Chavez’ political activities, civil rights in Venezuela were expanded considerable. (Bailey, 350, 2002) His attempt to reduce estate land ownership was seen as a communist policy; therefore, Chavez arguably ascended to power because of his charisma and the fact that people needed an alternative leader, not because he promised democracy (Cameron 2001).

Hugo Chavez introduced fresh policies to subsidize basic needs of the citizens, apart from new rules to control the distribution of oil. (Ellner, and Salas, 177, 2007) Chavez allowed some freedom of both private and public media despite their continual criticism of his government at this time (Schyler 2003) Nevertheless, some scholars consider the period of Chavez’ government to be ineffective; and the coup of 2002 to be the only way out of long-time useless presidency of the Venezuela leader. (James 2006) Some US foreign policy writers are concerned about the US democracy promotion within Latin America through new elected Venezuela government. Martha Cottam, expressed the thought that US officials used to ascribe negative morality to the leaders of Latin America. So, the intervention of 2002 is regarded as ‘third-wave democracies’ promotion, justifying ‘prodemocratic US interventions’. (Ellner, and Salas, 186, 2007) The intervention was aimed at cautioning people about US toleration of state democratic governments, and demonstrating ‘semiauthoritarian’ Chavez governing controlling the promotion of US democracy in Venezuela (Ellner, and Salas, 186, 2007).

Modern period provides wide opportunities for such small states as Venezuela; 10 year of Chavez presidency did not allow him to reach all the plans, though he remained to be in people’s high esteem. On September, 24, 2009, the president of Venezuela expressed his believes and hopes as to American future and their partnership under the presidency of Barack Obama. Foreign policy strategies developed by Obama are aimed at defending Venezuela position. The central perspective of Venezuela lies in the possibility of Hugo Chavez to make ‘Socialist Utopia’ which has not still become fruition. The American President impacted the national movement of the USA to Socialist ideals embraced by Chavez. (Ellner, and Salas, 120, 2007)

The leaders of two strong countries, USA and Venezuela, have similar course concentrating on splitting their states into two parts, where one is publically dominating. Venezuela is considered to be the path to American future, its economical, political and industrial development, fulfilled through socialist ideas realization. (Ellner, and Salas, 135, 2007) This paper disclosed an analysis of the CIA intervention in Venezuela through the causes and motivations for undertaken covert action and global repercussions of the failed attempt to oust President Chavez. The research demonstrated the fact that the new course taken by Obama and Chavez can result in reformation of old America into new Venezuela; common ideas based on free goodies for the population make a start to considerable changes in social and economical structure of Venezuela. (Ellner, and Salas, 137, 2007)

References

Agee, Philip. 2006. “How United States Intervention against Venezuela Works.” Centre For Research and Globalization. Web.

Bailey, Andrew Thomas. 2002. “A diplomatic history of the American people”. Prentice-Hall. 1093 p.

Baker, John. 2000. “Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Foreign Policy.” Web.

Carlson, Chris. 2007. “Setting the Stage for Turmoil in Caracas: Washington’s New Imperial Strategy In Venezuela.” Web.

Cameron, Maxwell A. 2001. “Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez: Savior or Threat to Democracy?” Latin American Research Review. 36(3): 255-266. Journal Article.

Coronel, Gustavo. 2006. “Corruption, Mismanagement, and Abuse of Power in Hugo

Chavez’s Venezuela.” Centre for Global Liberty and Prosperity Development Policy Analysis. No.2Washington: The CATO Institute. Web.

Ellner, Steve and Salas, Miguel, T. 2007. “Venezuela: Hugo Chávez and the decline of an “exceptional democracy”. Rowman & Littlefield. 220 p.

Escobar, Janet, K. and Romero, Carlos. 2002. “The United States and Venezuela: rethinking a relationship”. Routledge. 167 p.

Marquis, Christopher. 2002. “US Cautioned Leader of Coup Plot against Chavez.” The New York Times.

McBeth, Brian S. 2001. “Gunboats, corruption, and claims: foreign intervention in Venezuela, 1899-1908”. Greenwood Publishing Group. 307 p.

Prouty, L Fletcher. 1973. The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the World. New York: Ballantine Books, Inc. Print.

The Other Side: An Interview with William Blum. 2006. Web.

US Department of State. “Background Note: Venezuela”. 2009. Web.

US Department of State and Office of Inspector General. “A Review of US Policy Toward Venezuela. 2002. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Presidency of Hugo Chavez

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)