CCDS FORUM & DISCUSSION BOARD

NAME: Harry Targ
EMAIL: Targ@polsci.purdue.edu
DATE: 09/29/2006

TITLE: Understanding Hugo Chavez

Last week a number of Heads of State spoke to the opening meeting of the 61st United Nations General Assembly. The speech most highlighted in the US media was that of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who referred to President Bush as a devil. Over the next two days President Chavez spoke to audiences around New York city and discussed plans for selling home heating oil at discount prices to needy residents.

Unfortunately, the US press did not go beyond ridiculing Chavez for his name calling. Instead they featured US politicians of both parties condemning the remarks. In general there was no coverage given to the substance of Chavez’s speech. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Chavez’s remarks, Americans need to be aware of the charges made against their government and to seriously assess the relative merit of the claims.

A centerpiece of the Chavez United Nations speech was his critique of US efforts to establish itself as the hegemon, or ruler, of a new global empire. He criticized President Bush for talking and acting “as if he owned the world.” And, Chavez declared that the peoples of the world could not allow the United States to consolidate its global dominance. US dominance would lead to expanding capitalist economic penetration of weaker countries through financial speculation, opening sweatshop factories, and establishing trade agreements that benefit wealthier trading partners at the expense of the poor. Economic control, he said, parallels political control of foreign governments. Some could be the target of military coups such as was being planned for Venezuela, he said.

Chavez referred to the frustration expressed by Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, who claimed that “over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated: hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have worsened.” Chavez reported that these problems are the “consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.”

Chavez asserted that those who oppose the US drive to global empire are called terrorists, whether or not they have any connection with real terrorists. US policymakers often equate terrorists with people of color. And he concluded on this point that: “The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It’s not that we are extremists. It’s that the world is waking up. It’s waking up all over. And people are standing up.”

Why should the media have reported on the substance of the speech rather than Chavez’s characterization of our president?

First, the claims Chavez is making about the global and imperial character of United States foreign policy are shared by any number of scholars and journalists from the United States and other countries. Chavez, himself, made reference in his speech to world-renowned scholar Noam Chomsky who has written more than 30 books on the United States role in the world.

Second, while the claim of US empire might be exaggerated, data from many sources, including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, suggest that Chavez’s critique of the impacts of US global economic policies on growing economic inequality and poverty in countries of the Global South have validity.

Third, even if Chavez’s critique of the US role in the world and its negative consequences is incorrect, citizens need to know what others think of us. If a substantial percentage of the world’s population agrees with Chavez, and polling data suggests that is true, then it is vital for policymakers to rectify the erroneous understanding of US motivations, interests, and impacts. And citizens, when they vote, need to be able to judge the effectiveness of elected leaders in addressing the US role in the world.

Finally, to a fundamental degree, the Chavez critique of the United States is not new. Latin Americans experienced at least 50 military interventions in the twentieth century. US soldiers for several years were stationed in numerous countries including Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Grenada. Since 1950, US covert operators collaborated in the overthrow of governments in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Chile, and were involved in the 2002 effort to overthrow Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.Economically, US policies, including foreign assistance programs, have led to a net outflow of dollars from Latin America that greatly exceeded capital flows to the continent.

In other words, the Chavez critique is a continuation of an analysis of north-south relations that goes back at least 150 years. Chavez’s inspiration in this regard was nineteenth century Latin American nationalist and revolutionary Simon Bolivar.

Perhaps if we paid more attention to the criticisms leveled at US foreign policy from politicians, statesmen, intellectuals, and activists from the Global South, we would not be so often mired in quagmires such as Vietnam, or Afghanistan, or Iraq.

A radio commentary on WBAA AM, Purdue University.

If you would like to respond to this article click here: Discussion Board

HOME ABOUT DONATE JOIN CONTACT US PUBLICATIONS CCDS STATEMENTS EMAIL US