What soured the U.S.-Venezuela alliance?

Angelo Rivero Santos blames U.S. foreign policy and support for a coup against Chavez. Andrés Martinez says Chavez won’t stop other Latin American leaders from seeking increased trade with the U.S.

July 15, 2008

» Discuss Article (10 Comments)

Today's question: The United States and Venezuela have normal economic relations; in fact, trade has increased between the two countries over the last few years. So why are relations between Venezuela and the U.S. perceived as being so bad? Previously, Rivero and Martinez discussed fiscal and political developments in Venezuela and neighboring nations.


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.

Angelo Rivero Santos is the deputy chief of mission of the Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
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.

Andrés Martinez is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.