Relations between Venezuela and the United States Essay

To hand believe a speech/presentation about Venezuela- get together States relations, with a focus on the regime of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Topic Relations in the midst of Venezuela and the United States, with a focus on the Chavez brass section. Purpose To be able to prove the roots of the current state of Venezuela-United States relations as comfortably as its future, given the cosmea of the Chavez policy-making sympathies. To say that relations between Venezuela and the United States ar very shaky is already an understatement.This is because the foreign policy of the US in Latin the States is a rhetoric solelyy concealed fusion between popular elections and imperial appointments (Landau 29). The US has a long history of overthrowing Latin the Statesn governments that show even the slightest hint of favoring the poor. As soon as they get word about a pro-poor Latin American leader, the US government would flex its policy-making, scotch and military muscles in order to fill in him or her with a pro-US head of state. The end of the refrigerating War did not change this scenario.Since 1999, seven Latin American leadership were overthr admit due to their pro-US stance. Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada drop outed from the Bolivian presidency in 2005 due to massive popular revolts over his pro-US economic strategies. Paraguays Raul Cubas stepped down in 1999 due to charges of corruption and involvement in the assassination of Vice President Luis Maria Argana. Ecuadorian President Jamil Mahuad was toppled from military group in 2000 because of his adherence to free trade (Landau 29). The regime of Perus Alberto Fujimori terminate prematurely in 2000 mainly due to his bloody suppression of anti-US policy-making dissent.The collapse of the Argentine providence in December 2001 because of neo-liberal policies resulted in popular revolts that forced President Fernando de la Rua to resign (Landau 29). But Venezuelas Hugo Chavez is a Latin America n leader that can be hardly expound as a Washington lapdog. His pro-poor policies earned him immense respect and entertain from the Venezuelan masses, three consecutive presidential terms and harassment from the bloodless House. The relationship between the US and Latin America has traditionally been that of a master and a slave.Since its first arrival on Latin America in the 19th century, the US clearly wanted nothing more from the continent but unlimited access to its natural resources (OBrien 180). But ever-changing political realities in the 20th century prompted the US to attain this target in a more subtle fashion. For most of the 20th century, therefore, the US projected itself to Latin America as the good neighbor (Gilderhus 71) an intrinsic ally in the continents struggle against the Great Depression, the axis of rotation Powers and collectivism.But it was not until the postwar era that this good neighbor frontal of the US became even more pronounced. Intensifying Latin American patriotism in the 1950s threatened US political and economic interests in the continent. The US, needing all the resources and allies it could get in order to challenge the Soviet Union in the global contest known as the Cold War, looked for an excuse to intervene in Latin America. Thus, American policymakers associated nationalism and mixerism (OBrien 181). This association between nationalism and Communism on the discontinue of American lawmakers is valid to a certain extent.Prevailing economic conditions during and immediately after(prenominal) World War II led to the emergence of leftist regime and labor militancy throughout Latin America. In Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, for instance, postwar economic recovery and classs promoting industrialization resulted in the growth of manufacturing workers from about 50 to 60 percent. Increasing urban workforces, in turn, translated to larger and more free-enterprise(a) labor movements that ringed for better working conditions and greater economic benefits.Furthermore, Communist parties in Cuba, chili pepper and Brazil obtained considerable gains in terms of membership and elector support (OBrien 182). The aforementioned victimizations did not sit well with Latin Americas elite, who were fearful that leftist government and labor militancy would make them lose their firm hold over the continents politics and economy. They therefore took advantage of the reemerging anti-Communist militancy of the US, using it as an excuse to roster back political reforms, outlaw Communist parties and crack down on independent unions (OBrien 182).The American government, meanwhile, rewarded them by bestowing on them the political and economic leaders of their respective countries. A bloody, CIA-engineered coup in 1973 toppled the socialist regime of Chiles Salvador Allende and ushered into power the pro-US Augusto Pinochet (Menjivar and Rodriguez 35). The US-backed Somoza dynasty ruled Nicaragua from 1937 to 1 979, robbing the country blind and brutally suppressing all forms of legitimate political opposition (Leonard 1134).Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier became the dictators of Haiti from 1957 to 1986, living off generous amounts of political and military aid from the US (Leonard 243). The dictatorship of the Dominican Republics Rafael Trujillo lasted from 1930 to 1961, primarily due to his exploitation of US fears of Nazism during the 1930s and Communism during the Cold War (Leonard 244). Although socialism in Latin America declined in the 1990s, certain economic developments in Venezuela led to its resurgence in the country. Venezuela had riotous crude color resources, but its oil industry was developed at the put down of equally important non-oil industries.As a result, the value of the Bolivar fuerte was dependent on fluctuating oil prices. Dropping oil prices forced the Venezuelan government to take out foreign loans and to debauch the currency. Inflation ensued, plunging the Venezuelan economy into poverty (Reid 161). Since Chavez was first elected President in 1998, Venezuelas oil policy had represented a dramatic break from the past (Ellner and Salas 54). This was mainly because he used the countrys oil profits to watch over up with numerous social programs that were intended to help the most marginalized sectors of Venezuelan society (Ellner and Salas 54).One of Chavezs first programs was Plan Bolivar 2000, a civilian-military program that included road building, house construction, mass vaccinations, land reform, the lowering of babe mortality rates, the implementation of a free state-subsidized healthcare system and a system of free education up to the tertiary level (Peet and Hartwick 192). By the end of 2001, the aforementioned program led to an increase in elemental school enrollment by 1 million students (Peet and Hartwick 193). Chavez preserved his administration by using oil as a means of hammer alliances with like-minded leaders.In 1999, he announced that the Venezuelan state-owned petroleum partnership PDVSA and the Brazilian state-run oil and gas giant Petroleo Brasileiro were reviewing plans of forming a larger fit oil company. The result of these plans would be Petrosur, an enterprise that was situated on the Confederate cone of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. Petrosur was intended to supply oil to countries under prejudiced financial terms, encourage large-scale infrastructure such(prenominal) as pipelines and refineries and coordinate oil distribution, exploration and processing.The profits of Petrosur would be used to subsidize social programs for education, healthcare and employment (Kozloff 105). Chavezs populist reforms earned him a uphold term in 2000 and a third in 2006. But his elan of using Venezuelas oil reserves did not sit well with Washington and the Venezuelan elite. Prior to Chavezs regime, Venezuela was the second largest supplier of oil to the United States (Noreng 74). In addition, PDVSA was controlled by the Venezuelan elites (Ellner and Salas 122). Thus, it was no longer surprise if these two parties joined forces in order to expel Chavez from power.On April 9, 2002, the CTV (Venezuelas largest trade union organization), Fedecamaras (Venezuelas largest business federation) and board members of the PDVSA carried out a commonplace strike against Chavezs oil policies. Three days later, CIA-backed elements of the Venezuelan armed forces staged a coup against him. The coup succeeded in temporarily ousting Chavez and replacing him with Fedecamaras president Pedro Carmona Estanga. Widespread popular protests, however, forced Estanga to resign from the presidency to make way for Chavez (Trinkunas 206). But the CTV, Fedecamaras and the PDVSA would not allow themselves to be defeated.On December 2, 2002, they called for the resignation of Chavez by staging another general strike. The strike lasted for 63 days the aforementioned parties were forced to finally call it off due to subsequent detrimental effects on the Venezuelan economy. The strike was said to have devastated the Venezuelan economy by be the latter about 7. 6% of its GDP (Kohnstamm, Bao, Porup and Schechter 28). Venezuelan politics remained troubled until Chavez consolidated his power by winning a 2004 referendum. Having obtained tremendous political support and immense oil-generated wealth, he then proceeded to strengthen pan-American socialism.He openly established strong political and economic ties with other Leftist leaders in Bolivia, Argentina, Cuba, Uruguay, Chile and Brazil. Despite being ridiculed by Bushs officials as Castros little buddy (Landau 30), Chavez won about 63% of the vote in Venezuelas 2006 national elections (Kohnstamm, Bao, Porup and Schechter 28). At present, it is very taken for granted(predicate) that majority of the Venezuelan people continue to support Chavez. In February 2009, 54% of Venezuelans (ONeill n. pag. ) supported an amendment that would scrap presidential term limits in their country (Llana n. pag. ). just now put, he would finally be allowed to run for the presidency in 2012. This development is ironic, considering that they rejected in 2007 a constitutional referendum which included the said issue. Moreover, Chavezs regime was recently criticized for its failure to address acute urban problems such as transport, crime and waste disposal (ONeill n. pag. ). But the very existence of Chavezs administration showed Latin Americans that it is possible for them to freely elect their own representatives, as well as choose the form of government which they agree appropriate (ONeill n.pag. ). His open defiance of Washingtons dictates proved that a Third World nation, with sheer political will and unity of the part of its citizenry, can actually assert itself to the powerful nation on earth. by means of Chavez, Venezuela showed that democracy is not measured in terms of how long a leader stays in power. Rather, it is whether or not this head was in fact chosen by the people and would truly serve their interests.