Although Venezuela has long been one of the U.S.’s top four foreign suppliers of crude, relations between the two countries have grown quite acrimonious since the Bush administration’s tacit support of the failed coup against populist president Hugo Chavez in April of 2002. How the Bush administration has been dealing with Caracas repeats a well-known cycle to any student of U.S./Latin American relations: support of overt or covert coups against democratically-elected regimes eventually ignites a backlash of popular support for the embattled government against the “imperialist gringos.” This is likely to motivate Washington to even more aggressively back its favored opposition, generating an even stronger wave of popular backlash.
The crucial difference between the recent U.S. support of the middle-class opposition in Venezuela – mainly through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the U.S. Agency for International Aid (USAID) – versus its earlier backing of the Somoza, Batista, Duvalier and Pinochet dictatorships, is that Washington can ill afford to antagonize the populist government from which it receives anywhere between 11% and 15% of its imported petroleum. This is one situation where Washington simply cannot risk an oil crisis for the sake of indulging the administration’s numerous nostalgic cold warriors, like Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega and Undersecretary of State John Bolton. But despite the Bush administration’s tacit support of the 2002 coup and the substantial funds that the NED poured into the failed recall referendum last August, Chavez has, so far, not given any indication that he intends to cut petroleum exports to the U.S. He did, however, tell Washington to not "even think about trying something similar in Venezuela," referring to what he claims was Washington’s orchestrated coup against former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in February, 2004. Should the U.S. follow this course, he optimistically observed that Venezuela “has enough allies on this continent to start a 100-year war," and that "U.S. citizens could forget about ever getting Venezuelan oil."
Enter the Dragon
In December 2004, President Chavez met with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, in Beijing to discuss a new bilateral agreement regarding access to Venezuela’s energy market. Under the agreement, which Chavez pushed because, in his words, “this is what is needed in the world in order to break with unilateralism.” As a result, Caracas will help Beijing with additions to the latter’s strategic oil reserves in exchange for Chinese investment in Venezuela’s agricultural sector and the development of fifteen currently shut down oil fields. This meeting was preceded by Chavez’s renewed calls for the creation of PetroSur, a Latin American version of OPEC. In an interview with IPS, political scientist Alberto Garrido, of the University of Los Andes, reasoned that Chavez “is trying to give a regional, Latin American dimension to his Bolivarian revolution, as reflected in documents from his movement that date back to far before he made it to power.”
This dimension cannot simply be chalked up to the Chavistas’ heady nationalistic rhetoric or to Chavez’s frequent cheeky barbs against Washington. Rather, Chavez likely sees such a block as a defensive bulwark against any conceivable future U.S. intervention against him as well as a means of gaining the kind of steely international leverage that has been famously found in OPEC. Garrido continued, Venezuela “is not only buying Russian weapons to free itself from military dependence on Washington, but the government is also trying to get Venezuelans ready for a possible scenario of confrontation, as reflected by (Chavez's) recent calls to prepare the reserve.”
Chavez’s Brinkmanship
None of this can be welcome news to Washington policymakers who are having increasing difficulty finding, or even maintaining, stable sources of oil. With al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi Arabia, the insurgents’ continuing sabotage of Iraqi and Colombian pipelines, and civil unrest in Nigeria, U.S. oil managers can only get more desperate in their search for reliable petro exports. With the largest proven oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere (77.8 billion barrels), bilateral deals with China, and an attractive six-day transport time to U.S. ports – as opposed to five weeks from the Middle East – Chavez is forcing Washington to take a more protracted look south. Whether the volatile Venezuelan leader is playing a reckless game with Washington that could get him swatted, or is adroitly acting in his country’s best interests, is a question that could be explosively answered in a relatively short period.
Evocations of the Monroe Doctrine
In 2003, China surpassed Japan as the world’s second largest oil consumer. Given that by 2025 China’s net oil imports are projected to be 9.4 million barrels per day (bbl/d), the U.S. Energy Information Agency predicts that by 2030 China will be importing as much oil as the U.S. is currently (11.8 million bbl/d). With its energy consumption expected to double in the next decade, China is looking into markets that traditionally have supplied most of their crude to the U.S. Though Beijing has no choice but to attempt to sate its country’s skyrocketing petro demands, the China problem, from Washington’s view, is that any increase in Beijing’s dependence on Caracas invariably cuts into one of its few remaining, relatively stable sources of crude. Ironically, then, Washington must either throw many carrots at Caracas, or use a very big stick against it.
Drawing a bead on the largest Western Hemispheric reserves would certainly represent a dicey move on Beijing’s part. Moreover, China’s recent initiative towards Venezuela comes at a time when Beijing has just recently indicated that it has similar designs on Canadian oil markets that today are dominated by the U.S. In other words, not only is Beijing poking its nose in ‘our backyard,’ but Washington’s front yard as well. The New York Times reported on December 23, 2004 that, according to Murray Smith, a former Alberta energy minister, “The China outlet would change our dynamic. Our main link would still be with the U.S., but this would give us multiple markets and competition for a prized resource." How will Washington view Beijing’s initiative towards the US’s largest source of oil imports? The same Times story cited Calgary’s The National Post, which pithily editorialized, “Watch the Americans have a hissy fit if a Chinese incursion materializes . . . So far, the Americans have taken Canada's energy for granted.”
Thus, the immediate short-term problem facing Washington from the Caracas/Beijing axis is two-fold; on the one hand, it cannot allow China to get too cozy with one of its closest suppliers, which may provoke Washington to exhume the Monroe Doctrine. On the other hand, Washington’s current policy of siding with the anti-Chavez opposition risks the very outcome Washington seeks to avoid; pushing Caracas into Beijing’s arms or precipitating an anti-Washington embargo. Given the seemingly unstoppable popularity of Chavez, who has, to date, won two presidential elections and a referendum – all with comfortable majorities – the first sensible thing Washington must do is cease its open courting of the opposition. After all, how would Washington policymakers feel if French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin spent millions of euros in support of a domestic opposition in the U.S., whose stated goal was the removal of President Bush from office?
If the NED intends to live up to its own charter, then it has to stop backing the egregiously undemocratic, even authoritarian methods of the opposition. Claiming that Chavez “must die like a dog because he deserves it,” former president and would-be leader of the opposition, Carlos Andres Perez, revealed his reverence for democratic ideals in an interview with the Caracas daily El Nacional last July: "We can't just get rid of Chavez and immediately have a democracy... we will need a transition period of two or three years to lay the foundations for a state where the rule of law prevails . . . When Chavez falls, we must shut down the National Assembly (Congress) and also the Supreme Court.”
Kissinger Redux?
Though Secretary of Donald Defense Rumsfeld has most likely managed to exhaust the offensive capacity of the US military for the foreseeable future, it would behoove the increasingly feisty Chavez to review the recently declassified British intelligence document of December 13, 1973 entitled “Middle East – Possible Use of Force by the United States.” The Foreign Office memo cited a warning by former Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger to the British ambassador in Washington, Lord Cromer, that the administration would not tolerate threats from “under-developed, under-populated” countries. As noted by The Washington Post in January of 2004, Kissinger later wrote in his memoir, Years of Upheaval: “These were not empty threats. I ordered a number of studies from the key departments on countermeasures against Arab members of OPEC if the embargo continued. By the end of the month, several contingency plans had been completed.” Given that the U.S. annually imports as much or more oil from Venezuela as from Riyadh, Chavez should be well advised that any talk of an embargo could trigger a U.S. military intervention. He may risk setting the stage for this possibility if he is perceived by Washington as being too nettlesome in setting up a new OPEC, or if he gets too close to Beijing for Washington’s comfort.
Some analysts are already predicting a global clash between the U.S. and China over oil reserves that could trigger a veritable casus belli. As stated by Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, in a recent editorial in The Los Angeles Times, “Without a comprehensive strategy designed to prevent China from becoming an oil consumer on par with the U.S., a superpower collision is in the cards.” Dr. Luft suggests the U.S. do everything it can to shift China in the direction of non-petro based energy supplies, such as hydrogen or natural gas. However, barring such a spectacular advance in the technology of harvesting hydrogen fuel cells or the like, China will need to look anywhere it can in order to satisfy its petro consumption demand.
So far, neither Chinese nor U.S. authorities have, at least publicly, anticipated anything like a global clash over energy sources. Reported by Stephanie Ho of AXcess News, Chinese Embassy spokesman Sun Weide said, "Of course, as our two economies continue to grow, we both need reliable and, I think, affordable energy supplies... So, there is very good basis for cooperation between the two countries." But such optimism belies the fact that Washington is facing an almost certain intrusion into its oil markets by the world’s second largest petro importer. Though Beijing will somehow have to satisfy its energy demand, which grows annually at 7.5%, Washington will not look kindly on any such incursion into its traditional oil suppliers. As observed by Luft in The New York Times, "China's gone after the low-hanging fruit so far. Now they're entering another level of ambition, in places such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Canada that are well within the American sphere."
Washington could begin repairing its frayed relationship with Caracas by supporting what is bound to be a growing oil-based alliance between Caracas and Beijing. Given the near inevitability of this new alliance, Washington would be foolish to obstruct China’s economic growth by trying to dictate to Chavez where he can and cannot sell his country’s oil. Furthermore, just as many U.S. public figures are demanding that their government reduce its imports of Middle East oil, so too are Venezuelans urging Chavez to reduce his country’s traditional reliance on the U.S.'s oil consumption. Now that China is offering Chavez just that opportunity, the question is, will Washington tolerate a Sino-Venezuelan petro pact or begin dusting off the Monroe Doctrine?
Note: With China now making moves in the Canadian energy sector, it is important that we know the larger issues at hand. They will all play off one another.Author | Comment |
---|---|
Anonymous | Subject: Re: Will Washington Tolerate A Chinese-Venezuelan Petro Pact? posted: Jan 14, 2005 - 09:47 PM |
I don't find it surprising at all that America might find a problem with a potential adversary seeking out oil in what America deems to be its backyard. Yet, as China continues to modernize, we should expect some type of conflict over what oil is left. Not neccessarily war, but certainly some animosity between the two. As for Venezuala, they are just looking out for themselves. Besides, what a better way to stick it to America than to form partnerships with countries like China? Chavez of course was almost deposed because of an American backed coup attempt. Only one nation accepted the leaders of the coup - America. The people obviously want to continue with Chavez as he has won in a fair open election, and in a referendum on his actions. His country has been exporting oil for 100 years and its only now that the people in the countryside as starting to benefit. That is surely going to chaff the elites of the nation that were so used to getting the vast majority of the oil wealth for themselves only. Canada too may draw the ire of the US if we too open up to the Chinese. Canada is a central part to the US policy on energy security and Chinese involvement certainly threatens that hegemony to some level. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Anonymous | Subject: Re: Will Washington Tolerate A Chinese-Venezuelan Petro Pact? posted: Jan 14, 2005 - 09:51 PM |
oops forgot to mention a possible error in the article - Canada with the oil sands has by some estimates over 1 trillion barrels of oil which is far more than Venezuela. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Anonymous | Subject: Will the World Tolerate Anglo-American Domination? posted: Jan 15, 2005 - 02:11 PM |
This article is standard Anglo nationalist propaganda. Despite its token criticisms of American hegemony, the underlying thrust of the article displays the chauvnistic hostility which Western and Anglo Imperialist nations like the USA or Canada instinctively spew whenever they are challenged by any upstart Third World country. In this case, the targets are China and Venezuela. I love how the author implicitly invokes the standard Yellow Peril hysteria over China "intruding" into the Western hemisphere in quest of energy resources. (See the rhetoric about "Enter the Dragon" for example or how China has "similar designs on Canadian oil markets" or that "Beijing [is] poking its nose in ‘our backyard.") Anglo American chauvinism dies hard, it seems--despite its multicutural or "democratic" pretenses. Why the hell shouldn't Venezuela sell its oil to whomever it pleases? Apparently, North Americans implicitly believe that Venezuelan oil actually belongs to the USA or Canada, and that Venezuela should accept the benign tutelage of the Great White North in terms of its oil deals. And whatever happened to your propaganda about "free market competition"? Why shouldn't China buy what oil it can on the open market. If China offers a better deal to Venezuela on this market, Venezuela should sell them the oil by all means. And if Canada doesn't want to sell oil to China, then don't do it. Perhaps, China should decide to stop buying Canadian exports, and better yet expel Canada and its designs out of China/Asia where Canada is sticking its own noise. The USA, Canada, and other Western Imperialist nations are always lecturing the Third World about the benefits of free market competition--only of course when it benefits themselves and doesn't challenge their precious security interests. To be blunt, North America's "security interests" can go to hell. These so-called interests are about maintaining Anglo-American domination and hegemony over Latin America (what the author glibly dismisses as "imperialist gringos") and indeed the world--and hence have NO legitimacy to exist. BTW, the oil coalition between Venezuela and China is but part of a broader phenomon in which Third World and non-Western nations (like Russia) are moving to form economic and strategic alliances to oppose Anglo-American and Western hegemony. Russia, for example, is not only developing weapons deals with Venezuela but is working to create a global alliance involving Brazil, Russia, India, and China (called BRIC) to oppose Anglo-American domination and power. Their vision is for a multipolar world against the bankrupt unipolar system currently dominated by the USA, Canada, and the West. So if you all want to cry and piss in your pants about this Venezulean oil pact, you ain't see nothing yet. Your Anglo American axis which unfortunately subjugates and exploits most of this planet is coming to an end. Get used to it. http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Russia_vs_New_World_Order.html http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/30/stories/2004123000391000.htm |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Anonymous | Subject: Re: Will Washington Tolerate A Chinese-Venezuelan Petro Pact? posted: Jan 15, 2005 - 04:38 PM |
I appreciated seeing the article, since I spent 18 years on the side of the poor in VZLA. However, a little more editing might have made for easier reading. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Anonymous | Subject: Re: Will Washington Tolerate A Chinese-Venezuelan Petro Pact? posted: Jan 16, 2005 - 05:20 PM |
I believe it is in Canada's longer-term interests to diversify its economy as much as possible in every area, and somehow end the present pathetic dependence on United States markets. We are not a soverign nation if the lives and well being of our citizens can be controlled by the economic decisions of a foreign government, any foreign government, into which we have no democratic input. And make no mistake, that is what is happening today. Thus, a Chinese (or any other) foray into our oil patch is probably good news for us if it develops properly. Competition is always good. Having said that, I do not share the negative feelings of many other writers towards the US. It is true that both the domestic and foreign policies of the present US administration are appalling. But administrations come and go, and it may be too early to write off America and the American dream yet. The US was a beacon to the world for a long time and may yet be again some day. Our problem is that we give too much and get too little in return. Our trade deals like the NAFTA are horribly loaded against us. I would never object to trading with our neighbour in any commodity, energy included, if they left us alone to structure our economy and society the way most of us want it, treated us with more respect at the border, and gave us the guaranteed access to all those markets in the US that we want to enter. None of that is happening today. The blame lies with us. Weak, compromised governments, far to the political right of reason, look and act like US patsies, and thoughtlessly sacrifice basic Canadian values for next to nothing. We need to stop blaming everything on the US and look inward. We need far better government, and we should get on with the job of finding it. Venezuala, at least to some degree, seems to have accomplished that already. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Anonymous | Subject: Re: Will Washington Tolerate A Chinese-Venezuelan Petro Pact? posted: Jan 16, 2005 - 08:29 PM |
I totally agree, Canada must diversify its export markets. We rely far too much on America for our markets. Though, we should hold ourselves to certain standards when it comes to just who we trade with. While we already trade with China, should we trade more when they don't respect democracy and human rights? |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Anonymous | Subject: Re: Will Washington Tolerate A Chinese-Venezuelan Petro Pact? posted: Jan 18, 2005 - 08:34 PM |
That is laughable. This statement shows the Moral arrogance of Western Imperialist nations through and through. Since when has Canada or the USA ever respected "democracy and human rights"--except as a cynical political lie? IT is the USA, Canada and other Western "democracies" that are/have been busy raping, colonizing, and subjgating nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Yugoslavia--all under the lie of promoting "democracy and human rights." "Democracy and human rights" are nothing more than a poltiical cover which the West hides behind in order to justify their wars of aggression as well as economic exploitation (i.e. Globalization) of vast swathes of humanity. As for the Canada and the USA relationship, you Canadians haven't figured out yet that you are nothing more than Uncle Sam's well-kept *****. Under the cover of "deep integration" as well as expansion of the USA's Northcom military system to include Canada, you have given up your "sovereignty" a long time ago. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Anonymous | Subject: Re: Will Washington Tolerate A Chinese-Venezuelan Petro Pact? posted: Jan 18, 2005 - 10:22 PM |
the takeover you speak about is not yet complete, but yes it is happening. those actions you speak of - yes they happen, but there are those of us fighting it so that we may all win. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Anonymous | Subject: Re: Will the World Tolerate Anglo-American Domination? posted: Apr 29, 2005 - 01:04 PM |
Hello,
While this reply may be late in coming to the contents of this article I must say for anybody reading in future (I found this article through a search cached copy) to offer up another point that I have found to be a re-occuring source of concern for me.
The vitriolic commentary about Canada's alliance with the US, referred to as the 'Anglo American Axis' in the closing paragraph, I must comment as a Canadian. While there is a very real concern by Canadians AND other countries and cultures in regards to the hunger for petroleum coming from the U.S., that there seems to be a rather disproportionate bias towards the perception of events being manipulated by English-speaking 'Anglos' for domination of the global econmies. Certainly the public images of the U.S. especially, and of Canada can be viewed that way; However, it at the same time totally denigrates and dismisses the VERY large proportion of Asian, East Asian, Black (Whether of West Indian or African direct relation), Middle Eastern and French-speaking Caucasians that DO have a voice in Canada and the U.S. and DO have a DIRECT input into the policies and laws that are put in practice by the Canadian and U.S. governments. Canada especially has long prided itself on multi-culturalism, to the point where it is taken for granted as a basis for society in Canada and in it's cities and the lifestyles of the populations therein. This additionally is reflected within the U.S. as well, that can be best seen in major cities such as San Francisco and New York. To ignore the influence and wishes of such mixed populaces is at the peril of anyone looking to offer up any simplified ideals of an authoritarian 'Anglo' North America. The U.S. certainly may be VISIBLY directed by predominately English speaking Caucasians, it ignores the vast numbers of Blacks, Asians and LATINS (Hispanic being the un-official second tongue to learn in the U.S.) that support their governments actions and policies. One final point to consider that many seem to forget or overlook, is that Canada's physcial and subsequent diplomatic position in relation to the U.S. Canada's large size while impressive on a map, does not really give an accurate view proportionately to the size of it's population (32,078,819) versus that of the U.S.(295,996,538 ), and the amount influence it can conceivably bear upon the U.S. By way of comparison, New York City (8,085,742.) alone has 40% of Canada's population. Such an extreme disproportion of power residing south of Canada's border obviously has to play a significant part of any decision making process that goes on in Canada, and in turn, must be taken into account when viewing Canada's actions on the world stage. However, Canada, as an ally of the U.S., does not immediately confer acceptance or condoning of U.S. government policies, actions or statements. It is, like any other government outside of the U.S., is an distinct and seperate governing body that was selected by it's populance for the direction and well-being of their chosen country. In other words, Canada think's for itself, like any other country would, and does the best it can for itself and it's peoples, again, like any other country would. Lumping Canada and it's peoples, languages and beliefs into a 'Anglo' pot with the U.S. all of its' peoples, doesn't accomplish anything other than to serve to muddy the waters of clear thought and promote ignorance. Thank-You,
An Anglic-descended Caucasian. Feel free to email me at 'phnxphkz-at-g-mail-dot-com' if you have anything you would like to discuss directly with me. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Add a new Comment |
Last Link: ![]() Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 450 stat... hits:972 more last Links: ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() [ Add ] |