POLITICS-VENEZUELA: Washington Seen as Lacking Options

By Jim Lobe Reprint | | Print |

Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Feb 28 2002 (IPS) - The U.S. administration has hardened its line against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez over the last several months but is unlikely to do much more for lack of viable alternatives, say government officials and independent analysts here.

As was made clear in recent Congressional testimony by Secretary of State Colin Powell and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet, the administration is clearly annoyed with the former coup leader, particularly since he accused Washington of “fighting terror with terror” in the opening days of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan.

But officials here insist Washington is not behind recent calls by Venezuelan military officers for Chavez to step down and is not engaged in covert activities designed to destroy his presidency, at least through extra-constitutional means.

“We believe that all parties should respect democratic institutions,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said this week. “Those who may want change, political change, need to pursue it democratically and constitutionally.”

This “applies to whatever direction the attacks on democracy might be coming from,” he said, adding: “As long as whatever changes happen are constitutional, we generally don’t get involved in choosing other government’s leaders.”

Latin America historians might not agree with Boucher’s interpretation of U.S. intervention in the region but independent analysts say they have seen no evidence that the administration, as much as it dislikes Chavez, wants him removed, at least for the moment.

“Since (President George W.) Bush came in, and especially since September 11, this administration has wanted to get tough on him, it’s true,” said Eric Olson, an analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a human rights group, “but they still haven’t figured out what they want exactly.”

“From the administration’s point of view, the options are not too appealing,” said Michael Shifter, vice president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank here. “The best for now is to get him through his term (which ends in 2005) with the least damage, and maybe begin to show that he can be more open (to the opposition).”

Shifter says, and officials confirm, that there is growing concern within the middle ranks of the government about prospects for Venezuela’s long-term stability, particularly in light of the fact that Caracas is the third biggest source of imported oil to the United States.

But, in the short term, Washington is far more pre-occupied with the situation in Colombia, where it plans to increase its military and intelligence presence in the wake of last week’s collapse of peace talks, and Argentina, whose economic collapse defies any quick fix and could have political ramifications inimical to U.S. economic interests in the region.

“The administration doesn’t want to have to deal with one more crisis in Latin America right now,” according to Shifter. “The basic message is that it can live with (Chavez), but wants him to remain in check.”

That appeared to be the message which Powell and Tenet wanted to convey in their recent testimony, which surprised some observers by the seemingly gratuitous way in which they attacked Chavez’s rule.

Noting Chavez’s visits with such U.S. betes noires as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Moammar Qadhafi, not to mention his long-standing enchantment with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Powell noted that he had sent Washington’s ambassador in Caracas, Donna Hrinak, on several occasions to talk about those and other matters of concern to the administration. Chavez, Powell said, “becomes quite defensive.”

Tenet raised eyebrows higher yet when he said in prepared remarks that he was “particularly concerned about Venezuela,” adding, ” Domestic unhappiness with President Chavez’s ‘Bolivarian revolution’ is growing, economic conditions have deteriorated with the fall in oil prices, and the crisis atmosphere is likely to worsen.”

Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Otto Reich, who received a controversial recess appointment after Democrats refused to confirm him, has yet to speak publicly about Venezuela. The operating assumption here is that, as a hard-line anti-Castro Cuban exile and former ambassador to Caracas with close ties to the political establishment there, he is unlikely to have anything good to say about Chavez.

None of this necessarily translates into policy initiatives designed to oust Chavez, whether by constitutional or covert means, despite the recent sharp decline in his popularity and the increasingly confrontational tactics of his opposition.

“The Clinton administration was concerned about what he did, rather than what he said, and they refused to be provoked so long as he didn’t actually do something,” said one official. “The Bush administration is more sensitive, and they actively dislike him, so they’re saying, ‘we care what you say, as well as what you do, so don’t provoke us’.”

In some sense, however, this harshness could contribute to the current polarisation in Venezuela without this necessarily being the intention, according to Olson, who sees the administration’s more recent remarks as motivated more by instinct than by policy.

“They’ve spoken out of both sides of their mouth on the question of Chavez and democracy,” said Olson. “By so publicly attacking the democratically elected president and then insisting that we support democracy, you know, one starts to wonder how deep that commitment (to democracy) is.”

What is particularly sensitive to the administration is any hint that Chavez may be providing support for Colombian guerrilla groups, especially now that the peace process there has collapsed. Washington is poised to provide significantly more aid to the government of President Andres Pastrana and whoever succeeds him, according to analysts here.

So far, Chavez’s reaction to the past week’s events in Colombia – which was generally supportive of Pastrana – has been encouraging to the administration, according to Shifter.

“I think there is a hope that Chavez is getting the message and will moderate his rhetoric and be somewhat more cooperative in terms of U.S. policy goals, especially in Colombia,” he said. “The administration is certainly not happy with him, but the alternatives are not terribly clear.”