By Humberto Márquez
CARACAS, Dec 17 2002 (IPS)

Venezuela’s political crisis, marked by a 16-day-old general strike, has become a threat to U.S. interests, particularly the security of its petroleum supplies, just when Washington is preparing for a war in the Persian Gulf region, home to 65 percent of the world’s oil reserves.

The political opposition launched the strike Dec 2 to demand a referendum on whether President Hugo Chávez should remain in office. The protest has paralysed industry, a portion of the retail sector and services, and his hit the state-run oil giant Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

Venezuela holds an estimated seven percent of the world’s petroleum reserves and has the capacity to extract three million 159-litre barrels of oil a day.

The only Latin American member of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), it produces 2.8 million barrels a day and exports 2.4 million barrels. The United States imports more than half of that total, 1.5 million barrels.

The United States consumes approximately 15 million barrels of oil a day in the periods of highest demand, such as the winter season. Ten million barrels of the daily supply are imported. As such, Venezuelan oil constitutes 10 percent of the total consumed, and 15 percent of the total imported.

Washington "cannot make the decision to go to war (against Iraq) as long as the conflict continues here," Aníbal Romero, expert in national security and defence and political science professor at Simón Bolívar University, said in a conversation with IPS.

Humberto Calderón, a former Energy minister of Venezuela, noted that "it is unlikely that the actions planned against Baghdad could be moved up in circumstances that imply the absence of five million barrels of oil a day from the world market," in other words, the combined output of Iraq and Venezuela.

Those five million barrels represent 6.6 percent of the 76 million barrels of petroleum the world consumes each day, he said.

A similar percentage disappeared from the market in 1979 when Iran’s Islamic revolution erupted, "and the outcome was that the price doubled, from 12.70 to 26 dollars a barrel," pointed out Calderón, who has also served as president of PDVSA and as minister of foreign relations.

"Venezuela for the first time is part of the problem and not part of the solution," José Toro, a former PDVSA executive, told IPS. "We were the secure supplier of petroleum during World War II, the post-war crisis and the during the escalations of the Middle East conflict."

There are three requirements for being a secure and reliable supplier: "first, one must have abundant oil supplies, second, there must be regional geopolitical stability, and third, the country must be politically and social stable, and Venezuela today is not," comments Alberto Quirós, another expert and former oil industry executive.

The country’s importance as an oil supplier apparently prompted Washington to react, as the George W. Bush administration is urging Chávez and the opposition – led by trade unions and business associations, and by PDVSA executives – to find a way to resolve the conflict.

Political observers from across the region have mentioned the possibility that Chávez, with his hands on the petroleum spigots, could emerge as the focal point of a Latin American leftist resurgence pitted against the United States.

This hypothesis arose in the wake of electoral victories by the left: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to the presidency in Brazil, Lucio Gutiérrez to the presidency in Ecuador, and Evo Morales coming in a close second place in Bolivia’s presidential elections.

Meanwhile, leftist parties in Argentina and Uruguay are doing well in the polls.

"Whoever has eyes to see, look at what the people are doing, in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela," Chávez himself said during a recent press conference.

Last month, U.S. senator Henry Hyde, of the ruling Republican Party, urged Bush to give the opposition in Venezuela the clear support of the United States in order to prevent Chávez from becoming part of a new "axis of evil" in Latin America, which would include Cuba.

But, says university professor Romero, "we shouldn’t exaggerate. Chávez does not have the capacity to become a destabilising force in Latin America."

"There is no way for that to happen. Look at (Brazil’s president-elect) Lula and his meeting with Bush," added Romero, referring to the constructive climate of the encounter between the two last week in Washington.

Gutiérrez, Ecuador’s president-elect, has also been received in Washington, something that Chávez has not achieved since he was first elected president in December 1998.

When a group of military commanders ousted the Venezuelan president from power for two days in April, the White House received accusations – from inside and outside the United States – that it had played a role in the failed coup.

"It was the first opportunity for the U.S. Democratic Party to attack Bush’s international policy since the Sep 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington," said Romero.

As such, in the double context of last month’s legislative elections in the United States and the potential attack against Iraq, "Washington opened a window of opportunity for Chávez to have here a reliable oil supply and a moderately presentable democracy."

Currently, the United States supports the efforts of César Gaviria, secretary-general of the Organisation of American States (OAS), as mediator of the formal talks between the Chávez administration and opposition leaders.

Last week, the White House suggested that early elections – as the opposition is demanding – could be a solution to the crisis.

But then the United States tacitly supported the Chávez government’s approach by stating that the Venezuelan Constitution should be respected, and that amending it in order to hold a referendum on whether the president should remain in power is not the desired way out.

According to the Constitution, such a referendum may not be held until halfway through the president’s term, which in Chávez’s case would be August 2003.

The opposition initially sought a referendum to take place before that, but as this month’s strike continues, there are louder calls for "new elections now!"

And in recent days, with the oil industry executives at the forefront, the demands are for Chávez’s immediate resignation.

The OAS Permanent Council sent a message Monday night urging "the Venezuelan government and democratic opposition to use good- faith negotiations to bring about a constitutional, democratic, peaceful, and electoral solution."

The OAS also expressed its categorical rejection of "any attempt at a coup d’état or unconstitutional alteration" of the Venezuelan regime, and reaffirmed its support for Gaviria’s work as mediator of the negotiations.

Excerpt:

By Humberto Márquez
CARACAS, Dec 17 2002 (IPS)

Venezuela’s political crisis, marked by a 16-day-old general strike, has become a threat to U.S. interests, particularly the security of its petroleum supplies, just when Washington is preparing for a war in the Persian Gulf region, home to 65 percent of the world’s oil reserves.

The political opposition launched the strike Dec 2 to demand a referendum on whether President Hugo Chávez should remain in office. The protest has paralysed industry, a portion of the retail sector and services, and his hit the state-run oil giant Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

Venezuela holds an estimated seven percent of the world’s petroleum reserves and has the capacity to extract three million 159-litre barrels of oil a day.

The only Latin American member of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), it produces 2.8 million barrels a day and exports 2.4 million barrels. The United States imports more than half of that total, 1.5 million barrels.

The United States consumes approximately 15 million barrels of oil a day in the periods of highest demand, such as the winter season. Ten million barrels of the daily supply are imported. As such, Venezuelan oil constitutes 10 percent of the total consumed, and 15 percent of the total imported.

Washington “cannot make the decision to go to war (against Iraq) as long as the conflict continues here,” Aníbal Romero, expert in national security and defence and political science professor at Simón Bolívar University, said in a conversation with IPS.

Humberto Calderón, a former Energy minister of Venezuela, noted that “it is unlikely that the actions planned against Baghdad could be moved up in circumstances that imply the absence of five million barrels of oil a day from the world market,” in other words, the combined output of Iraq and Venezuela.

Those five million barrels represent 6.6 percent of the 76 million barrels of petroleum the world consumes each day, he said.

A similar percentage disappeared from the market in 1979 when Iran’s Islamic revolution erupted, “and the outcome was that the price doubled, from 12.70 to 26 dollars a barrel,” pointed out Calderón, who has also served as president of PDVSA and as minister of foreign relations.

“Venezuela for the first time is part of the problem and not part of the solution,” José Toro, a former PDVSA executive, told IPS. “We were the secure supplier of petroleum during World War II, the post-war crisis and the during the escalations of the Middle East conflict.”

There are three requirements for being a secure and reliable supplier: “first, one must have abundant oil supplies, second, there must be regional geopolitical stability, and third, the country must be politically and social stable, and Venezuela today is not,” comments Alberto Quirós, another expert and former oil industry executive.

The country’s importance as an oil supplier apparently prompted Washington to react, as the George W. Bush administration is urging Chávez and the opposition — led by trade unions and business associations, and by PDVSA executives — to find a way to resolve the conflict.

Political observers from across the region have mentioned the possibility that Chávez, with his hands on the petroleum spigots, could emerge as the focal point of a Latin American leftist resurgence pitted against the United States.

This hypothesis arose in the wake of electoral victories by the left: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to the presidency in Brazil, Lucio Gutiérrez to the presidency in Ecuador, and Evo Morales coming in a close second place in Bolivia’s presidential elections.

Meanwhile, leftist parties in Argentina and Uruguay are doing well in the polls.

“Whoever has eyes to see, look at what the people are doing, in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela,” Chávez himself said during a recent press conference.

Last month, U.S. senator Henry Hyde, of the ruling Republican Party, urged Bush to give the opposition in Venezuela the clear support of the United States in order to prevent Chávez from becoming part of a new “axis of evil” in Latin America, which would include Cuba.

But, says university professor Romero, “we shouldn’t exaggerate. Chávez does not have the capacity to become a destabilising force in Latin America.”

“There is no way for that to happen. Look at (Brazil’s president-elect) Lula and his meeting with Bush,” added Romero, referring to the constructive climate of the encounter between the two last week in Washington.

Gutiérrez, Ecuador’s president-elect, has also been received in Washington, something that Chávez has not achieved since he was first elected president in December 1998.

When a group of military commanders ousted the Venezuelan president from power for two days in April, the White House received accusations — from inside and outside the United States — that it had played a role in the failed coup.

“It was the first opportunity for the U.S. Democratic Party to attack Bush’s international policy since the Sep 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington,” said Romero.

As such, in the double context of last month’s legislative elections in the United States and the potential attack against Iraq, “Washington opened a window of opportunity for Chávez to have here a reliable oil supply and a moderately presentable democracy.”

Currently, the United States supports the efforts of César Gaviria, secretary-general of the Organisation of American States (OAS), as mediator of the formal talks between the Chávez administration and opposition leaders.

Last week, the White House suggested that early elections — as the opposition is demanding — could be a solution to the crisis.

But then the United States tacitly supported the Chávez government’s approach by stating that the Venezuelan Constitution should be respected, and that amending it in order to hold a referendum on whether the president should remain in power is not the desired way out.

According to the Constitution, such a referendum may not be held until halfway through the president’s term, which in Chávez’s case would be August 2003.

The opposition initially sought a referendum to take place before that, but as this month’s strike continues, there are louder calls for “new elections now!”

And in recent days, with the oil industry executives at the forefront, the demands are for Chávez’s immediate resignation.

The OAS Permanent Council sent a message Monday night urging “the Venezuelan government and democratic opposition to use good- faith negotiations to bring about a constitutional, democratic, peaceful, and electoral solution.”

The OAS also expressed its categorical rejection of “any attempt at a coup d’état or unconstitutional alteration” of the Venezuelan regime, and reaffirmed its support for Gaviria’s work as mediator of the negotiations.

Excerpt: