Hugo Chavez: more dangerous than you might think …
Posted by: Blue Collar Muse in America First, Business, Economics, Energy, Geopolitics, History, Homeland Security, Infrastructure Issues, Stronger Defense, Terrorism, The EconomySo say authors Michael Rowan and Douglas Schoen in their new book The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chávez and the War Against America. I received this article as a promo today and thought to pass it on to all of you.
Oil, Chávez, War and Terror
By Michael Rowan,
Co-author of The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chávez and the War Against AmericaA half century ago, Juan Pablo Perez Alfonso, the Venezuelan who started OPEC, said, “Ten years from now, twenty years from now, you will see: oil will bring us ruin . . . Oil is the Devil’s excrement.” Hugo Chávez, who was an infant when those words were spoken, is now learning their truth.
When Chávez took over Venezuela in 1999, the oil price was under $10 a barrel, which he was able to help spike to $147 by July, 2008, a rise coincident with his oil hegemony in Latin America and political alliances with Iran and Russia to oppose “the evil empire” of America and its “Devil” President George W. Bush.
But by the first days of 2009, the Devil’s excrement has hit the fan, so to speak, as oil dipped to $30 a barrel in Caracas, where it must be $90 to balance the budget. Consequently, the power of Chávez has been visibly shaken but it would be a huge miscalculation to count him out.
Often underestimated as a foolish showboat, Chávez has monopolized Venezuela’s oil, money, and power for ten years running. His oil price strategy was effective until only a few months ago and it might work again in 2009 — to short the market of oil supplies, while spurring prices with theatrical threats of war or oil cut-offs.
Since 1999, Chávez has personally shorted the market by over 2 million barrels per day. Instead of increasing Venezuelan production from 3.6mbd in 1998 to the planned 5mbd for today, he reduced production to 2.4mbd, which reduced world oil supply just as China and India were coming on line with new demand.
By getting Ali Rodriguez, his co-conspirator in a 1992 coup attempt, appointed president of OPEC, Chávez pushed oil producers into his price-gouging strategy and soon had OPEC also shorting the market (Previous to Chávez, Saudi Arabia had tamped down the price hawks in OPEC).
But his most astounding achievement was spiking the ìpolitical risk premiumî paid for oil through threats of war, which can be found by searching for the words “Chávez + War + U.S.” in Google, where no less than 7,300,000 stories pop up for review. When oil approached $70 a barrel in 2006, Saudi Energy Minister Ali al-Naimi opined that the war talk accounted for 40% of the oil price. The price of oil has little to do with supply and demand, as al-Naimi saw it.
Wall Street doubts about al-Naimi’s analysis shattered as the oil price soared over $100 in March of 2008 coincident with threats from Iran about developing nuclear weapons, wiping Israel off the map and closing the Gulf of Hormuz (where 15mbd are shipped every day); plus threats from Venezuela about cutting off U.S. deliveries, buying $4 billion of Russian weapons to thwart an imagined U.S. invasion, and threatening war against U.S. anti-drug activities in Colombia or if the U.S. did anything provocative toward Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran or Hamas.
In May, 2008, the oil guru Arjun N. Murti of Goldman Sachs predicted a “super spike” where oil would pierce $200. In July, when oil hit $147, Wall Street thought he was right. But he was not. When a Commodity Futures Trading Commission report showed in September, 2008, that speculative bets by index funds didn’t push oil prices up, the power of Chávez’s oil price gouging strategy was clear but ignored: Wall Street and Washington had already turned toward a much larger looming crisis with the banks and the worst recession since the 1930s.
The global recession of economic activity cut the legs out of the oil price which sank $100 in 100 days to about $40 a barrel by the turn of the year. This put Chávez in a huge quandary. He’s got to get the price up to the $80 level or suffer huge consequences in Venezuela where he employs every other person in the country. If Chávez loses the referendum in March that allows him to run for president for life, things could get dicey for him in Venezuela.
Barack Obama, who has other things on his mind, is all Chávez is thinking about. Obama, Chávez says, is the same as Bush, so the war to destroy capitalism and U.S. power must go on. Chávez, who is more heavily armed than anyone outside the Pentagon on this hemisphere, wants a confrontation with Obama to build his support back home — the same trick Fidel Castro has worked with ten American presidents in a row.
When Israel began bombing the Gaza strip, Chávez joined his strategic partner, Iran’s Ahmadinejad, in defending Hamas and condemning Israel and its supporter, the U.S. But this time, the threat to cut off oil flowing through the Gulf of Hormuz and oil flowing from Venezuela to the U.S., upped the price by only a few dollars a barrel and only for one day.
The unknown factor is whether the one unused weapon in the arsenal of Ahmadinejad and Chávez will be used before they are ousted. That is the weapon Fidel Castro invited to Cuba in 1962 and which almost caused a nuclear war. Can Obama deal as effectively with Ahmadinejad and Chávez as Kennedy dealt with Khrushchev and Castro in 1962? That, as Joe Biden predicted in the campaign, may be the “test” Obama will face from Chávez.
©2008 Michael Rowan
Author Bio
Michael Rowan, a political consultant and writer, lived in Caracas from 1993 to 2006. He was the strategist for Governor Manuel Rosales in the 2006 presidential race and is the co- author with Douglas Schoen of The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chávez and the War Against America (Free Press, January 6, 2009 publication; 978-1-4165-9477-2).
Reprinted with permission.
Popularity: 23% [?]
Tags: Douglas Schoen, Hugo Chavez, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Michael Rowan, Oil as an Economic Weapon, Oil Imports, The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chavez and the War Agai, Venezuala





Entries (RSS)
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 am
Written by the strategist for Manuel Rosales, who lost by 20% in the 2007 election (declared fair by all international observers), and Doug Schoen, whose PSB polling company were humiliated in the 2004 recall referendum when, in contrast to all other polls (including opposition ones) their predicted result was 40% out. Make of that what you will (possibly mildly partisan and creative with the truth perhaps?)
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:26 am
And Sadam Hussein enjoyed outstanding victory margins. 99% of the Iraqi votes were cast for him. What might I make of that?
Let’s read the book and address specifics, shall we?
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:59 am
I don’t know for sure, but I’m pretty sure Saddam Hussein’s elections weren’t internationally observed and accredited (OK, I do know, they weren’t) - the Venezuelan administration make sure to invite plenty of international observers for the very reason they are well aware that the US government’s antpathy towards them will mean constant attempts to discredit their popularity. I’m certainly not putting money in Doug Schoen’s pocket, the quotes I’ve seen in reviews have been enough to assure me it will be typically creative with the truth - feel free to lend me your copy, I’d like to read it though.
What do you make of the fact that Latinbarometro, the internationally respected independent (unlike the relentlessly partisan and politically motivated Penn Schoen & Berland operation) Chilean Pollsters, rated Venezuelan residents as having the second highest satisfaction with the state of their democracy out of all of latin america? Doesn’t sound like actual Venezuelans think they live in a totalitarian nightmare, but then again, who cares what they think, eh?
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 am
@Anonymous -
My point in referencing Iraqi elections was that anyone can say anything if the only criteria for establishing the truth of a statement is that you said it. That applies to your comments as well.
For instance, you say “they are well aware that the US government’s antpathy towards them will mean constant attempts to discredit their popularity.” I’m not saying that’s not true. But I’m saying it also ignores Chavez’s antipathy towards the American administration and his constant attempts to discredit it. I seem to remember Chavez at the podium to address the UN the day after Bush spoke to the same body and declaring that Bush was Satan and that the stench of sulfur remained at the podium a day later.
It’s easy to dismiss Schoen’s positions as “typically creative with the truth” and so discourage investigation and evaluation of what he has to say before it ever takes place. The same charge could be leveled at you based on what you have written here.
I’m in the process of looking into the matter and will check out Latinbarometro. But I must be honest. Your comments are not helping. When you describe Schoen as “relentlessly partisan and politically motivated” but LB as “internationally respected [and] independent” I must confess such comments make you look just as relentlessly partisan and politically motivated. If you desire that I reject Schoen for those reasons, I must also reject you!
Finally, and most importantly, Schoen and the people who agree with him are out in the public eye. Their actions and history can be evaluated and considered when deciding how reliable and trustworthy a source they are. You yourself do exactly that in your first comment. Yet, you will not compete on a level playing field and permit your history, background, expertise and experience to be judged as well. You comment anonymously, castigating and maligning another man’s work and opinion. You may even be correct. But the tools you use - the availability of information and track record you point us to and use to interpret and condemn Schoen and those who agree with him - you are unwilling to undergo the same process yourself.
I would be very interested to continue to hear your take on the matter. But I’m going to insist that if you continue to comment here on this matter, you must do so under your own name and provide your own vitals so my readers and I can decide how reliable a source you are. Given that we all appear to be interested in free and fair elections and what is best for the citizens of our countries, that would seem to be the least we can agree to when providing good information to the “citizens” here at BCM to use in deciding which way they will vote in the “election” to decide the intentions and character of Hugo Chavez.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 am
Thank you for your considered response.
My name is Joe Morris, South America is a continent I hold dear to my heart, I have many friends there and have visited a number of times. For this reason I have taken a very keen interest in the developments there. I read about the region constantly from as wide a variety of sources as possible, and square that with my knowledge of the region’s history since the Spanish Conquest, and speaking to people on my travels.
The conclusion I come to is that decades of democratic activism for giving the general population a greater say have finally managed to elect some genuinely popular leaders, a fact that the US government isn’t keen on. Doug Schoen has a track record for being politically involved, and I dare say probably has a personal axe to grind in Venezuela since it caused the collapse of his polling career. Latinobarometro (with an ‘o’, I spelt it wrong before)… is well regarded by all sides of the political spectrum.
The fact is, the Chavez administration is hugely popular there, and while you may not like his politics, surely you can at least accept that he is there by the will of the majority of the population? Or is it too hard to accept that other countries may have different wishes to yours?
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
Joe -
Thanks for your response as well.
I have a couple of observations. First is that I am decidedly not an expert or even a quasi-expert on Latin American affairs in general or Venezuelan affairs in particular.
Second is that your response and Schoen’s main contention seem to be at odds. For Schoen’s main argument - that Chavez is a threat to the US - to be true does not require that your contention - that Schoen has an axe to grind because he fared poorly in business after wrongly evaluating the Venezuelan public’s support for Chavez - be false. Venezuelans may love Hugo Chavez. That doesn’t make him no threat to the US. Many countries have populations supporting a leader hostile to the US.
What will be more important than any lingering bitterness (whether valid or not) Schoen may harbor is how well he suppresses it when reporting on the nature of the threat he believes Chavez represents. If his overall and more objective dislike for Chavez is merely amplified by his personal experience that does not automatically make his conclusions suspect. It only makes them suspect if he fails to document his conclusions and presents conjecture as fact. Those same arguments apply to you and me as well.
I’m going to suggest some caution on your part lest you fall into the same trap. I am completely able to accept that other countries may have different wishes than mine. That is, after all, the exact premise of Schoen’s book. The question is, will you permit the US to have different wishes than those displayed by Venezuela? Just because I’m willing to permit Venezuelans to determine their own destiny - including having anti-American sentiments if that is their choice - doesn’t mean that I’m disreputable, disingenuous or disrespectful for pointing out those sentiments and recommending we be prepared to deal with them.
Nor does it mean that if Chavez can be shown to behave in a manner that is not simply anti-American, but anti-Freedom or anti-Liberty or whatever pejorative you’d care to apply, that perhaps other pro-Chavez sentiments might also be vulnerable to criticism. We are all aware of people who publicly proclaim their loyalty to a leader and his righteousness and goodness in public while believing the opposite in private. Our job is to look at the evidence objectively and divine the Truth - seldom an easy proposition.
If you have links to material that support your contention that Venezuelans as a whole support Chavez and his policies, please let me know. If you have links to material that disputes Schoen’s contention that Venezuela is a threat to the US regardless of how Venezuelans feel about their President, please let me know about those as well.
I’m looking forward to reading the material you refer me to along with Schoen’s work.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
Thanks for your response, I appreciate the opportunity to have a reasonable, intelligent and civil discussion with someone who may come from a different viewpoint to me. I simply urge that people look into these matters from a variety of sources.
I’d agree that facts are much more important than ‘ad hominem’ attacks on the man. I will round some up later to give an idea of what I mean. I know it’s only anecdotal and hardly a dealbreaker, but a very good friend of mine whose opinion I trust implicitly is Venezuelan, and he has worked with the Venezuelan government on youth projects in the barrios for some time. I went to college with this guy when we were both 16 and he was living in the UK for a few years (his mother is British), and he is always telling me that it is a very free and open atmosphere of political discussion over there, much more so than in this country even. A lot of people disagree about many things, but there is a very healthy level of discussion. Most of the papers are very against Chavez’ government, but his support mainly comes from the poor, not the media classes.
Regarding his threat to the US, I do not believe he represents any threat to the American people - he represents a threat to some commercial interests of corporations that happen to be headquartered in the US, and have the ear of the US political classes, however, simply by asserting control over his country’s resources. Chavez himself has said he has no quarrel with the American people many, many times. He understandably, however has a problem with a government that has relentlessly attacked him to the extent of supporting a coup in 2002 that nearly resulted in his death (he was saved due to mass shows of popular support on the streets).
Despite the hype, the Venezuelan armed forces are less powerful than many in the region. Colombia, Brazil and Chile all have larger military budgets.