What left an imprint on Chavez was Ceresole's geopolitical thinking. The Argentine was an advocate of a Latin American alliance with the Middle East and Asia to counterbalance the power of the United States. He also provided "a number of connections with Arab governments which were to prove extremely useful." Furthermore, the Argentine also looked back to strong military leaders such as Nasser of Egypt and Ataturk of Turkey for inspiration and is an admirer, like Chavez, of Panama's Torrijos and Peru's Velasco. But, even Gott suggests that Ceresole was not necessarily all that politically correct, noting: "Yet a continuing friendship with this controversial Argentinian might have proved embarrassing, and when Chavez became president, Ceresole was conveniently spirited out of the country, and he returned to Buenos Aires."
Troubles Ahead?
While there is much about Chavez and his revolution that can be sympathized with-dealing with Venezuela's massive corruption, societal inequalities, and heavy dependence on oil-there are some major flaws in Gott's approach. First and foremost, Gott is willing to overlook the danger of someone like Chavez, a former golpista, in power. Although Chavez has made excellent use of the ballot box, he has also made skillful use of charisma and relied heavily on the military to implement policies. Charisma does not last forever and the use of the military on an extended basis in civilian circles of operations has a tendency to politicize soldiers. The fact that Chavez advocated and sought power by use of the machinegun before he was elected no doubt has not been lost on other soldiers, both from the right and left. The old saying of "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" is apropos in the Venezuelan case.
A second flaw in Gott's thinking is the role of the United States. While the United States has played an interventionist role in Latin America in the past (as recently demonstrated by the CIA's documents on Chile in the 1970s), the response to Hugo Chavez's revolution has been very cautious. The chumminess to Cuba, Libya, and Iraq has not triggered any firm policy shift in Washington, nor has Chavez's sympathy with Colombia's FARC. There is no massive rush to bring down Latin America's new populist messiah. Yes, Chavez's state visit to Iraq as the first head of state to do so since the Gulf war in 1991 was criticized. No, Washington did not spring into action to prevent Chavez from achieving his short-term political objectives. Some might argue that it should. However, for the moment, Washington is not that interested in venting additional problems in Latin America, especially in a key oil exporting country.
Third, Gott downplays the importance of the economy. While he glows over Chavez as a champion against globalization and neo-liberalism, he sidesteps the issue that Venezuela is entirely hooked on the ups and downs of the international economy, a situation not likely to change any time soon. Charisma has worked well in a period of higher oil prices, but when they head down, which they will, the current hazy and statist nature of Chavez's economic policies will be problematic. There are built-in contradictions in the economic reality that Chavez faces. Gott is therefore correct in making the following assertion: "In spite of all his rhetoric against neo-liberalism, Chavez is desperate for foreign investment. He has to steer a difficult and almost impossible course: telling his nationalist country what it wants to hear, and making the right kind of reassuring noises that will not frighten the foreign investors."
A critical problem is that the economic team and many of Chavez's closest advisors have strong sympathies for Marxism or are statists. There are not likely to stomach making the difficult market-oriented reforms needed to reduce dependency on oil exports, stimulate small and medium-sized businesses, or revitalize the agricultural sector. The problem here is of actually internalizing market reforms. The weight of history is against them, much as it was in the Soviet Union, Albania, North Korea and Maoist China. While Chavez has appeared enthralled with China and visited Mao's tomb, he missed the fundamental point that Asia's largest country has long since scrapped Maoism and adapted its own market-oriented economic strategy. China is even attempting to dismantle its red ink-laden state-owned enterprises. However, this accentuates the gap between economic reforms and an often-harsh political reality. This may yet sound appealing for Third World populists, but the dangers for Venezuela are also palatable. <snip> Michael Pugliese