Hazel Henderson-Globocop v. Venezuela's Chavez
SYNDICATED
DISTRIBUTION TO 400 NEWSPAPERS IN ASIA, EUROPE, LATIN AMERICA, AND AFRICA IN 27
LANGUAGES. For information on subscribing to INTERPRESS SERVICE (IPS) Rome,
contact: Pablo Pacientini, fax: 390-6-481-7877. For permission to syndicate or
reprint, contact: Teddy Jefferson (IPS) New York, phone: 1-212-924-9102; fax:
1-212-924-9120.
GLOBOCOP v. VENEZUELA’S CHAVEZ:
Oil, Globalization and Competing Visions of Development
The military coup and
swift reinstatement of President Chavez in Venezuela left the US with egg on its
face. Keys to the US’s increasing irritation with Chavez’ populist Bolivarian
revolution were his re-invigorating of OPEC, opposition to US-backed corporate
globalization and free trade, oil and competing visions of development.
Deeper than the
conflicting rhetoric about whether Chavez resigned (which he denied) or the
legality of Fedecameras boss economist/industrialist Pedro Carmona’s
installation as interim President by the military – lie two conflicting
worldviews. One is represented by the Davos World Economic Forum, the orthodox
view of industrial development, globalization and free trade, summed up as “The
Washington Consensus”.
The other view is
that of global grass-roots, activists opposed to further globalization of
corporate power, who gathered at the World Social Forum in 2001 and 2002 under
the vision “Another World is Possible” (i.e. to globalize human rights,
workplace standards, social justice and environmental protection while curbing
the power of global finance). Typical of this vision is well-known Venezuelan
author and diplomat Frank Bracho’s 1998 book, Petroleum and Globalization:
Salvation or Perdition, which struck a deep chord with President Hugo
Chavez, elected in 1998 with an unprecedented popular mandate.
President Hugo Chavez
agreed with Bracho’s view that the goals and direction of development had been
skewed by “economism” and must be steered toward social well-being,
poverty-reduction, sustainable human development and quality of life. Both
Bracho and Chavez are of indigenous descent and proud of their heritage of
native wisdom. Like most of the world’s indigenous peoples, they are skeptical
about the prevailing worldview of industrial, economic globalization – seeing
the resulting destruction of local cultures, communities, social and ecological
assets (unpriced in conventional economics).
I met Frank Bracho in
1984 at The Other Economic Summit, a counterpoint to the G7 Summit. Our close
friendship since then included many trips to Venezuela, collaborating on the
G-15 Summits, at the Report of The South Commission in 1989, Challenge to the
South and exchanging ideas and contacts during Frank’s tenure as Venezuela’s
Ambassador to India.
Fast-forward to 2000
and a call from Bracho asking me to help him create a global conference of
experts on all forms of energy, which President Chavez had asked him to
convene. The International Seminar on the Future of Energy, convened in
Caracas, June and Vancouver, August 2000, surveyed global energy statistics,
their reliability under different future scenarios and included all supply
options from fossil fuels to solar, wind and all renewables.
Chavez opened the
conference and stressed that there were only two basic kinds of energy: solar
energy and human energy. He urged our international participants – including
many investors and CEOs of solar and renewables companies to think outside the
box. PDVSA executives were outraged as were some of the OPEC representatives.
Many of PDVSA’s top refinery managers later joined Fedecameras in pressuring
Chavez by shutting off oil production, according to Business Week (April 22,
2002). The New York Times, AP and most other media erroneously reported
that PDVSA’s labor, not management, led the strike that shut off almost all
Venezuela’s oil exports of 2 million barrels a day. Chavez and PDVSA had been on
a collision course over PDVSA’s demand for “autonomy” and Chavez’s charges that
the state-owned oil giant had become taken over by an elite, “an island of
luxury in a sea of poverty.”
Oil continued to be
at the heart of Chavez’s problems with the USA – dependent on Venezuela as its
third largest supplier and increasingly worried as OPEC member Iraq, cut one
million barrels of production in protest of the Israeli incursions into
Palestinian areas. Chavez reasserted Venezuela’s leadership in OPEC while
signaling an independent foreign policy course – risky for any Latin American
country. Chavez’s early visits to all OPEC heads of state, from King Abdullah
of Saudi Arabia to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Libya’s Muamar Quadafi touched off a
firestorm of anti-Chavez US media coverage of this “leftist, military
caudillo.” Chavez’s friendship with neighboring Cuba and Fidel Castro provoked
US fury.
In late September
2000, Chavez hosted OPEC’s second summit in the oil cartel’s 40-year history.
Chavez transmitted the report of the International Seminar on the Future of
Energy to the OPEC heads of state. It’s key recommendations included: 1)that
OPEC should set up its own facility on new transportation and energy
technologies to invest in post-fossil fuel futures, hydrogen, solar, fuel cells
and other renewables, and 2) that OPEC take advantage of high-tech electronic
barter and bi-lateral exchanges of its oil with its developing country customers
lacking hard currency while facing rock-bottom prices for their own commodity
exports. Economists consider barter “primitive” – but since the Internet and
electronic trading, it has become as efficient as money-based trading. Where
cash and currency reserves are in short supply, electronic barter is more
efficient in matching trades.
After September 11th’s
attacks, Chavez further angered the US by characterizing Bush’s war in
Afghanistan as “fighting terrorism with terrorism.” The US recalled its
Ambassador for a few days. The reality the fossil-fueled Bush Administration
must still address is US dependency on foreign oil – which colors all foreign
policies. So far, Bush’s energy plan, designed by campaign contributors Enron,
other coal, oil, gas and nuclear companies, the auto industry (which still
blocks greater fuel efficiency. CAFE standards for vehicles) is countered by
the growing “clean, green energy” sector and its 56% popular support.
During recent visits
to Caracas in 2001, on two separate occasions while having breakfast on the
executive floor of the Caracas Hilton, I heard US executives discussing their
plans to overthrow Chavez, by organizing the business-led “general strike” in
July. I was participating in the Latin-American Parliament Conference on
Integration and the Social Debt. Over 1000 participants and parliamentarians
from all of Latin and Central America and the Caribbean debated new models of
people-centered development, the opposed IMF policies and the “Washington
Consensus” policies promoted by George W. Bush in his Free Trade in the Americas
plan.
I also overheard Fedecameras and US business interests plans to overthrow Chavez, while attending a December 2001 UNESCO-sponsored Dialogue of Civilizations. This explored the experiences of pre-Columbian indigenous peoples of “The Eagle and the Condor” in dealing with European conquest, chaired by Frank Bracho. During the spectacular opening ceremony with indigenous leaders from all the Americas, Chavez announced his intention to enact his land reform program and his curbing of PDVSA’s autonomy. The second Fedecameras-led demonstrations commenced – followed by the April oil shutdown by PDVSA’s executives. The April military coup led by a sympathetic faction, was also annoyed because Chavez had ended training programs with the US Army and US military over-flights of Venezuela. We may never know how involved the US was in the coup. All we know is that the US was infuriated that Chavez refused to support Plan Columbia (as did many other Latin American leaders).
Hazel Henderson is author of Beyond Globalization and other books on equitable, ecologically sustainable development.