Chavez continues to pay for UN comments

[Pangloss]

7-11 stores announced today that they'll no longer stock Citgo gas, which is Venezuela's US distribution company. That cuts out about 2100 stores that Venezuela will now have to find another market for. In the end it doesn't matter a whole lot, but I would call the impact significant.

 

Here's a story on it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060928.RCITGO28/TPStory/Business

 

This of course follows in the wake of Chavez's pretty anti-Bush comments in the UN. I think it's interesting the amount of negative reaction that has taken place as a result of those comments (which are not exactly atypical of Chavez). Danny Glover received him with open arms in New York City right after the speech, but the House representative for that exact same area promptly went on camera denouncing Chavez's comments. Congressional leadership for the Democrats was very vocal in denouncing Chavez.

 

This also has political implications in Latin America. Chavez has been trying to talk more LA countries into joining his anti-American cause, but for every step he takes forward he ends up taking either one or two steps backward. This is just another example, and I'm sure there was a negative reaction in diplomatic circles in Latin American governments.

 

Sorry Hugo. People just aren't that stupid.

[ecoli]

Hooray for 7-11. Is there any organization that organizing efforts to boycott Venezuallen oil?

[darkangel199]

with gas it doesnt matter, because so many countries want gas they will just re-sell it to another country.

[gcol]

[quote=Pangloss;

Sorry Hugo. People just aren't that stupid.

 

They are certainly not stupid enough to say what they really think after they have counted the greenbacks in their wallets. To paraphrase someone or other: When you have grabbed people by the wallet, they will say whatever you want them to. (But keep their thoughts to themselves.)

[Pangloss]

with gas it doesnt matter, because so many countries want gas they will just re-sell it to another country.

 

I should have said "oil" rather than "gas(oline)", by the way. Presumably the gasoline that's already on its way to 7-11 stores will be consumed. Once it's refined for US consumption it's not very useful overseas, as I understand it. Different regulations and engine specs, etc.

 

Anyway, it does matter, though perhaps ultimately it matters more to Citgo (and its shareholders) than to Chavez. It takes time to establish supply and distribution channels, and that costs money. And it's a total write-off, because you're pretty much going to get X amount of money for your gasoline no matter what.

 

But yes, presumably Venezuela can sell this oil elsewhere. China would presumably be eager to snap it up, for example, if they can do so without angering the US. But aside from keeping a few windows lit overnight at Foggy Bottom, it's unlikely that the US would do much about it.

 

But most likely this oil would still be sold in the US. If I remember correctly, the US military is the largest consumer of Venezuelan oil.

[ecoli]

I keep saying it, alternative energies/pastics will help fight terrorism and save the environment. Our dependance on foreign oil is a travesty, yet it's one we can't seem to escape. We can't even stage a successful boycott, because we need oil so badly.

[Sisyphus]

Hooray for 7-11. Is there any organization that organizing efforts to boycott Venezuallen oil?

 

Seems pretty silly to boycott Venezuallen when we happily buy Saudi Arabian, no? What in particular has Chavez done, beyond taunting American conservatives in hilariously hyberbolic and flabouyant style?

[Pangloss]

I'm actually really glad you said that, because it's a perfect illustration of the "Danny Glover mistake" -- the error that so many Hollywood types make when they dable into politics when they're not busy jetting about in their Gulfstreams from one premiere to another and complaining to each other about how everyone but them is responsible for global warming. They figure hey, all he's doing is bashing Bush and Republicans/conservatives, so it must be okay, right? We're the good guys, they're the bad guys, and everyone knows that, so therefore Chavez can't be all that bad, right?

 

Don't get me wrong, I know you phrased that as an honest question and I'm not equating you to those guys -- I'm speaking more to the implication behind the post. I applaud you asking the question, and it's clear that it's a question that Danny Glover neither asks nor cares about, so good for you.

 

Anyway, to answer your question, Chavez is troublesome and problematic for a number of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with conservatives/Republicans. He has a long history of questionable political intrigue that I won't go into here. The most common current complaints revolve around questionable election practices, mistreatment of political prisoners, control/censorship of the media, and radical constitutional changes put through by controlling other branches of government with the backing of the military. And he holds it all together via popular mandate.

 

Essentially he's the world's most successful demogogue. He's sometimes-changed and sometimes-just-ignored key laws and more or less bludgeoned his way along.

 

Of course, many Bush opponents in this country and abroad have pointed out Bush's own shortcomings in this area and asked whether Bush has a right to criticize Chavez on that basis. But not only is this a rather bald case of two-wrongs thinking, but there is also a VAST difference in the degree of subversion taking place in Venezuela. One could certainly point to Venezuela as a textbook case of how things could go wrong in the US if we're not more careful about guys like Bush (if that's one's inclination), but that's as far as it goes.

 

The danger here, of course, is that popularity doesn't put food in people's mouths. Oil is a particularly fickle bedfellow -- it could crash tomorrow for all we know. In fact Chavez wouldn't be in power if it wasn't for fickle oil -- Venezuela has a long history in this area.

 

You don't think it's an accident that every time he opens his mouth to blast George Bush, the price per barrel goes up, do you?

 

Bear in mind that every government in Latin America understands these things -- they are a part of the political landscape of the region. They can't NOT know them. Americans are notoriously ignorant about Central and South American politics. The citizens of Central and South America, however, are not. When Chavez speaks out against America/Bush/whatever, one of his most important audiences are the leaders of those countries. They have to get along with him, trade with him, work with him on important agreements, and so forth.

 

They're not stupid, and the understand the danger that Chavez represents in their own countries. And they need an ally in dealing with Chavez. And the biggest ally to have in this hemisphere is the US.

 

So getting back to your question, what has Chavez done, well he hasn't really done anything to me, and I don't propose doing anything directly to him. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to have diplomatic impact on the situation in Venezuela. Somebody has to look out for the little guy in Caracas, because the big guy in Caracas is looking out only for himself.

[Sisyphus]

I suppose those are all reasonable points, and I know he's been accused of manipulating elections and media and soforth. I really just meant what in particular is he guilty of, meaning what has he done that's so unusual. It was my understanding that as far as corruption and demagoguery go, he's about average for South American leaders. Not, of course, to use the "two wrongs" fallacy, but the point is we do tend to villify him more than others (hence the mention of highly questionable Saudi Arabia) and out of proportion to his actual crimes. (Wasn't Pat Robertson talking about assassinating him?) He's all buddy-buddy with Castro, which is certainly worrying, but not a crime in itself, I don't think. And he's got oil, which I suppose makes him uncomfortably powerful for one so antagonistic. But again, it just seems like "hurt feelings" might play a bigger role in conservative hatred for him than is generally admitted.

[ecoli]

In terms of the security of the middle east, however, Saudi arabia seems much more sane than Venezuela at the moment. While Chavez is getting 'into bed' with Ahmadinejad (yet he has the gall to compare Bush to the devil??), who wants to wipe out the Jews, Saudi Arabia is actively promoting negotiations to promote land for peace exchanges with Israel. The Saudi's are promising the full recognition of the state of Israel from itself and it's Muslim allies in return for Israel's return to it's 1967 borders. While the negotiations obviously might not go through, you see the difference in the approach?

 

I applaud the Saudi's efforts to try and regain political control of the middle east from Iran.

[Pangloss]

...we do tend to villify him more than others (hence the mention of highly questionable Saudi Arabia) and out of proportion to his actual crimes. (Wasn't Pat Robertson talking about assassinating him?) He's all buddy-buddy with Castro, which is certainly worrying, but not a crime in itself, I don't think. And he's got oil, which I suppose makes him uncomfortably powerful for one so antagonistic. But again, it just seems like "hurt feelings" might play a bigger role in conservative hatred for him than is generally admitted.

 

Well that could be, I mean the conservative side of the blogosphere sure likes to portray him in the worst possible light. And it's not helpful at all, because just as it's bad for Venezuela for Chavez to ally himself with Cuba and Iraq and North Korea, it's bad for us as well, so we're not helping ourselves by encouraging him to go further in that direction.

 

But it's important to bear in mind that all of what we're talking about here fall under the domain of non-governmental actions. It's all stuff that people do under "free speech" which we really can't do anything about. But this has two troubling ramifications.

 

America is collectively international in a way that no other country in the world is. Our media, our stars, our culture, our people, are observed in obsessive detail by the entire world, to an extent that is not even dimly fathomed by most Americans. When a caller gives Rush Limbaugh a ring and rants uninformed nonsense about "Hurricane Hugo", he thinks he's talking to Rush's audience of "like-minded people" (most of whom, like Rush, have "half their brains tied behind their backs"). He doesn't realize that his stupidity is being observed by people who know better and understand just how stupid and uninformed his comments are. And sometimes that can result in a misinterpretation of both American opinion and American goals.

 

The second ramification is that the government itself has a diplomatic job to do, and this kind of public demogoguery makes that job harder. I mean honestly, can anyone imagine a job any harder than that of Condoleeza Rice?

 

Quick, somebody offer Danny Glover a job at the State Department with a compliance clause in his contract!