http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/9466023.htm

Posted on Sun, Aug. 22, 2004

U.S. errs in isolating Chávez

VENEZUELAN LEADER IS ONLY ONE REPRESENTATIVE OF REGIONAL ANGER
WASHINGTON MUST ACKNOWLEDGE

By Mark Weisbrot

WASHINGTON - On a TV show in Caracas earlier this month, supporters of
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez picked up a 6-foot-long baseball bat,
taking up their baseball-loving leader's metaphor for the ``home run''
he would hit in the country's recall referendum.

And last Sunday the ball was indeed knocked out of the park, with
voters choosing to keep their president by 58 to 42 percent. It's the
third time that Chávez has won the popular vote by a large margin, and
it is time for the U.S. foreign-policy establishment -- including the
media -- to take another look at their scorecards.

The result has implications not only for Venezuela, but also for the
entire region.

First, it shows that an anti-poverty agenda can be an electoral
success in a country where the majority is poor -- as is true for most
of Latin America. Millions of Venezuelans now have access for the
first time to medical and dental care, education, literacy programs,
micro-credit loans, and even some land that has been redistributed in
rural areas.

There is no doubt that these programs, as well as a sense of political
inclusion that the country's impoverished majority did not have before
Chávez's first election in 1998, were a huge factor in this election.

It is true that recent oil price increases have made it easier for the
Venezuelan government to keep its promises to share the country's oil
wealth with the poor. But there are many Latin American countries that
could afford similar improvements in the lives of poor people.

Of course social programs for the poor are not sustainable if the
economy does not grow, and that has been the No. 1 economic problem in
Latin America for the past quarter-century.

That is why Venezuela is just one of several countries where left-wing
or populist candidates have won elections (Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador)
or come close (Bolivia) in the past few years.

A long-term, unprecedented economic failure is driving these political
developments. From 1960 through 1979 the region's gross national
product grew 80 percent per capita, allowing for considerable
improvement in overall living standards despite the worst income
inequality in the world. From 1980-99, it grew 11 percent, or hardly
at all; and for the first half of the current decade, an abysmal 1
percent for the whole five years.

It is hard to comprehend the magnitude of this failure, which is worse
than any comparable period, even including the Great Depression. And
because most of the post-1980s economic reforms -- liberalization of
trade and investment flows, privatization, high interest rates and
tight fiscal policies, even during recessions -- have carried a ``made
in the USA'' label, it is not surprising that the political revolt in
Latin America has been against Washington's influence and the economic
policies that are called ``neo-liberalism'' there.

So it is a mistake to try to demonize or isolate Chávez. He is only
the most vocal representative of a broad swath of political leaders
and social movements with the same view. Indeed, President Luiz Inacio
Lula da Silva's Workers Party of Brazil, along with the largest trade
union confederation and leading intellectuals and artists, took the
unusual step of publicly expressing support for Chávez in the
referendum.

And despite the efforts of U.S. officials to paint Venezuela as
another Cuba, the country is as free and democratic as any in Latin
America -- as the world witnessed once again in this latest vote.
Despite political polarization and class conflict, no reputable human
rights organization would argue that political rights or freedoms have
deteriorated under the Chávez government, as compared with either
previous governments or others in the Americas.

The Bush team supported a military coup against Chávez in 2002 as well
as the recall effort -- which also received U.S. taxpayer dollars from
the congressionally funded National Endowment for Democracy. But
members of the administration were unusually quiet as the vote drew
near. They do not want to promote any instability that might raise the
price of oil between now and Nov. 2. But whatever happens in our own
election, we are going to need a new foreign policy toward Venezuela
-- and the rest of Latin America.

MARK WEISBROT is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research, a non-partisan Washington-based think tank. He wrote this
article for Knight Ridder.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/9466023.htm

Posted on Sun, Aug. 22, 2004

U.S. errs in isolating Chávez

VENEZUELAN LEADER IS ONLY ONE REPRESENTATIVE OF REGIONAL ANGER
WASHINGTON MUST ACKNOWLEDGE

By Mark Weisbrot

WASHINGTON - On a TV show in Caracas earlier this month, supporters of
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez picked up a 6-foot-long baseball bat,
taking up their baseball-loving leader's metaphor for the ``home run''
he would hit in the country's recall referendum.

And last Sunday the ball was indeed knocked out of the park, with
voters choosing to keep their president by 58 to 42 percent. It's the
third time that Chávez has won the popular vote by a large margin, and
it is time for the U.S. foreign-policy establishment -- including the
media -- to take another look at their scorecards.

The result has implications not only for Venezuela, but also for the
entire region.

First, it shows that an anti-poverty agenda can be an electoral
success in a country where the majority is poor -- as is true for most
of Latin America. Millions of Venezuelans now have access for the
first time to medical and dental care, education, literacy programs,
micro-credit loans, and even some land that has been redistributed in
rural areas.

There is no doubt that these programs, as well as a sense of political
inclusion that the country's impoverished majority did not have before
Chávez's first election in 1998, were a huge factor in this election.

It is true that recent oil price increases have made it easier for the
Venezuelan government to keep its promises to share the country's oil
wealth with the poor. But there are many Latin American countries that
could afford similar improvements in the lives of poor people.

Of course social programs for the poor are not sustainable if the
economy does not grow, and that has been the No. 1 economic problem in
Latin America for the past quarter-century.

That is why Venezuela is just one of several countries where left-wing
or populist candidates have won elections (Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador)
or come close (Bolivia) in the past few years.

A long-term, unprecedented economic failure is driving these political
developments. From 1960 through 1979 the region's gross national
product grew 80 percent per capita, allowing for considerable
improvement in overall living standards despite the worst income
inequality in the world. From 1980-99, it grew 11 percent, or hardly
at all; and for the first half of the current decade, an abysmal 1
percent for the whole five years.

It is hard to comprehend the magnitude of this failure, which is worse
than any comparable period, even including the Great Depression. And
because most of the post-1980s economic reforms -- liberalization of
trade and investment flows, privatization, high interest rates and
tight fiscal policies, even during recessions -- have carried a ``made
in the USA'' label, it is not surprising that the political revolt in
Latin America has been against Washington's influence and the economic
policies that are called ``neo-liberalism'' there.

So it is a mistake to try to demonize or isolate Chávez. He is only
the most vocal representative of a broad swath of political leaders
and social movements with the same view. Indeed, President Luiz Inacio
Lula da Silva's Workers Party of Brazil, along with the largest trade
union confederation and leading intellectuals and artists, took the
unusual step of publicly expressing support for Chávez in the
referendum.

And despite the efforts of U.S. officials to paint Venezuela as
another Cuba, the country is as free and democratic as any in Latin
America -- as the world witnessed once again in this latest vote.
Despite political polarization and class conflict, no reputable human
rights organization would argue that political rights or freedoms have
deteriorated under the Chávez government, as compared with either
previous governments or others in the Americas.

The Bush team supported a military coup against Chávez in 2002 as well
as the recall effort -- which also received U.S. taxpayer dollars from
the congressionally funded National Endowment for Democracy. But
members of the administration were unusually quiet as the vote drew
near. They do not want to promote any instability that might raise the
price of oil between now and Nov. 2. But whatever happens in our own
election, we are going to need a new foreign policy toward Venezuela
-- and the rest of Latin America.

MARK WEISBROT is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research, a non-partisan Washington-based think tank. He wrote this
article for Knight Ridder.