Mayo de 2008
El éxito de Chávez en la elección presidencial de 1998 estuvo basado en 3 promesas básicas : desmontar el sistema político antiguo el ‘puntofijismo’[a], aliviar la pobreza en Venezuela y terminar con la corrupción. Cuando asumió el poder en febrero de 1999, Venezuela estaba experimentando una recesión, y para realizar sus políticas sociales, necesitaba acceso a fondos. En un país que principalmente produce petróleo, la solución radica en este recurso y el dominio de la industria petrolera.
Sin embargo, desde que tomó el poder, es evidente que tiene ambiciones más allá del alivio del sufrimiento venezolano. Desde el principio, Chávez ha declarado que su ideología bolivariana, se inspiraba en Simón Bolívar, Simón Rodríguez y Ezequiel Zamora [b]. Desea conseguir la soberanía e independencia económica y cultural de Venezuela y Latinoamérica de los países desarrollados, en particular los EEUU, justicia social para todos y la unificación de sudamérica.
Todos estos objetivos se entrelazan estrechamente. La realización de la igualdad social necesita el control de la economía y la buena voluntad del gobierno, a su vez, la soberanía económica requiere una ruptura de la hegemonía económica estadounidense. Para alcanzar esta independencia, hay que fomentar un mundo pluripolar y una sudamérica unida. Sobre todo, sólo se puede llevar a cabo esta ‘revolución bolivariana’ si se posee un poder de negociación financiero significativo – el control total de la industria de petróleo.
Voy a analizar la política petrolera de Chávez, sus programas sociales para redistribuir la riqueza petrolera entre la mayoría desamparada, y después, su política exterior, también conocida como la diplomacia petrolera, que incluye la lucha contra el neoliberalismo a favor de un modelo económico socialista, la ampliación de las relaciones comerciales internacionales, y sus intentos de aumentar la interdependencia dentro de los países de sudamérica.
Primero, para entender el significado de la política petrolera de Chávez, hay que examinar la historia de petróleo en Venezuela y los efectos considerables que ha tenido en todos los aspectos de la sociedad venezolana.
El ministro de Energía y Petróleo, Rafael Ramírez, anunció en mayo de 2008, que las reservas probadas del crudo en Venezuela han subido a 130 mil millones de barriles (2). Esa cifra nueva sitúa a Venezuela como la tercera en el mundo detrás de Arabia Saudí y Canadá. Tiene las reservas más grandes de Sudamérica. En cuanto a las reservas de petróleo crudo extra-pesado, tiene la mayoría de los del mundo, además de las reservas masivas de gas. En 2006, Venezuela fue el quinto exportador más grande de petróleo del mundo (3). Proveyó a los EEUU 1.5 millones barriles por día que constituyeron el 11% de la importación estadounidense de petróleo, y el 60% de la exportación petrolera de Venezuela. El petróleo genera el 80% de los ingresos totales de exportación del país, contribuye la mitad de los ingresos del gobierno y es responsable de un tercio del producto interior bruto (PIB) de Venezuela (3).
En la época precolombina, se sabía de la existencia abundante de petróleo en Venezuela – los indígenas usaban el petróleo y asfalto que se filtraba a la superficie, para uso medicinal. No fue hasta 1912 cuando los pozos petrolíferos primeros fueron taladrados, y en 1929, Venezuela se convirtió en el exportador de petróleo más grande del mundo (4). El impacto económico inmediato del aumento espectacular de los ingresos fue la ‘enfermedad holandesa’[c](4,5), cuyos efectos en Venezuela se destacarán más adelante.
En 1943, Venezuela reformó su política petrolera con la Ley de Hídrocarburos. Eso ligaba los ingresos estatales aún más estrechamente con la extracción de petróleo (4). El continuamente creciente ingreso resultaba en la dependencia del estado de esta fuente de ingreso cada vez más. En los años 50, el precio del crudo bajó. Para combatir el problema, se fundó la Organización de Países Exportadores de Petróleo (OPEP), principalmente bajo el liderazgo de Venezuela.
Durante el embargo petrolero del Oriente Medio en 1973, el precio mundial de petróleo se cuadruplicó, junto con la renta del gobierno. En 1976, la industria petrolera se nacionalizó por completo, y fue formada Petróleo de Venezuela SA (PdVSA). El auge petrolero creó la ilusión que la rentas nuevas podrían industrializar el país a través de proyectos de infraestructura masivos (4). La consecuencia fue un aumento de tanto los gastos gubernamentales como las deudas. Las deudas externas subieron del 9% al 53% del PIB entre 1970 y 1994 (6), mientras los precios petroleros junto con el ingreso per cápita y la economía en su totalidad se desplomaron en los años 80 y en los siguientes 20 años, y la pobreza aumentó. El PIB cayó por 3.8% (casi 25% per cápita) entre 1981 y 1989, y en 1989 bajó un 8%, la inflación llegó al 81% y el desempleo se estimó entorno al 50% (7). En 1996, Venezuela fue uno de los pocos países cuya renta per cápita fue más baja que la de 1960 (8).
Irónicamente, como se ha mencionado antes, el petróleo ha jugado un papel significativo en obstaculizar la industrialización de Venezuela. Venezuela sufrió la ‘enfermedad holandesa’ que se contrae cuando una materia prima produce un incremento repentino en un sólo sector de la economía. El primer efecto es el aumento del poder adquisitivo de la población y, de ese modo, aviva la inflación. El segundo es que los productos importados bajan de precio hasta resultar más baratos que los productos domésticos, así que crece el volumen de importaciones y, al mismo tiempo, desincentiva la producción doméstica de bienes (8,5). La ‘enfermedad’ ha moldeado toda la estructura social y el panorama político de Venezuela.
Se puede ver los síntomas en la economía – el incremento de la producción de petróleo seguido de una correspondiente reducción en la producción agrícola y el retraso de la industrialización (4,5). En los años 20 del siglo pasado, la agricultura supuso un tercio del PIB, disminuyó al 10% en los años 50, y actualmente sólo contituye el 6% del PIB de Venezuela (9). Esta cifra no sólo es la más baja en Latinoamérica, sino también que Venezuela es el único país sudamericano que es importador neto de productos agrícolas (8). Importa el 75% de sus comestibles. Entre 1990 y 1999, la producción industrial ha caído del 50% al 24% del PIB (9). La situación empeora tanto por la mentalidad de los venezolanos que, como del gobierno, creen que el único medio para hacerse rico es vía acceso a la riqueza petrolera, en lugar de dedicarse a actividades emprendedoras.
A principios del siglo XIX, el 70% de la población vivía en el campo (10). En 1935, el 60% de la mano de obra fue agrícola. En los años 90, el porcentaje de la población que vive en las zonas rurales se redujo a apenas el 12%. Esto convierte a Venezuela en uno de los países sudamericanos más urbanizados. La urbanización ocurrió bastante rápidamente y el resultado es la formación de barrios enormes en la afueras de Caracas y otras metrópolis (8).
La combinación del declive del ingreso petrolero per cápita [d], la duplicación de la población [d], la creciente deuda externa y la ‘enfermedad holandesa’ resultaron en el aumento del nivel de pobreza. El desplome de la economía obligó a la reducción del gasto público, y la pobreza subió de modo espectacular desde un 33% de la población en 1975 hasta un 70% en 1995 (11). Fue el incremento más alto entre los países latinoamericanos durante este periodo. Los giros esporádicos hacia las políticas económicas neoliberales de los gobiernos de Carlos Andrés Pérez (1989-1993) y de Rafael Caldera (1994-1999) agravaron los problemas de pobreza. Como
consecuencia, la desigualdad aumentó considerablemente entre 1984 y 1998, y Venezuela se ha convertido en una de las sociedades más desiguales del mundo (12).
Otros síntomas económicos de la ‘enfermedad’ son las devaluaciones de moneda y la inflación posterior que ha existido desde los auges petroleros a finales de los años 70 y 80 (4).
La ‘enfermedad holandesa’ ha creado una cultura consumista más voraz que en todos los países en sudamérica, sumamente influenciada por la imitación e importación de la cultura de masas norteamericana (7).
Otro efecto que surtía la riqueza petrolera en el sistema político es que éste se convirtió en una ‘democracia pactada’[e], el ‘Puntofijismo’, que controlaba la burocracia gubernamental entera, y ganó las elecciones por su sistema de patrocinio [e](4).
El control de PdVSA, una compañía de titularidad estatal, siempre ha estado en disputa desde su nacionalización en 1976. La gerencia no cambió y la dirección de las sociedades transnacionales previas siguió dirigiendo el PdVSA (13). Mantuvo la tradición corporativista y antiestado, y funcionó como un ‘estado dentro de un estado’. La junta directiva en su totalidad se nombraba de la dirección y, por lo tanto, representaba a la gerencia y no al propietario, el Estado (4).
Desde 1943, el gobierno cobró un pago de regalía del 16.6% por barril de petróleo extraído y el impuesto sobre la renta de 67.6%. Con el paso del tiempo, la regalía se renegoció llegando a una tasa tan baja como 1% (4). A mediados de los años 90, la PdVSA adoptó el sistema de contabilidad mundial combinado, en el que los gastos y las pérdidas fuera de Venezuela se equilibraban contra los ingresos y beneficios dentro de Venezuela. Ya que el impuesto venezolano era el doble que en los EEUU por ejemplo, la empresa transfirió mucho menos de la proporción de sus rentas al gobierno. Entre 1972 y 1992, el 71% de los ingresos se destinaron al gobierno, pero durante la ‘Apertura’ en los años 90, sólo un 36% llegó al gobierno (14), y la gran proporción de la industria estaba en manos extranjeras. A finales de los años 90, bajo el gobierno neoliberal de Caldera, PdVSA no sólo hizo planes de proponer una reforma que sugería que no se pagara ninguna regalía, sino también de privatización. La empresa se consideraba corrupta y se produjo una brecha social entre los empleados de PdVSA (empleaba a 40,000 trabajadores, equivalente a menos del 1% de la población ocupada) y el resto del país (15).
Mucho antes de su elección presidencial en 1998, Chávez siempre hizo explícito su punto de vista sobre el petróleo como arma geopolítica. Se daba cuenta que no podría realizar sus metas sociales sin el control total de la industria petrolera. Cuando llegó al poder en febrero de 1999, el precio petrolero fue el más bajo, de sólo 8.43 dólares por barril (14), y Venezuela producía 800,000 barriles más que su cuota de OPEP (16) que contribuía al precio bajo. Para asegurar que los ingresos llegaran al gobierno, había que controlar PdVSA, aumentar el precio de petróleo, introducir la reforma de Hacienda y subordinar la industria petrolera a los intereses nacionales.
Antes de nada, devolvió el control al Estado a PdVSA a través de la nueva constitución de 1999, que prohíbe su privatización. Al mismo tiempo, Chávez redujo la producción de crudo, y fomentó la bajada de producción de todos los países de la OPEP para apuntalar el precio. Alí Rodríguez, el entonces ministro de Energía y Minas, logró obtener el compromiso de casi todos de los países de la OPEP y no-OPEP que bajarían la producción petrolera o se adherirían a sus cuotas. Con el fortalecimiento de la OPEP, el precio del petróleo se disparó sin demora a 27 dólares por barril en noviembre de 1999, uno de los más altos incrementos durante un periodo en que no hubo una guerra mayor en el últim siglo [f]. Consiguió convencer a la OPEP de introducir un sistema que vincula el recorte de producción para mantener el rango de precios entre los 22 y los 28 dólares por barril.
Otra acción importante fue la modificación del Fondo de la Estabilización Macroeconómica [g]. Si el precio de petróleo creciera más de 14 dólares por barril, el ingreso adicional se canalizaría al fondo. Rodríguez redujo el punto de referencia a 9 dólares por barril (17).
El siguiente paso fue la reforma de impuestos para que el gobierno tuviera acceso a una proporción más grande de los ingresos petroleros. Bajo la Ley Orgánica de Hidrocarburos revisada en 2001, se aumentaron los pagos de regalías desde 16.6% hasta 30% por barril, se redujo el impuesto sobre la renta del 67.7% al 50%, y garantizó PdVSA al menos el 51% participación en el mercado en la producción y exploración nueva de petróleo. Desplazando los ingresos gubernamentales de impuestos a regalías, se cerraban las lagunas jurídicas sobre la recaudación de impuestos. También es una forma de hacer las operaciones de la compañía más eficientes. Por lo que respeta a la titularidad estatal, esta ley especifica que todas las actividades deben dedicarse al ‘interés público’(18).
En diciembre de 2001, los líderes de negocios, la CTV, las Fedecámaras [h] y la oposición, incluso el presidente de PdVSA Guaicaipuro Lameda, se opusieron a la Ley de Hidrocarburos y promovieron una huelga. Chávez despidió a Lameda, lo sustituyó por Gastón Parra, nombró a 5 miembros nuevos en la junta directiva, ninguno de ellos fueron de la gerencia de PdVSA (19). Chávez estuvo en contra de la tradición arraigada y se le acusó de politicización de la industria, a pesar de que como representantes del dueño, la junta debería ser nombrada por él (el Estado en este caso).
El conflicto llegó a un punto crítico el 11 de abril de 2002 y un golpe de estado tuvo lugar. El golpe quebró en 48 horas gracias al gran apoyo popular y la alianza cívico-militar que había desarrollado Chávez desde su llegada al poder. Su actitud conciliatoria y tolerante hacia los golpistas después de su vuelta triunfante, envalentonó a la oposición. En diciembre de 2002, un paro forzoso comenzó en la petrólera PdVSA. El gobierno superó la crisis con la ayuda de los trabajadores fieles, los ex-empleados y el ejército que guardaba las instalaciones petroleras y supervisó la distribución de combustible importado en el país. Esta vez, Chávez despidió a 18,000 de los altos cargos y empleados desleales. El cierre patronal causó la caída de la producción de petróleo de 2.65millones a 250,000 barriles por día (20), la pérdida de 14 mil millones de dólares y la disminución trimestral del 28% de PIB (21). Esta recuperación del control de PdVSA se denomina como la ‘re-nacionalización’ y ha sido una de las victorias más decisivas de la ‘revolución bolivariana’.
Después de superar el paro petrolero al principio de 2003, Chávez implantó los programas sociales sin demora. Bajo el control estatal, PdVSA ha contibuido bastante a ellos – 2 mil millones de dólares en 2005 (122), casi un cuarto de los beneficios anuales. Los gastos gubernamentales en estos programas han subido del 8.2% en 1998 al 12.6% del PIB en 2006 (23), casi un 40% del desembolso total. Con la recuperación fuerte de la economía desde 2004 y la subida del PIB al 10.3% en 2006, en términos reales, los gastos sociales del gobierno han subido el 170% entre 1998 y 2006.
Las misiones educativas son las Misiónes Robinson, Ribas y Sucre [i]. En un año en 2004, la Misión Robinson ha enseñado a 1,200,000 adultos analfabetos a leer y escribir, y la Misión Ribas ha incorporado a 250,000 estudiantes en la educación secundaria (24). El acceso a la educación ha aumentado sustancialmente. El número de estudiantes en la educación primaria subió de 271,593 en 1999/2000 a 1,098,489 en 2005/2006. Antes del comienzo de Misión Sucre, los colegios universitarios se unbicaron en 60 municipios, y en 2006, había colegios en 272 municipios (25). En 2007, la Misión Sucre otorgó 30,000 nuevas becas (26). En octubre de 2005, 2 años después del lanzamiento de Misión Robinson, UNESCO declaró que Venezuela fue 99% libre del analfabetismo (25). Después del éxito de la campaña de alfabetización, la Misión Robinson II ha seguido la misión original.
La Misión Barrio Adentro [j] es un programa médico-asistencial para las zonas más deprimidas, cubierta por los médicos cubanos. En 1998, había 1,628 médicos de cabecera para una población de 23.4millones, en 2006 había 19,571 para una población de 27 millones. Las siguientes fases, Misión Barrio Adentro II y III que se comenzaron en 2005 y 2007 aumentan los servicios sanitarios. Muchos de los pacientes venezolanos se envían a Cuba para recibir tratamiento y muchos estudiantes venezolanos estudian en Cuba.
Los programas de vivienda incluyen las Misiones Avispa y Habitat, para mejorar la disponibilidad de casas asequibles. Los siguientes son unos ejemplos de los numerosos programas sociales - la Misión Vuelvan Caras [k] dirigida a los desempleados, la Misión Identidad para registrar el electorado, la Misión Zamora que se encarga de los asuntos de los campesionos, Misión Guaicaipuro para el pueblo indígena, la Misión Piar para las comunidades mineras.
Durante el paro forzoso de 2002, el gobierno introdujo el ‘Mercal’ programa en que el ejército compraba comestibles básicos directamente de productores rurales y los vendía a precios favorables en zonas de la clase obrera. El ‘Mercal’ se hizo muy popular y tuvo mucho éxito y se ha hecho permanente.
Las misiones representan una inversión masiva en los marginados que vivían en pobreza. La pobreza en 1999 cuando Chávez tomó el poder era de un 42,8%, y se ha ido reduciendo al 37.9% en 2005 (23). La definición de pobreza está basada en ingresos en efectivo y no toma en cuenta los cambios en el nivel de vida de los pobres en Venezuela. Por ejemplo, un 54% de la población recibe asistencia sanitaria gratis por medio de la Misión Barrio Adentro, un 47% compra comida subvencionada por el programa Mercal y la misiones educativas ofrecen educación gratis.
La tasa de desempleo en 1989 fue 50% (7), en contraste con el 7.9% en abril de 2008 (27). Ahora el salario mínimo de 286 dólares por mes, es lo más alto en Latinoamérica. La inflacion fue 81% en 1989 en comparación con 21.9% en 2008.
Para conseguir una verdaderamente economía independiente, es importante que Venezuela se vuelva autosuficiente para todas las necesidades del país, y se empezó el ‘desarrollo endógeno’[m]. Un componente importante de esta estrategia es el micro-crédito [n]. El Banco de Desarrollo de la Mujer (BANMUJER) es un ejemplo y ha otorgado 42,000 micro-créditos. Actualmente, los bancos privados se obligan a reservar un 31.5% de todos los préstamos para proyectos agrícolas, la construcción de viviendas, el turismo y los micro-créditos (28). La industria no-petrolera ha subido más que la industria petrolera en 2006 (29).
Para apoyar la industrialización en general, se necesita la mejora de las infraestructuras. Entre las principales obras de infraestructura inauguradas están la expansión de metros, autopistas y puertos, un programa ambicioso del sistema ferroviario, construcción de nuevos puentes, hospitales, escuelas, viviendas y nuevos estadios del fútbol y béisbol.
El resultado del Informe Latinobarómetro 2007 (30) confirmó el éxito de los programas. El 70% de los venezolanos creen que el gobierno busca el bienestar de la gente, el 77% tienen confianza en la democracia de su país y el 55% piensan que la distribución de la riqueza es justa (contra el promedio del 21%) – las cifras más altas entre los países latinoamericanos. Los niveles de satisfacción de la situación económica actual, la sanidad y educación son el 52% (un incremento del 43% del año pasado), el 64% y el 74% respectivamente – tasas que son unas de las más altas en Latinoamérica.
Aparte de programas sociales, Chávez tiene la intención de liquidar las deudas externas de Venezuela más temprano para conseguir la liberación económica. La deuda pública total ha bajado del 47.7% del PIB durante la crisis económica de 2002-2003, al 23.8% del PIB en 2006, y el pago total de interés fue sólo del 2.1% del PIB. Venezuela ha acumulado una reserva de divisa extranjera de 45 mil millones de dólares en 2006, y su renta de petróleo fue 28.9 mil millones de dólares en este mismo año (29). Frente a una bajada inesperada del precio petrolero, el gobierno puede recurrir a las reservas antes que aumentar las deudas.
La política petrolera se vincula estrechamente con la política exterior, y Chávez establecía sus prioridades – reducir la dependencia de Venezuela de los EEUU, elaborar un sistema económico socialista alternativo (al neoliberalismo), y unir Sudamérica. Una vez más, Chávez empleaba la diplomacia petrolera en el intento de conseguirlos.
La manera principal con que trata de romper la hegemonía de los EEUU es la diversificación de la relaciones internacionales de Venezuela para fomentar un mundo multipolar, un correctivo al ‘mundo unipolar’ actual. Recientemente, el presidente de la Comisión de Energía y Minas, Angel Rodríguez, señaló que ‘la política energética del gobierno bolivariano es multipolar y no está subordinada a los intereses norteamericanos, ni a las grandes transnacionales’. Venezuela tiene acuerdos en el sector energético con China, India, Indonesia, Canadá, y varios países de la Unión Europea, Latinoamérica y el Caribe. En la Faja Petrolífera del Orinoco, operaban 11 empresas de varios países, y la mayoría son compañías estatales. Está previsto que se instalen 50 empresas, de las cuales 32 son estatales (31).
Aparte de acuerdos de empresa conjunta petrolera, Venezuela tiene relaciones comerciales de varios tipos, por ejemplo, contrató la construcción de una flotilla de buques cisterna en China y Argentina, compró armas de Rusia y España, etc. Los últimos productos importantes de tales uniones fueron los ‘ordenadores bolivarianos’[o], que funcionan en el sistem operativo de código abierto Linux, en vez de Microsoft. Son fabrican en Venezuela con tecnología china (32).
La relación con el hambre de energía de potencias económicas como China e India es un salto importante en el proceso de diversificación y la reducción de la dependencia económica y tecnológica enorme de los EEUU. Además Venezuela puede que necesite productos de consumo baratos de estos países. Durante los últimos 2 años, las exportaciones venezolanas de petróleo a los EEUU han disminuido el 8.2% (33), mientras las Chinas han subido a 150,000 de 120,000 barriles por día en 2003. Chávez espera que aumente a 1 millón en 2012 (34).
Chávez está en contra de Área de Libre Comercio de las Américas (ALCA) propuesta por los EEUU. Cree que es otra forma de globalización y neoliberalismo que socava la soberanía y democracia para reforzar el poder de las corporaciones, y que la privatización empeoría la pobreza en todo el hemisferio y no beneficiaría a Venezuela, Latinoamérica o los países del Tercer Mundo. Por medio de diplomacia petrolera hábil, Chávez convenció a la mayoría de los países sudamericanos de sus convicciones y no se llegó un acuerdo sobre el trato (35). En su lugar, Chávez propusó la Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas (ALBA), un acuerdo que se diferencia de ALCA en que abogaría por un bloque de comercio socialmente enfocado. Permitiría el intercambio fluido de bienes y servicios de una manera que evitara los sistemas bancarios internacionales y los intereses corporativos. De hecho, ALBA descarta la participación del Banco Mundial y otras instituciones financieras. Por ejemplo, Venezuela manda petróleo bajo condiciones financieras preferentes a Cuba a cambio de los servicios de 20,000 médicos y profesores cubanos que trabajan en sus misiones de sanidad y educación. Tiene un acuerdo semejante con Argentina donde provee combustible a cambio de ganado vacuno, y con Uruguay, Brasil, Bolivia, el Caribe, Portugal y hasta Londres. De esta manera, Chávez desafia a los EEUU y los bancos grandes con el control del sector de la energía y las medidas que tienen contenidos socioeconómicos. Otro paso que ha disminuido considerablemente la influencia del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) y por eso los EEUU, es su repago de las deudas de parte de Argentina y Ecuador.
Chávez ha usado sagazmente el petróleo como un medio de fraguar las alianzas en sudamérica. Estableció iniciativas regionales como Petrosur, PetroCaribe, y está negociando la formación de Petroandina. Petrosur es una alianza de las empresas públicas de petróleo de Venezuela, Brasil, Argentina y Uruguay. Petrosur coordina la distribución, exploración y procesamiento de petróleo, y la construcción de infraestructura petrolera a gran escala. Suminitraría petróleo bajo condiciones financieras preferentes a varios países. Las ganancias se canalizarían a programas sociales.
Venezuela se hizo socio del Mercosur en 2004 y Chávez espera pronfundizar más la relación con los países sudamericanos. Se han mejorado acuerdos comerciales con la mayoría de ellos [p].
Otro proyecto porpuesto por Chávez es la creación de Bancosur [q] como una institución financiera alternativa al FMI y el Banco Mundial. El banco regional tiene la intención de liberar los países latinoamericanos endeudados de los pesados pagos y su dependencia de las instituciones financieras que sirven los intereses estadounidenses. Proveerá préstamos baratos sin condiciones neoliberalistas. A largo plazo, Chávez espera elaborar una moneda común.
Otras iniciativas que ha promovido Chávez para consolidar la integración total de
Latinoamérica son: Telesur (lanzado en julio de 2005)[r], Unasur [s], Petroamérica [t] y un Consejo de Defensa de Sudamérica [u].
En su lucha contra el neoliberalismo y con el fin de mostrar los beneficios de un sistema comercial que destaca la justicia social, dió un paso más en que extendía la diplomacia petrolera a las comunidades pobres de los EEUU. Venezuela proveyó la ayuda a las víctimas del huracán Katrina vía CITGO [v] que ahora vende petróleo a los pobres a un precio muy por debajo del precio del mercado. Además de proclamar su solidaridad con las minorías raciales, estas medidas también permitirían a Chávez conseguir ventaja política internacional.
Conclusión
Sin lugar a dudas, a corto y medio plazo, los fondos adicionales, como consecuencia de su política petrolera, han permitido la redistribución de la riqueza en las formas de proyectos sociales. De esta manera, Chávez se ha consolidado el apoyo acérrimo de la mayoría que tiene confianza en sus reformas. No obstante, la sostenibilidad de esta evolución social a largo plazo dependerá del logro de la soberanía e independencia económica de Venezuela, que sucesivamente necesitará la voluntad unánime del partido gubernamental.
La clave del ‘chavismo’ es Hugo Chávez, su líder carismático, y en gran parte, la ‘revolución bolivariana’ está enfocada en su personalidad. Mantener la solidaridad total del partido hacia las metas unidas podría ser uno de los impedimentos porque como se puede ver en las elecciones del PSUV [w](36), hay varios tipos de ‘chavistas’ que tienen sus propios motivos. Para asegurar la supervivencia de la ‘revolución’, es necesario que el partido abrace sus ideales completamente así que se perpetue cuando Chávez ya no esté en poder. Eso podría ser algo difícil de realizar.
Sin embargo, el obstáculo más peligroso es la represalia de los EEUU contra la pérdida, poco a poco, del control político y económico de Sudamérica, bajo el liderazgo e influencia poderosa de Chávez. Desde la declaración de la Doctrina Monroe en 1823 [x], los EEUU han considerado a Latinoamérica como su propio jardín trasero. Se puede considerar la hegemonía económica mundial de los EEUU como el imperialismo de la época moderna. Esta pérdida es inmensamente amenazadora para el imperio y se esforzará mucho por proteger su dominio político y económico allí. En de los últimos 6 años, todos los países de Sudamérica salvo Colombia, han elegido gobiernos izquierdistas – la ‘marea rosa’ que fluye por el continente. Ahora ha llegado el momento más oportuno en toda la historia de Sudamérica para liberarse de las garras de los EEUU. Sólo se haría una realidad si se usara la diplomacia international respaldada por la diplomacia petrolera. Si Chávez consiguiera alcanzar tanto la verdadera soberanía e independencia política y económica de los EEUU como una Sudamérica unida, podría significar el principio del ocaso del imperio estadounidense.
Estas aspiraciones solamente habrían sido una lista de deseos si no fuera por la riqueza petrolera de Venezuela que aumenta la viabilidad de las propuestas. Chávez se convierte en un actor significativo en la plataforma internacional a un nivel sin par entre los gobiernos izquierdistas y populistas radicales latinoamericanos en el pasado (37). Como comentó Paul Michael Wihbey, el presidente de GWEST en Washington y Profesor de un grupo de expertos en Jerusalem, ‘Chávez está jugando ajedrez con los tratados, mientras que Fidel Castro en Cuba jugó a damas’(38).
Bibliografía
1) Raby DL. ‘The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela’ in Democracy and Revolution. Pluto Press, London, and Between the Lines, Toronto, 2006, p147
2) Venezuela’s oil reserves swells to 130 bln barrels. May 8, 2008 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080508195126.9cnubmcr&show_article=1
3) Alvarez, Cesar J. Venezuela’s Oil-based Economy. Council on foreign relations, November 27, 2006
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12089/
4) Wilpert, Gregory. The Economics, Culture, and Politics of Oil in Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, August 30, 2003
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/74
5) De Silva, K Migara O. The Political Economy of Windfalls: the ‘Dutch Disease’ – Theory and Evidence, 1994
http://pgpblog.worldbank.org/files/Dutchdisease_Migara.pdf
6) Karl, Terry Lynn. The Paradox of Plenty. Oil Booms and Petro-States. Bekerley, University of California Press, 1997, p 235
7) Hellinger, Daniel C. Venezuela:Tarnished Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1991, p 127
8) Wilpert, Gregory. Land for People not for Profit in Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, August 23, 2005
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1310
9) World Development Report 2000/2001, p 297
10) Quevedo, Rafael Isidro. Venezuela: Un Perfil General. Agroalimentaria, No 6, Junio 1998
11) Riutort, Matias. El Coste de Eradicar la Pobreza. Un Mal Posible de Superar. UCAB, 1999, Vol 1
12) Rodríguez, Francisco. Factor Shares and Resource Booms: Accounting for the Evolution of Venezuelan Inequality. World Institute for Development Economics Research, Research Paper from World Institute for Development Economics Research, 2000, p 6
http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/wp205.pdf
13) Mommer, Bernard. ‘Petróleo Subversivo’ in La política venezolana en la época de Chávez: clases, polarización y conflicto. Steve Ellner, Daniel Hellinger (eds). Caracas: Edition Nueva Sociedad, 2003, p168-69
14) Mommer, Bernard. Venezuelan Oil Politics at the Crossroads. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Monthly Commentary, 2000
Ramírez, Rafael. A National, Popular, and Revolutionary Oil Policy for Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, June 9, 2005
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1474
15) Buxton, Julia. Economy. South America, Central America and the Caribbean 2005. London: Europa Publications, 2005, p 870
16) Venezuela’s Chávez Squeezes Oil Companies. Bloomberg.com, August 24, 2005
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=a3z63_HrIvtc
17) Gott, Richard. ‘The New Politics of Oil’ in Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution. Verso, London, 2005, p171
18) Article 5 of the ‘Ley Orgánica de Hidrocarburos’, 2001
19) Kozloff, Nicholas. ‘The Battle for Control over Oil’ in Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics, and the Challenge to the U.S. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, 2006, p 26
20) South America, Central America and the Caribbean, 2005, p 868
21) Sanchez, Martin. Venezuela Rejects U.S. Ruling on Alleged PdVSA Expropriation of Assets from CIA-linked Firm. Venezuelanalysis, July 15, 2004 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/585
22) Monahan, Jane (BBC). Venezuela Looks to Boost Social Spending. Venezuelanalysis, December 19, 2005 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1532
23) Weisbot, Mark, Sandoval, Luis and Rosnick, David. Poverty Rates in Venezuela: Getting the Numbers Right. Center for Economic and Policy Research. May 26, 2006
24) Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (2004). Reporte: Cifras (para finales marzo 2004) de las misiones del gobierno reflejan grandesa avances en materia social. 28 mayo 2004. http://www.aporrea.org/
25) Vásquez, Enrique. Why Venezuela’s poor support their revolution. Socialism and Liberation (S&L) Magazine. September 2007 http://www.socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=825
26) http://www.misionsucre.chaguaramas.com.ve/
27) Venezuelan Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.9% in April. Venezolana de Televisión (VTV)/MinCI/May23,2008
28) Forero, Juan. Chavez Restyles Venezuela with ‘21st Century Socialism’. New York Times, October 30, 2005, p 3
29) Weisbot, Mark and Sandoval, Luis. The Venezuelan Economy in the Chávez Years. Center for Economic and Policy Research. July 2007
30) Informe Latinobarómetro 2007. Banco de datos en línea. http://http://www.latinobarometro.org/
31) Política energética del gobierno venezolano es multipolar. Prensa Web RNV/VTV. 15 Mayo 2008 http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=68243&hl=orinoco&s=8ca01d31bebaf7a4320ed241a81f0d38
32) Carlson, Chris. Venezuela launches sale of ‘Bolivarian computers’. Venezuelanalysis, June 12, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2441
33) Luhnow and Millard. How Chávez Aims to Weaken U.S. El Universal (Caracas), February 2, 2007, p 1-13
34) Luhnow and Millard. How Chávez Aims to Weaken U.S. Fulfilling the 1 million-barrel goal hinges on China’s decision to downplay coal and to finance the construction of a pipeline from Venezuela to Colombia’s Pacific Coast. El Universal (Caracas), February 2, 2007
35) Cardoso y Chávez se reúnen en Brasilia. El Universal, April 3, 2001 http://buscador.eluniversal.com/2001/04/03/int_art_03107DD.shtml
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. Free Trade Area of the Americas Update. Draft Text of FTAA to be Made Public Following Québec Summit. Bridges Weekly News Digest 5, No 13, April 10, 2001 http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/10-04-01/story2.htm
Primer mandatorio pasó 10 horas en Uruguay y anoche llegó a Argentina, Chávez califica de ‘nefasto’ el FMI y asegura que el ALCA ‘no sirve’. El Universal, August 17, 2003
http://www.eluniversal.com/2003/08/17/pol_art_17104EE.shtml
Palast, Greg. Chávez versus the Free Trade Zombies of the Americas. Venezuelanalysis, November 30, 2003 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/251
James, Deborah. Stopping the FTAA: Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, February 23, 2004
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1110
Timerman, Jordana. Chávez and Maradona Leads Massive Rebuke of Bush. The Nation, November 6, 2005
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/timerman
No trade deal at Americas Summit. BBC News Channel, November 6, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4410190.stm
Kozloff, Nicholas. ‘Chávez and his fight against neoliberalism’ in Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics, and the Challenge to the U.S. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, 2006, p 65,73
36) Janicke, Kiraz. Controversy Erupts Over Nominations for PSUV Candidacies in Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, May 26, 2008 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3494
37) Ellner, Steve (NACLA). Using Oil Diplomacy to Sever Venezuela’s Dependence. Venezuelanalysis, October 3, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2677
38) Yedlin, Deborah. Chavez Gives Boost to Oil Sands. The Globe and Mail, December 8, 2006 http://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20061208/RYEDLIN08
Monday 23 June 2008
To what extent has the oil policy of Chávez helped in achieving his objectives?
Translated June 2008
Chávez won the presidential election of 1998 on the platform of 3 basic promises: dismantle the old political system of ‘puntofijismo’ [a], alleviate poverty and end corruption. When he came into power in February 1999, Venezuela was going through a recession, and in order to carry out his social policies, he needed access to funds. In a primarily oil-producing country, the answer lies in this resource and the control of the oil industry.
However, since he took office, it is clear that his ambitions lie beyond ameliorating the suffering of his people. From the beginning, Chávez had always declared his Bolivarian ideology, inspired by Simón Bolívar, Simón Rodríguez and Ezequiel Zamora [b]. His aims are economic and cultural sovereignty and independence for Venezuela and Latin America from developed countries, especially the USA, social justice for all and the unification of South America.
All of these objectives are very closely intertwined. The attainment of social justice necessitates economic independence and willingness on the part of the government, and economic independence in turn, requires a complete breakaway from the economic hegemony of the USA. In order to achieve this independence, it is important for him to advocate a multipolar world and a united South America. Above all, his ‘Bolivarian revolution’ can only be realized with the possession of a powerful financial leverage – complete control of the oil industry.
I will be analysing Chávez’s petroleum policy, his social programmes which aim to redistribute petrol wealth to the dispossessed majority, and finally his foreign policy, also known as his oil diplomacy, which includes his fight against neoliberalism in favour of a socialist economic model, the diversification of international relations and his attempts to further interdependence amongst the South American countries.
Firstly, in order to understand the significance of Chávez’s oil policy, one needs to appreciate the history of oil in Venezuela, and its considerable effects on every aspect of the Venezuelan society.
In May 2008, the Minister of Energy and Oil, Rafael Ramírez, announced the Venezuela’s proven oil reserves have increased to 130 billion barrels (2). The new figure places Venezuela as having the third largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia and Canada. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in Latin America. It also has the world’s largest reserves of extra heavy crude oil, as well as massive gas reserves. In 2006, Venezuela was the fifth largest oil exporter in the world (3). It provided 1.5 million barrels per day to the USA which constituted 11% of the US oil imports, and 60% of Venezuela’s oil exports. Oil generates 80% of the country’s total export income, constitutes half of the government’s total income, and is responsible for a third of its gross domestic product (GDP)(3).
During the pre-Colombian times, the abundant existence of oil is widely known – the indigenous people used oil which seeped to the surface, for medicinal purposes. It was not until 1912 that the first oil wells were drilled, and by 1929, Venezuela had become the world’s largest oil exporter (4). The immediate economic impact of this spectacular increase in petroleum income was ‘Dutch Disease’[c](4,5), and its effects will be discussed later.
In 1943, Venezuela reformed its oil policy with the Hydrocarbons Act, which bound the state’s income even more intimately to the extraction of oil (4). This continually increasing income led to an increasing reliance of the state on this source of income. In the 1950s, the price of crude oil fell due to oversupply, and to combat this, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was formed, largely instigated by the Venezuelan government.
During the Middle East oil embargo in 1973, oil prices worldwide along with governmental revenue quadrupled. In 1976, the oil industry was fully nationalized and Petróleos de Venezuela SA (PdVSA) was formed. The oil boom created the illusion that the oil income could be used to industrialize the country via massive infrastructure projects (4). The consequence was the increase in both the governmental expenditure as well as debts. External debts increased from 9% to 53% of GDP between 1970 and 1994 (6). Meanwhile petrol prices together with the income per capita as well as the entire economy plummeted in the 1980s and for the following 20 years, and poverty increased. Its GDP fell by 3.8% (almost 25% per capita) between 1981 and 1989, and in 1989 it fell by 8%, inflation rose to 81% and unemployment was estimated at around 50% (7). In 1996, Venezuela was one of the few Latin American countries whose income per capita was lower than its level in 1960 (6).
Ironically, oil had played an important role in obstructing industrialisation in Venezuela. Venezuela suffered from the ‘Dutch Disease’, which is contracted when a raw material produces a sudden increase in only one sector of the economy. The first effect is an increase in the purchasing power of the population, which eventually leads to inflation. The second effect is that imported goods become cheaper than locally produced goods, which in turn increases the volume of imports and at the same time discourage local production (8,5). The ‘disease’ has affected the entire social structure and political panorama of Venezuela.
One can observe the symptoms in the economy – the increase in oil production was followed by a corresponding decrease in agricultural production and a delay in industrialization (4). In the 1920s, agriculture constituted a third of GDP. This fell to 10% in the 1950s, and currently it makes up only 6% of GDP (9). Not only is this the lowest figure in Latin America, but Venezuela is also the only South American country that is a nett importer of agricultural produce, importing 75% of its food requirements (8). Between 1990 and 1999, industrial production fell by 50% to just 24% of GDP (9). This situation was worsened by the mentality of both the Venezuelan people as well as government, who believed that the only way to riches is via access to the country’s oil wealth rather than engaging in entrepreneurial activities.
At the beginning of the 19th century, 70% of the population lived in rural areas (10), and 60% of the workforce in 1935 was agricultural. By the 1990s, the percentage living in rural areas was reduced to scarcely 12%. This transformed Venezuela into one of the most urbanized countries in South America. This urbanization happened rapidly and the result was the formation of huge ‘barrios’ (ghettos) in the peripheries of Caracas and other large cities (8).
The combination of a decline in oil income [d], duplication of the population [d], a rising foreign debt and the ‘Dutch Disease’ led to an increase in the poverty rate. The economic downturn forced a reduction of public spending, and poverty rose spectacularly from 33% of the population in 1975, to 70% in 1995 (11), the highest increase in South America during this period. The sporadic turns to neoliberal economic policies by the Carlos Andrés Pérez (1989 – 1993) and Rafael Caldera (1994 – 1999) administrations further aggravated the poverty problems. As a result, inequality increased considerably between 1984 and 1998, making Venezuela the most unequal society in the world (12).
Other economic symptoms of ‘Dutch Disease’ were the currency devaluations and subsequent inflation during the oil boom in the late 1970s and the 1980s (4).
‘Dutch Disease’ had created a clientalistic and consumeristic culture more voracious than anywhere in South America, primarily influenced by imitation and import of the North American mass culture (7).
Another consequence of Venezuela’s oil wealth on its political system is that it became a ‘pacted democracy’[e], which took the form of the ‘puntofijismo’. It controlled the entire governmental bureaucracy, and won elections through its patronage system [e](4).
The control of the state-owned PdVSA had always been in dispute since its nationalisation in 1976. The management had not changed and therefore the same management from the previous multinational companies continued managing PdVSA (13). It maintained a corporalistic and anti-state tradition, and functioned like ‘a state within a state’. The Board of Directors almost in their entirety, was appointed from PdVSA management, and therefore represented management rather than the owner, the state (4).
Since 1943, the government levied a royalty charge of 16.6% for every barrel of oil extracted, and income tax on oil profits of 67.7%. With the passage of time, this royalty was negotiated to a level as low as 1% (4). In the mid-1990s, PdVSA adopted a worldwide combined accounting system in which the costs and losses outside Venezuela were balanced against revenues and profits within Venezuela. Since Venezuelan income tax rate was double that in the USA, for example, the company transferred a smaller proportion of its revenues to the government. Between 1972 and 1992, 71% of PdVSA’s income went to the government, but during the ‘Apertura’ in the 1990s, only 36% reached the government (14), while most of the industry was in foreign hands. In the late 1990s under the neoliberal Caldera administration, PdVSA not only was it working on a plan that suggested eliminating royalty payments entirely, but also on privatisation. The company was viewed as corrupt and a social divide was developing between the PdVSA staff (which employed 40,000 workers, equivalent to less than 1% of the population) and the rest of the country (15).
Even before he was elected president in 1998, Chávez had always been explicit about his view of oil being a geopolitical weapon. He realised that he would never achieve his social objectives without full control of the oil industry. When he came into office in February 1999, world oil prices were at their lowest point in many years at just $8.43 per barrel (14), and Venezuela was producing 800,000 barrels over its OPEC quota (16) which contributed to the low price. In order to ensure that oil income reached the government, he had to regain control of PdVSA, improve the oil price, introduce tax reforms, and subject the oil industry to serving national interests.
First of all, he anchored the state ownership of PdVSA by means of the new 1999 Constitution, which prohibits its privatisation. At the same time, Chávez reduceVenezuela’s crude oil production, and encouraged the OPEC countries to reduce oilproduction in order to shore up oil price. Alí Rodriguez, the Minister of Energy and Mines then, managed to secure the agreement of nearly all the OPEC as well as non-OPEC countries to either lower their production or adhere to their quotas. With the strengthening of OPEC, the oil price immediately jumped up to $27 per barrel by November 1999, making it one of the highest increments outside a war situation in the last century [f]. He also convinced OPEC to introduce a system that linked production cuts to a $22 - $28 a barrel price band.
Another significant development was the modification of the Fondo de la Estabilización Macroeconómica [g]. If the price of oil were to go above $14 a barrel, the extra income would be channelled into the fund. Rodríguez reduce the benchmark to $9 a barrel (17).
The next step was the introduction of tax reforms to enable the government to access a larger proportion of the oil revenues. Under the revised 2001 Hydrocarbons Act, royalty payments were raised from 16.6% to 30% per barrel, while the income tax was reduced from 67.7% to 50%. At the same time, PdVSA was guaranteed to at least 51% share in new oil production and exploration. By shifting the government revenues from taxes to royalties, it was closing loopholes in the tax collection process. This was also a means of improving the company’s efficiency. Related to state ownership is a provision in the Hydrocarbons Act that specifies that all its activities are to be dedicated to ‘public interest’(18).
In December 2001, business leaders, the CTV, the Fedecámeras [h] and the opposition, including the president of PdVSA, Guaicaipuro Lameda, opposed the Hydrocarbons Act and instigated an industrial action. Chávez fired Lameda, replaced him with Gastón Parra, appointed 5 new members to the Board of Directors, none of whom were from PdVSA management (19). Chávez had thus gone against the deeply rooted tradition and was accused of politicising the industry despite the fact that as representatives of the owner, the Board of Directors should be appointed by him (the state in this case).
The conflict reached a head on April 11, 2002, when a coup d’etat occurred. The coup was quelled within 48 hours thanks to huge popular support and the civic-military alliance that Chávez had been developing as soon as he took office. His conciliatory and tolerant attitude towards the coup conspirators after his triumphant return to power only served to embolden the opposition. In December 2002, a lockout was started in PdVSA. The government overcame the crisis with the help of loyal employees and ex-employees, as well as the army who guarded the oil installations and supervised the distribution of imported fuel across the country. This time, Chávez dismissed 18,000 disloyal employees, which included many from management. The lockout resulted in a drop in oil production from 2.65 million to 250,000 barrels a day (20), $14 billion in losses and a quarterly decline of 28% of GDP (21). However, this recovery of control over PdVSA, also known as ‘re-nationalization’, was one of the most decisive victories of the ‘Bolivarian revolution’.
Chávez wasted no time in implementing his social programmes once he surmounted the lockout at the beginning of 2003. Now under total state control, PdVSA had also contributed significantly to these - $2 billion in 2005 (22), nearly a quarter of its annual profits. Governmental social spending increased from 8.2% of GDP in 1998 to 12.6% in 2006 (23), consisting almost 40% of its total expenditure. With strong economic recovery since 2004 and an increase of GDP of 10.3% in 2006, the social spending had risen 170% in real terms between 1998 and 2006.
The educational ‘missions’ are Missions Robinson, Ribas and Sucre [i]. Within a year in 2004, Mission Robinson had taught 1,200,000 illiterate adults to read and write, and Mission Ribas had incorporated 250,000 students into secondary education (24). Access to education had improved substantially. The number of students in primary education had risen from 271,593 in 1999/2000 to 1,098489 in 2005/2006. Prior to the commencement of Mission Sucre, university colleges were located in 60 municipalities, and in 2006, there were colleges in 272 municipalities (25). In 2007, Mission Sucre awarded 30,000 new scholarships (26). In October 2005, 2 years after the launch of Mission Robinson, UNESCO declared Venezuela 99% free of illiteracy (25). Following the success of the literacy campaign, Mission Robinson II was set up to follow on from the original ‘mission’.
Mission Barrio Adentro [j] is a publicly funded healthcare programme in the deprived areas, staffed by Cuban doctors. In 1998, there were 1,628 doctors per head for a population of 23.4 million, and in 2006, this increased to 19,571 per head for a population of 27 million. The following phases, Mission Barrio Adentro II and III were launched in 2005 and 2007, and these aim to improve healthcare provision even further. Many patients were also sent to Cuba for their treatment, and many Venezuelan students study in Cuban medical schools.
The housing programmes include Missions Avispa and Habitat, which aim to increase the availability of affordable housing. The following are examples of the numerous social programmes – Mission Vuelvan Caras [k] directed at the unemployed, Mission Identidad for registering the electorate, Mission Zamora looking after the affairs of peasants, Mission Guaicaipuro for the indigenous people and Mission Piar for the mining communities.
During the lockout of 2002, the government introduced the ‘Mercal’ programme in which the army bought basic foodstuffs directly from the rural producers and sold them at low prices in the poor areas. The ‘Mercal’ was very popular and successful, and has since become permanent.
The ‘missions’ represent an enormous investment in the marginalized population who were living in poverty. In 1999 when Chávez first came to power, the poverty rate was 42.8%, and this had dropped to 37.9% in 2005 (23). The definition of poverty is based on cash earnings and does not take into account the improvement in the quality of life of the poor in Venezuela. For example, 54% of the population receive free healthcare through Mission Barrio Adentro, 47% buy subsidised food through the ‘Mercal’ programme, and the educational ‘missions’ offer free education.
The level of unemployment was 50% in 1998 (7) compared to 7.9% in April 2008 (27). Currently, the minimum salary in Venezuela of $286 per month is the highest in Latin America. Inflation was 81% in 1989 compared to 21.9% in 2008.
In order to achieve a truly independent economy, it is important for Venezuela to become self-sufficient for all its necessities, and hence the ‘endogenous development’[m] programme was introduced. An important component of this strategy is micro-credit [n]. The Bank of Development for Women (BANMUJER) is an example and it has awarded 42,000 micro-credits so far (28). In 2006, the non-oil industry had increased more then the oil industry (29).
To support industrialisation in general, it is necessary to improve the infrastructures. Amongst the infrastructural works being carried out are expansion programmes of the metros, motorways and ports, an ambitious railway construction programme, constructions of bridges, hospitals, schools, housing and new football and baseball stadiums.
The results of Informe Latinobarómetro 2007 (30) confirmed the success of these social programmes. 70% of Venezuelans believe that the government is concerned with the wellbeing of the people, 77% have confidence in the democracy of their country, and 55% think that the distribution of wealth is just (compared to the average of 21%) – the highest figures amongst all the Latin American countries. The levels of satisfaction of the current economic situation, healthcare and education were 52% (a rise from 43% from last year), 64% and 74% respectively – rates ranking amongst the highest in Latin America.
Apart from the social programmes, Chávez also intends to pay off Venezuela’s foreign debts earlier in order to attain economic freedom. The total public debt had fallen from 47.7% of GDP during the economic crisis of 2002-2003, to 23.8% of GDP in 2006, with total interest payment of only 2.1% of GDP. Venezuela has accumulated foreign exchange reserves of as high as $45 billion in 2006, while its oil income was $28.9 billion in the same year (29). In the face of an unanticipated decline in oil prices, the government can draw on these reserves before having to increase its borrowing.
Venezuela’s oil policies are closely linked to its foreign policy, and Chávez has established his priorities – reduce Venezuela’s dependence on the USA, develop an alternative socialist economic system (to neoliberalism), and unite South America. Once again, Chávez employs oil diplomacy in his attempts to achieve them.
A principal way of breaking the hegemony of the USA is diversification of Venezuela’s international relations in an effort to promote a mulitpolar world, a corrective for the current ‘unipolar world’. Recently the president of the Commission of Energy and Mines, Angel Rodríguez, stated that ‘the oil policies of the Bolivarian government is multipolar and is neither subordinate to North American interests nor to those of large transnational companies’. Venezuela has signed agreement in the energy sector with China, India, Indonesia, Canada and various EU, Latin American and Caribbean countries. Eleven companies of different nationalities are currently operating in the Orinoco oil belt, and the majority are state-owned. Venezuela foresees the involvement of a further 50 companies in the future, 32 of which are state-owned companies (31).
Apart from joint ventures in the energy sector, Venezuela also has other commercial agreements, eg. it signed contracts for construction of a fleet of tankers with China and Argentina, bought weapons from Russia & Spain, etc. The latest important products of such joint ventures were the ‘Bolivarian computers’[o] which run on the open-source Linux operating system instead of Microsoft. They are manufactured in Venezuela with Chinese technology (32).
The relationship with the energy-hungry, up and coming economic powers such as China & India is an important leap in the diversification strategy and the reduction of Venezuela’s economic and technological dependence on the USA. Furthermore, it may need cheap consumer products from these countries. In the last 2 years,Venezuelan oil export to the USA has dropped by 8.2% (33), while that to China hasrisen from 150,000 to 120,000 barrels a day in 2003. Chávez is expecting this to increase to 1 million by 2012 (34).
Chávez is against the Free Trade Area of the America (FTAA) agreement proposed by the USA. He believes it is another form of globalisation and neoliberalism that seek to undermine the sovereignty and democracy by reinforcing the power of corporations, and that privatisation would only worsen the poverty level within the hemisphere and would neither benefit Venezuela and Latin America, nor any of the Third World countries. Through skilful oil diplomacy, Chávez convinced most of the South American countries of his convictions and prevented the any agreement on FTAA so far (35). Instead, Chávez proposed the ‘Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas’ (ALBA – ‘Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas’), an agreement which differs from FTAA in that it advocates the formation of a socially focussed commercial bloc, which allows the fluid exchange of goods and services in a manner that would bypass the international banking systems and corporate interests. In fact, ALBA distinctly excludes the participation of the World Bank and other international financial institutions. For example, Venezuela sends oil under preferential rates to Cuba in exchange for the services of 20,000 Cuban doctors and teachers currently working in the healthcare and educational ‘missions’. It also has similar agreements with Argentina where it provides oil in exchange for cattle, and with Uruguay, Brazil, Bolivia, the Caribbean, Portugal and even London. Thus, Chávez challenges the USA and the large banks through control of the energy sector and introducing measures with significant socioeconomic contents. Another step that has considerably reduced the influence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and therefore that of the USA, is Venezuela’s repayment of Argentina and Ecuador’s foreign debts.
Chávez has astutely used oil as a means of forging alliances within South America. He established regional initiatives such as Petrosur, PetroCaribe and is currently in the process of negotiating the formation of Petrandina. Petrosur is an alliance of the state-owned energy companies of Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. It coordinates oil distribution, exploration and processing, and encourages construction of large-scale infrastructures such as pipelines and refineries. Petrosur would supply oil to various countries under preferential financial terms, and the profits would be channelled into social programmes.
Venezuela joined the Mercosur in 2004 through which Chávez hopes to further deepen ties with South American countries. Commercial agreements have already been signed with the majority of these countries [p].
Another project proposed by Chávez is the creation of Bancosur [q] as an alternative financial institution to the IMF and World Bank. This regional bank aims to free those heavily indebted South American countries and their dependence on large financial institutions which serve US interests. It would provide loans at lower rates and without demanding any neoliberal conditions. In the long run, Chávez also aspires to develop a common monetary unit.
Other initiatives Chávez has promoted in his attempts to integrate Latin America include: Telesur (launched in July 2005)[r], Unasur [s], Petroamérica [t] and a South American Defence Council [u].
In his fight against neoliberalism and with the aim of demonstrating the benefits of a commercial system that places emphasis on social justice, he has taken a step further by extending oil diplomacy to the poor communities in the USA. Venezuela provided help to the victims of Hurricane Katrina via CITGO [v], which is currently selling oil at below market prices to the disadvantaged. Besides proclaiming solidarity with the minority groups, this is also improves his political standing internationally.
Conclusion
Without a shadow of doubt, the additional funds derived from oil wealth as a result of his oil policy has allowed Chávez to redistribute the country’s wealth in the form of social programmes in the short and medium terms. As a result, he has consolidated the staunch support of the majority who has confidence in his reforms. However, the sustainability of this social evolution in the longer term will depend on achieving Venezuela’s economic sovereignty and independence, which in turn will require the unity of purpose and will of the governing party.
The key to ‘Chavismo’ is Hugo Chávez, its charismatic leader, and for the large part, the ‘Bolivarian revolution’ is focussed on his personality. Maintaining total unity within the party could well prove to be the Achilles heel because as is obvious in the PSUV elections [w](36), there are many types of ‘chavistas’ who each has his own motives. In order to safeguard the survival of this ‘revolution’, the party will have to embrace his ideals completely so that it will continue even when Chávez is no longer in power. This could be something that is difficult to achieve.
However, the most dangerous obstacle is US retaliation against this gradual but definite erosion of its political and economical control over South America, under the leadership and strong influence of Chávez. Since the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine in 1923 [x], the USA has always treated Latin America as its own backyard. The economic hegemony of the USA can be viewed as imperialism of the modern era. This loss represents an immense threat to the empire, and therefore the USA will defend its political and economic control of that region at all costs. Within the last 6 years, all the South American countries apart from Colombia, have elected leftist governments – the ‘pink tide’ sweeping across the continent. As such the time has never been as ripe as now in the entire history of South America to liberate itself from the jaws of the USA. This could only be achieved through international diplomacy backed solidly by oil diplomacy. Should Chávez manage to achieve a true political and economic independence from the USA such as the formation of a united South America, it could signal the beginning of the end of the US empire.
These aspirations would have been only a wish list if it were not for Venezuela’s oil riches which has significantly increased their viability. Chávez has become an actor to be reckoned with in the international political stage, at a level never before seen in all the previous leftist and radical populist governments of Latin America (37). As Paul Michael Wihbey, president of GWEST in Washington, and Strategic Fellow of a Jerusalem-based think tank group commented, ‘Chávez is playing treaty chess whereas Cuba’s Fidel Castro played chequers’(38).
Bibliography
1) Raby DL. ‘The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela’ in Democracy and Revolution. Pluto Press, London, and Between the Lines, Toronto, 2006, p147
2) Venezuela’s oil reserves swells to 130 bln barrels. May 8, 2008 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080508195126.9cnubmcr&show_article=1
3) Alvarez, Cesar J. Venezuela’s Oil-based Economy. Council on foreign relations, November 27, 2006
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12089/
4) Wilpert, Gregory. The Economics, Culture, and Politics of Oil in Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, August 30, 2003
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/74
5) De Silva, K Migara O. The Political Economy of Windfalls: the ‘Dutch Disease’ – Theory and Evidence, 1994
http://pgpblog.worldbank.org/files/Dutchdisease_Migara.pdf
6) Karl, Terry Lynn. The Paradox of Plenty. Oil Booms and Petro-States. Bekerley, University of California Press, 1997, p 235
7) Hellinger, Daniel C. Venezuela:Tarnished Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1991, p 127
8) Wilpert, Gregory. Land for People not for Profit in Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, August 23, 2005
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1310
9) World Development Report 2000/2001, p 297
10) Quevedo, Rafael Isidro. Venezuela: Un Perfil General. Agroalimentaria, No 6, Junio 1998
11) Riutort, Matias. El Coste de Eradicar la Pobreza. Un Mal Posible de Superar. UCAB, 1999, Vol 1
12) Rodríguez, Francisco. Factor Shares and Resource Booms: Accounting for the Evolution of Venezuelan Inequality. World Institute for Development Economics Research, Research Paper from World Institute for Development Economics Research, 2000, p 6
http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/wp205.pdf
13) Mommer, Bernard. ‘Petróleo Subversivo’ in La política venezolana en la época de Chávez: clases, polarización y conflicto. Steve Ellner, Daniel Hellinger (eds). Caracas: Edition Nueva Sociedad, 2003, p168-69
14) Mommer, Bernard. Venezuelan Oil Politics at the Crossroads. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Monthly Commentary, 2000
Ramírez, Rafael. A National, Popular, and Revolutionary Oil Policy for Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, June 9, 2005
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1474
15) Buxton, Julia. Economy. South America, Central America and the Caribbean 2005. London: Europa Publications, 2005, p 870
16) Venezuela’s Chávez Squeezes Oil Companies. Bloomberg.com, August 24, 2005
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=a3z63_HrIvtc
17) Gott, Richard. ‘The New Politics of Oil’ in Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution. Verso, London, 2005, p171
18) Article 5 of the ‘Ley Orgánica de Hidrocarburos’, 2001
19) Kozloff, Nicholas. ‘The Battle for Control over Oil’ in Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics, and the Challenge to the U.S. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, 2006, p 26
20) South America, Central America and the Caribbean, 2005, p 868
21) Sanchez, Martin. Venezuela Rejects U.S. Ruling on Alleged PdVSA Expropriation of Assets from CIA-linked Firm. Venezuelanalysis, July 15, 2004 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/585
22) Monahan, Jane (BBC). Venezuela Looks to Boost Social Spending. Venezuelanalysis, December 19, 2005 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1532
23) Weisbot, Mark, Sandoval, Luis and Rosnick, David. Poverty Rates in Venezuela: Getting the Numbers Right. Center for Economic and Policy Research. May 26, 2006
24) Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (2004). Reporte: Cifras (para finales marzo 2004) de las misiones del gobierno reflejan grandesa avances en materia social. 28 mayo 2004. http://www.aporrea.org/
25) Vásquez, Enrique. Why Venezuela’s poor support their revolution. Socialism and Liberation (S&L) Magazine. September 2007 http://www.socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=825
26) http://www.misionsucre.chaguaramas.com.ve/
27) Venezuelan Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.9% in April. Venezolana de Televisión (VTV)/MinCI/May23,2008
28) Forero, Juan. Chavez Restyles Venezuela with ‘21st Century Socialism’. New York Times, October 30, 2005, p 3
29) Weisbot, Mark and Sandoval, Luis. The Venezuelan Economy in the Chávez Years. Center for Economic and Policy Research. July 2007
30) Informe Latinobarómetro 2007. Banco de datos en línea.
http://http://www.latinobarometro.org/
31) Política energética del gobierno venezolano es multipolar. Prensa Web RNV/VTV. 15 Mayo 2008. http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=68243&hl=orinoco&s=8ca01d31bebaf7a4320ed241a81f0d38
32) Carlson, Chris. Venezuela launches sale of ‘Bolivarian computers’. Venezuelanalysis, June 12, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2441
33) Luhnow and Millard. How Chávez Aims to Weaken U.S. El Universal (Caracas), February 2, 2007, p 1-13
34) Luhnow and Millard. How Chávez Aims to Weaken U.S. Fulfilling the 1 million-barrel goal hinges on China’s decision to downplay coal and to finance the construction of a pipeline from Venezuela to Colombia’s Pacific Coast. El Universal (Caracas), February 2, 2007
35) Cardoso y Chávez se reúnen en Brasilia. El Universal, April 3, 2001 http://buscador.eluniversal.com/2001/04/03/int_art_03107DD.shtml
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. Free Trade Area of the Americas Update. Draft Text of FTAA to be Made Public Following Québec Summit. Bridges Weekly News Digest 5, No 13, April 10, 2001 http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/10-04-01/story2.htm
Primer mandatorio pasó 10 horas en Uruguay y anoche llegó a Argentina, Chávez califica de ‘nefasto’ el FMI y asegura que el ALCA ‘no sirve’. El Universal, August 17, 2003
http://www.eluniversal.com/2003/08/17/pol_art_17104EE.shtml
Palast, Greg. Chávez versus the Free Trade Zombies of the Americas. Venezuelanalysis, November 30, 2003
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/251
James, Deborah. Stopping the FTAA: Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, February 23, 2004
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1110
Timerman, Jordana. Chávez and Maradona Leads Massive Rebuke of Bush. The Nation, November 6, 2005
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/timerman
No trade deal at Americas Summit. BBC News Channel, November 6, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4410190.stm
Kozloff, Nicholas. ‘Chávez and his fight against neoliberalism’ in Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics, and the Challenge to the U.S. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, 2006, p 65,73
36) Janicke, Kiraz. Controversy Erupts Over Nominations for PSUV Candidacies in Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, May 26, 2008 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3494
37) Ellner, Steve (NACLA). Using Oil Diplomacy to Sever Venezuela’s Dependence. Venezuelanalysis, October 3, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2677
38) Yedlin, Deborah. Chavez Gives Boost to Oil Sands. The Globe and Mail, December 8, 2006 http://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20061208/RYEDLIN08
Chávez won the presidential election of 1998 on the platform of 3 basic promises: dismantle the old political system of ‘puntofijismo’ [a], alleviate poverty and end corruption. When he came into power in February 1999, Venezuela was going through a recession, and in order to carry out his social policies, he needed access to funds. In a primarily oil-producing country, the answer lies in this resource and the control of the oil industry.
However, since he took office, it is clear that his ambitions lie beyond ameliorating the suffering of his people. From the beginning, Chávez had always declared his Bolivarian ideology, inspired by Simón Bolívar, Simón Rodríguez and Ezequiel Zamora [b]. His aims are economic and cultural sovereignty and independence for Venezuela and Latin America from developed countries, especially the USA, social justice for all and the unification of South America.
All of these objectives are very closely intertwined. The attainment of social justice necessitates economic independence and willingness on the part of the government, and economic independence in turn, requires a complete breakaway from the economic hegemony of the USA. In order to achieve this independence, it is important for him to advocate a multipolar world and a united South America. Above all, his ‘Bolivarian revolution’ can only be realized with the possession of a powerful financial leverage – complete control of the oil industry.
I will be analysing Chávez’s petroleum policy, his social programmes which aim to redistribute petrol wealth to the dispossessed majority, and finally his foreign policy, also known as his oil diplomacy, which includes his fight against neoliberalism in favour of a socialist economic model, the diversification of international relations and his attempts to further interdependence amongst the South American countries.
Firstly, in order to understand the significance of Chávez’s oil policy, one needs to appreciate the history of oil in Venezuela, and its considerable effects on every aspect of the Venezuelan society.
In May 2008, the Minister of Energy and Oil, Rafael Ramírez, announced the Venezuela’s proven oil reserves have increased to 130 billion barrels (2). The new figure places Venezuela as having the third largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia and Canada. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in Latin America. It also has the world’s largest reserves of extra heavy crude oil, as well as massive gas reserves. In 2006, Venezuela was the fifth largest oil exporter in the world (3). It provided 1.5 million barrels per day to the USA which constituted 11% of the US oil imports, and 60% of Venezuela’s oil exports. Oil generates 80% of the country’s total export income, constitutes half of the government’s total income, and is responsible for a third of its gross domestic product (GDP)(3).
During the pre-Colombian times, the abundant existence of oil is widely known – the indigenous people used oil which seeped to the surface, for medicinal purposes. It was not until 1912 that the first oil wells were drilled, and by 1929, Venezuela had become the world’s largest oil exporter (4). The immediate economic impact of this spectacular increase in petroleum income was ‘Dutch Disease’[c](4,5), and its effects will be discussed later.
In 1943, Venezuela reformed its oil policy with the Hydrocarbons Act, which bound the state’s income even more intimately to the extraction of oil (4). This continually increasing income led to an increasing reliance of the state on this source of income. In the 1950s, the price of crude oil fell due to oversupply, and to combat this, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was formed, largely instigated by the Venezuelan government.
During the Middle East oil embargo in 1973, oil prices worldwide along with governmental revenue quadrupled. In 1976, the oil industry was fully nationalized and Petróleos de Venezuela SA (PdVSA) was formed. The oil boom created the illusion that the oil income could be used to industrialize the country via massive infrastructure projects (4). The consequence was the increase in both the governmental expenditure as well as debts. External debts increased from 9% to 53% of GDP between 1970 and 1994 (6). Meanwhile petrol prices together with the income per capita as well as the entire economy plummeted in the 1980s and for the following 20 years, and poverty increased. Its GDP fell by 3.8% (almost 25% per capita) between 1981 and 1989, and in 1989 it fell by 8%, inflation rose to 81% and unemployment was estimated at around 50% (7). In 1996, Venezuela was one of the few Latin American countries whose income per capita was lower than its level in 1960 (6).
Ironically, oil had played an important role in obstructing industrialisation in Venezuela. Venezuela suffered from the ‘Dutch Disease’, which is contracted when a raw material produces a sudden increase in only one sector of the economy. The first effect is an increase in the purchasing power of the population, which eventually leads to inflation. The second effect is that imported goods become cheaper than locally produced goods, which in turn increases the volume of imports and at the same time discourage local production (8,5). The ‘disease’ has affected the entire social structure and political panorama of Venezuela.
One can observe the symptoms in the economy – the increase in oil production was followed by a corresponding decrease in agricultural production and a delay in industrialization (4). In the 1920s, agriculture constituted a third of GDP. This fell to 10% in the 1950s, and currently it makes up only 6% of GDP (9). Not only is this the lowest figure in Latin America, but Venezuela is also the only South American country that is a nett importer of agricultural produce, importing 75% of its food requirements (8). Between 1990 and 1999, industrial production fell by 50% to just 24% of GDP (9). This situation was worsened by the mentality of both the Venezuelan people as well as government, who believed that the only way to riches is via access to the country’s oil wealth rather than engaging in entrepreneurial activities.
At the beginning of the 19th century, 70% of the population lived in rural areas (10), and 60% of the workforce in 1935 was agricultural. By the 1990s, the percentage living in rural areas was reduced to scarcely 12%. This transformed Venezuela into one of the most urbanized countries in South America. This urbanization happened rapidly and the result was the formation of huge ‘barrios’ (ghettos) in the peripheries of Caracas and other large cities (8).
The combination of a decline in oil income [d], duplication of the population [d], a rising foreign debt and the ‘Dutch Disease’ led to an increase in the poverty rate. The economic downturn forced a reduction of public spending, and poverty rose spectacularly from 33% of the population in 1975, to 70% in 1995 (11), the highest increase in South America during this period. The sporadic turns to neoliberal economic policies by the Carlos Andrés Pérez (1989 – 1993) and Rafael Caldera (1994 – 1999) administrations further aggravated the poverty problems. As a result, inequality increased considerably between 1984 and 1998, making Venezuela the most unequal society in the world (12).
Other economic symptoms of ‘Dutch Disease’ were the currency devaluations and subsequent inflation during the oil boom in the late 1970s and the 1980s (4).
‘Dutch Disease’ had created a clientalistic and consumeristic culture more voracious than anywhere in South America, primarily influenced by imitation and import of the North American mass culture (7).
Another consequence of Venezuela’s oil wealth on its political system is that it became a ‘pacted democracy’[e], which took the form of the ‘puntofijismo’. It controlled the entire governmental bureaucracy, and won elections through its patronage system [e](4).
The control of the state-owned PdVSA had always been in dispute since its nationalisation in 1976. The management had not changed and therefore the same management from the previous multinational companies continued managing PdVSA (13). It maintained a corporalistic and anti-state tradition, and functioned like ‘a state within a state’. The Board of Directors almost in their entirety, was appointed from PdVSA management, and therefore represented management rather than the owner, the state (4).
Since 1943, the government levied a royalty charge of 16.6% for every barrel of oil extracted, and income tax on oil profits of 67.7%. With the passage of time, this royalty was negotiated to a level as low as 1% (4). In the mid-1990s, PdVSA adopted a worldwide combined accounting system in which the costs and losses outside Venezuela were balanced against revenues and profits within Venezuela. Since Venezuelan income tax rate was double that in the USA, for example, the company transferred a smaller proportion of its revenues to the government. Between 1972 and 1992, 71% of PdVSA’s income went to the government, but during the ‘Apertura’ in the 1990s, only 36% reached the government (14), while most of the industry was in foreign hands. In the late 1990s under the neoliberal Caldera administration, PdVSA not only was it working on a plan that suggested eliminating royalty payments entirely, but also on privatisation. The company was viewed as corrupt and a social divide was developing between the PdVSA staff (which employed 40,000 workers, equivalent to less than 1% of the population) and the rest of the country (15).
Even before he was elected president in 1998, Chávez had always been explicit about his view of oil being a geopolitical weapon. He realised that he would never achieve his social objectives without full control of the oil industry. When he came into office in February 1999, world oil prices were at their lowest point in many years at just $8.43 per barrel (14), and Venezuela was producing 800,000 barrels over its OPEC quota (16) which contributed to the low price. In order to ensure that oil income reached the government, he had to regain control of PdVSA, improve the oil price, introduce tax reforms, and subject the oil industry to serving national interests.
First of all, he anchored the state ownership of PdVSA by means of the new 1999 Constitution, which prohibits its privatisation. At the same time, Chávez reduceVenezuela’s crude oil production, and encouraged the OPEC countries to reduce oilproduction in order to shore up oil price. Alí Rodriguez, the Minister of Energy and Mines then, managed to secure the agreement of nearly all the OPEC as well as non-OPEC countries to either lower their production or adhere to their quotas. With the strengthening of OPEC, the oil price immediately jumped up to $27 per barrel by November 1999, making it one of the highest increments outside a war situation in the last century [f]. He also convinced OPEC to introduce a system that linked production cuts to a $22 - $28 a barrel price band.
Another significant development was the modification of the Fondo de la Estabilización Macroeconómica [g]. If the price of oil were to go above $14 a barrel, the extra income would be channelled into the fund. Rodríguez reduce the benchmark to $9 a barrel (17).
The next step was the introduction of tax reforms to enable the government to access a larger proportion of the oil revenues. Under the revised 2001 Hydrocarbons Act, royalty payments were raised from 16.6% to 30% per barrel, while the income tax was reduced from 67.7% to 50%. At the same time, PdVSA was guaranteed to at least 51% share in new oil production and exploration. By shifting the government revenues from taxes to royalties, it was closing loopholes in the tax collection process. This was also a means of improving the company’s efficiency. Related to state ownership is a provision in the Hydrocarbons Act that specifies that all its activities are to be dedicated to ‘public interest’(18).
In December 2001, business leaders, the CTV, the Fedecámeras [h] and the opposition, including the president of PdVSA, Guaicaipuro Lameda, opposed the Hydrocarbons Act and instigated an industrial action. Chávez fired Lameda, replaced him with Gastón Parra, appointed 5 new members to the Board of Directors, none of whom were from PdVSA management (19). Chávez had thus gone against the deeply rooted tradition and was accused of politicising the industry despite the fact that as representatives of the owner, the Board of Directors should be appointed by him (the state in this case).
The conflict reached a head on April 11, 2002, when a coup d’etat occurred. The coup was quelled within 48 hours thanks to huge popular support and the civic-military alliance that Chávez had been developing as soon as he took office. His conciliatory and tolerant attitude towards the coup conspirators after his triumphant return to power only served to embolden the opposition. In December 2002, a lockout was started in PdVSA. The government overcame the crisis with the help of loyal employees and ex-employees, as well as the army who guarded the oil installations and supervised the distribution of imported fuel across the country. This time, Chávez dismissed 18,000 disloyal employees, which included many from management. The lockout resulted in a drop in oil production from 2.65 million to 250,000 barrels a day (20), $14 billion in losses and a quarterly decline of 28% of GDP (21). However, this recovery of control over PdVSA, also known as ‘re-nationalization’, was one of the most decisive victories of the ‘Bolivarian revolution’.
Chávez wasted no time in implementing his social programmes once he surmounted the lockout at the beginning of 2003. Now under total state control, PdVSA had also contributed significantly to these - $2 billion in 2005 (22), nearly a quarter of its annual profits. Governmental social spending increased from 8.2% of GDP in 1998 to 12.6% in 2006 (23), consisting almost 40% of its total expenditure. With strong economic recovery since 2004 and an increase of GDP of 10.3% in 2006, the social spending had risen 170% in real terms between 1998 and 2006.
The educational ‘missions’ are Missions Robinson, Ribas and Sucre [i]. Within a year in 2004, Mission Robinson had taught 1,200,000 illiterate adults to read and write, and Mission Ribas had incorporated 250,000 students into secondary education (24). Access to education had improved substantially. The number of students in primary education had risen from 271,593 in 1999/2000 to 1,098489 in 2005/2006. Prior to the commencement of Mission Sucre, university colleges were located in 60 municipalities, and in 2006, there were colleges in 272 municipalities (25). In 2007, Mission Sucre awarded 30,000 new scholarships (26). In October 2005, 2 years after the launch of Mission Robinson, UNESCO declared Venezuela 99% free of illiteracy (25). Following the success of the literacy campaign, Mission Robinson II was set up to follow on from the original ‘mission’.
Mission Barrio Adentro [j] is a publicly funded healthcare programme in the deprived areas, staffed by Cuban doctors. In 1998, there were 1,628 doctors per head for a population of 23.4 million, and in 2006, this increased to 19,571 per head for a population of 27 million. The following phases, Mission Barrio Adentro II and III were launched in 2005 and 2007, and these aim to improve healthcare provision even further. Many patients were also sent to Cuba for their treatment, and many Venezuelan students study in Cuban medical schools.
The housing programmes include Missions Avispa and Habitat, which aim to increase the availability of affordable housing. The following are examples of the numerous social programmes – Mission Vuelvan Caras [k] directed at the unemployed, Mission Identidad for registering the electorate, Mission Zamora looking after the affairs of peasants, Mission Guaicaipuro for the indigenous people and Mission Piar for the mining communities.
During the lockout of 2002, the government introduced the ‘Mercal’ programme in which the army bought basic foodstuffs directly from the rural producers and sold them at low prices in the poor areas. The ‘Mercal’ was very popular and successful, and has since become permanent.
The ‘missions’ represent an enormous investment in the marginalized population who were living in poverty. In 1999 when Chávez first came to power, the poverty rate was 42.8%, and this had dropped to 37.9% in 2005 (23). The definition of poverty is based on cash earnings and does not take into account the improvement in the quality of life of the poor in Venezuela. For example, 54% of the population receive free healthcare through Mission Barrio Adentro, 47% buy subsidised food through the ‘Mercal’ programme, and the educational ‘missions’ offer free education.
The level of unemployment was 50% in 1998 (7) compared to 7.9% in April 2008 (27). Currently, the minimum salary in Venezuela of $286 per month is the highest in Latin America. Inflation was 81% in 1989 compared to 21.9% in 2008.
In order to achieve a truly independent economy, it is important for Venezuela to become self-sufficient for all its necessities, and hence the ‘endogenous development’[m] programme was introduced. An important component of this strategy is micro-credit [n]. The Bank of Development for Women (BANMUJER) is an example and it has awarded 42,000 micro-credits so far (28). In 2006, the non-oil industry had increased more then the oil industry (29).
To support industrialisation in general, it is necessary to improve the infrastructures. Amongst the infrastructural works being carried out are expansion programmes of the metros, motorways and ports, an ambitious railway construction programme, constructions of bridges, hospitals, schools, housing and new football and baseball stadiums.
The results of Informe Latinobarómetro 2007 (30) confirmed the success of these social programmes. 70% of Venezuelans believe that the government is concerned with the wellbeing of the people, 77% have confidence in the democracy of their country, and 55% think that the distribution of wealth is just (compared to the average of 21%) – the highest figures amongst all the Latin American countries. The levels of satisfaction of the current economic situation, healthcare and education were 52% (a rise from 43% from last year), 64% and 74% respectively – rates ranking amongst the highest in Latin America.
Apart from the social programmes, Chávez also intends to pay off Venezuela’s foreign debts earlier in order to attain economic freedom. The total public debt had fallen from 47.7% of GDP during the economic crisis of 2002-2003, to 23.8% of GDP in 2006, with total interest payment of only 2.1% of GDP. Venezuela has accumulated foreign exchange reserves of as high as $45 billion in 2006, while its oil income was $28.9 billion in the same year (29). In the face of an unanticipated decline in oil prices, the government can draw on these reserves before having to increase its borrowing.
Venezuela’s oil policies are closely linked to its foreign policy, and Chávez has established his priorities – reduce Venezuela’s dependence on the USA, develop an alternative socialist economic system (to neoliberalism), and unite South America. Once again, Chávez employs oil diplomacy in his attempts to achieve them.
A principal way of breaking the hegemony of the USA is diversification of Venezuela’s international relations in an effort to promote a mulitpolar world, a corrective for the current ‘unipolar world’. Recently the president of the Commission of Energy and Mines, Angel Rodríguez, stated that ‘the oil policies of the Bolivarian government is multipolar and is neither subordinate to North American interests nor to those of large transnational companies’. Venezuela has signed agreement in the energy sector with China, India, Indonesia, Canada and various EU, Latin American and Caribbean countries. Eleven companies of different nationalities are currently operating in the Orinoco oil belt, and the majority are state-owned. Venezuela foresees the involvement of a further 50 companies in the future, 32 of which are state-owned companies (31).
Apart from joint ventures in the energy sector, Venezuela also has other commercial agreements, eg. it signed contracts for construction of a fleet of tankers with China and Argentina, bought weapons from Russia & Spain, etc. The latest important products of such joint ventures were the ‘Bolivarian computers’[o] which run on the open-source Linux operating system instead of Microsoft. They are manufactured in Venezuela with Chinese technology (32).
The relationship with the energy-hungry, up and coming economic powers such as China & India is an important leap in the diversification strategy and the reduction of Venezuela’s economic and technological dependence on the USA. Furthermore, it may need cheap consumer products from these countries. In the last 2 years,Venezuelan oil export to the USA has dropped by 8.2% (33), while that to China hasrisen from 150,000 to 120,000 barrels a day in 2003. Chávez is expecting this to increase to 1 million by 2012 (34).
Chávez is against the Free Trade Area of the America (FTAA) agreement proposed by the USA. He believes it is another form of globalisation and neoliberalism that seek to undermine the sovereignty and democracy by reinforcing the power of corporations, and that privatisation would only worsen the poverty level within the hemisphere and would neither benefit Venezuela and Latin America, nor any of the Third World countries. Through skilful oil diplomacy, Chávez convinced most of the South American countries of his convictions and prevented the any agreement on FTAA so far (35). Instead, Chávez proposed the ‘Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas’ (ALBA – ‘Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas’), an agreement which differs from FTAA in that it advocates the formation of a socially focussed commercial bloc, which allows the fluid exchange of goods and services in a manner that would bypass the international banking systems and corporate interests. In fact, ALBA distinctly excludes the participation of the World Bank and other international financial institutions. For example, Venezuela sends oil under preferential rates to Cuba in exchange for the services of 20,000 Cuban doctors and teachers currently working in the healthcare and educational ‘missions’. It also has similar agreements with Argentina where it provides oil in exchange for cattle, and with Uruguay, Brazil, Bolivia, the Caribbean, Portugal and even London. Thus, Chávez challenges the USA and the large banks through control of the energy sector and introducing measures with significant socioeconomic contents. Another step that has considerably reduced the influence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and therefore that of the USA, is Venezuela’s repayment of Argentina and Ecuador’s foreign debts.
Chávez has astutely used oil as a means of forging alliances within South America. He established regional initiatives such as Petrosur, PetroCaribe and is currently in the process of negotiating the formation of Petrandina. Petrosur is an alliance of the state-owned energy companies of Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. It coordinates oil distribution, exploration and processing, and encourages construction of large-scale infrastructures such as pipelines and refineries. Petrosur would supply oil to various countries under preferential financial terms, and the profits would be channelled into social programmes.
Venezuela joined the Mercosur in 2004 through which Chávez hopes to further deepen ties with South American countries. Commercial agreements have already been signed with the majority of these countries [p].
Another project proposed by Chávez is the creation of Bancosur [q] as an alternative financial institution to the IMF and World Bank. This regional bank aims to free those heavily indebted South American countries and their dependence on large financial institutions which serve US interests. It would provide loans at lower rates and without demanding any neoliberal conditions. In the long run, Chávez also aspires to develop a common monetary unit.
Other initiatives Chávez has promoted in his attempts to integrate Latin America include: Telesur (launched in July 2005)[r], Unasur [s], Petroamérica [t] and a South American Defence Council [u].
In his fight against neoliberalism and with the aim of demonstrating the benefits of a commercial system that places emphasis on social justice, he has taken a step further by extending oil diplomacy to the poor communities in the USA. Venezuela provided help to the victims of Hurricane Katrina via CITGO [v], which is currently selling oil at below market prices to the disadvantaged. Besides proclaiming solidarity with the minority groups, this is also improves his political standing internationally.
Conclusion
Without a shadow of doubt, the additional funds derived from oil wealth as a result of his oil policy has allowed Chávez to redistribute the country’s wealth in the form of social programmes in the short and medium terms. As a result, he has consolidated the staunch support of the majority who has confidence in his reforms. However, the sustainability of this social evolution in the longer term will depend on achieving Venezuela’s economic sovereignty and independence, which in turn will require the unity of purpose and will of the governing party.
The key to ‘Chavismo’ is Hugo Chávez, its charismatic leader, and for the large part, the ‘Bolivarian revolution’ is focussed on his personality. Maintaining total unity within the party could well prove to be the Achilles heel because as is obvious in the PSUV elections [w](36), there are many types of ‘chavistas’ who each has his own motives. In order to safeguard the survival of this ‘revolution’, the party will have to embrace his ideals completely so that it will continue even when Chávez is no longer in power. This could be something that is difficult to achieve.
However, the most dangerous obstacle is US retaliation against this gradual but definite erosion of its political and economical control over South America, under the leadership and strong influence of Chávez. Since the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine in 1923 [x], the USA has always treated Latin America as its own backyard. The economic hegemony of the USA can be viewed as imperialism of the modern era. This loss represents an immense threat to the empire, and therefore the USA will defend its political and economic control of that region at all costs. Within the last 6 years, all the South American countries apart from Colombia, have elected leftist governments – the ‘pink tide’ sweeping across the continent. As such the time has never been as ripe as now in the entire history of South America to liberate itself from the jaws of the USA. This could only be achieved through international diplomacy backed solidly by oil diplomacy. Should Chávez manage to achieve a true political and economic independence from the USA such as the formation of a united South America, it could signal the beginning of the end of the US empire.
These aspirations would have been only a wish list if it were not for Venezuela’s oil riches which has significantly increased their viability. Chávez has become an actor to be reckoned with in the international political stage, at a level never before seen in all the previous leftist and radical populist governments of Latin America (37). As Paul Michael Wihbey, president of GWEST in Washington, and Strategic Fellow of a Jerusalem-based think tank group commented, ‘Chávez is playing treaty chess whereas Cuba’s Fidel Castro played chequers’(38).
Bibliography
1) Raby DL. ‘The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela’ in Democracy and Revolution. Pluto Press, London, and Between the Lines, Toronto, 2006, p147
2) Venezuela’s oil reserves swells to 130 bln barrels. May 8, 2008 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080508195126.9cnubmcr&show_article=1
3) Alvarez, Cesar J. Venezuela’s Oil-based Economy. Council on foreign relations, November 27, 2006
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12089/
4) Wilpert, Gregory. The Economics, Culture, and Politics of Oil in Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, August 30, 2003
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/74
5) De Silva, K Migara O. The Political Economy of Windfalls: the ‘Dutch Disease’ – Theory and Evidence, 1994
http://pgpblog.worldbank.org/files/Dutchdisease_Migara.pdf
6) Karl, Terry Lynn. The Paradox of Plenty. Oil Booms and Petro-States. Bekerley, University of California Press, 1997, p 235
7) Hellinger, Daniel C. Venezuela:Tarnished Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1991, p 127
8) Wilpert, Gregory. Land for People not for Profit in Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, August 23, 2005
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1310
9) World Development Report 2000/2001, p 297
10) Quevedo, Rafael Isidro. Venezuela: Un Perfil General. Agroalimentaria, No 6, Junio 1998
11) Riutort, Matias. El Coste de Eradicar la Pobreza. Un Mal Posible de Superar. UCAB, 1999, Vol 1
12) Rodríguez, Francisco. Factor Shares and Resource Booms: Accounting for the Evolution of Venezuelan Inequality. World Institute for Development Economics Research, Research Paper from World Institute for Development Economics Research, 2000, p 6
http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/wp205.pdf
13) Mommer, Bernard. ‘Petróleo Subversivo’ in La política venezolana en la época de Chávez: clases, polarización y conflicto. Steve Ellner, Daniel Hellinger (eds). Caracas: Edition Nueva Sociedad, 2003, p168-69
14) Mommer, Bernard. Venezuelan Oil Politics at the Crossroads. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Monthly Commentary, 2000
Ramírez, Rafael. A National, Popular, and Revolutionary Oil Policy for Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, June 9, 2005
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1474
15) Buxton, Julia. Economy. South America, Central America and the Caribbean 2005. London: Europa Publications, 2005, p 870
16) Venezuela’s Chávez Squeezes Oil Companies. Bloomberg.com, August 24, 2005
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=a3z63_HrIvtc
17) Gott, Richard. ‘The New Politics of Oil’ in Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution. Verso, London, 2005, p171
18) Article 5 of the ‘Ley Orgánica de Hidrocarburos’, 2001
19) Kozloff, Nicholas. ‘The Battle for Control over Oil’ in Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics, and the Challenge to the U.S. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, 2006, p 26
20) South America, Central America and the Caribbean, 2005, p 868
21) Sanchez, Martin. Venezuela Rejects U.S. Ruling on Alleged PdVSA Expropriation of Assets from CIA-linked Firm. Venezuelanalysis, July 15, 2004 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/585
22) Monahan, Jane (BBC). Venezuela Looks to Boost Social Spending. Venezuelanalysis, December 19, 2005 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1532
23) Weisbot, Mark, Sandoval, Luis and Rosnick, David. Poverty Rates in Venezuela: Getting the Numbers Right. Center for Economic and Policy Research. May 26, 2006
24) Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (2004). Reporte: Cifras (para finales marzo 2004) de las misiones del gobierno reflejan grandesa avances en materia social. 28 mayo 2004. http://www.aporrea.org/
25) Vásquez, Enrique. Why Venezuela’s poor support their revolution. Socialism and Liberation (S&L) Magazine. September 2007 http://www.socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=825
26) http://www.misionsucre.chaguaramas.com.ve/
27) Venezuelan Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.9% in April. Venezolana de Televisión (VTV)/MinCI/May23,2008
28) Forero, Juan. Chavez Restyles Venezuela with ‘21st Century Socialism’. New York Times, October 30, 2005, p 3
29) Weisbot, Mark and Sandoval, Luis. The Venezuelan Economy in the Chávez Years. Center for Economic and Policy Research. July 2007
30) Informe Latinobarómetro 2007. Banco de datos en línea.
http://http://www.latinobarometro.org/
31) Política energética del gobierno venezolano es multipolar. Prensa Web RNV/VTV. 15 Mayo 2008. http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=68243&hl=orinoco&s=8ca01d31bebaf7a4320ed241a81f0d38
32) Carlson, Chris. Venezuela launches sale of ‘Bolivarian computers’. Venezuelanalysis, June 12, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2441
33) Luhnow and Millard. How Chávez Aims to Weaken U.S. El Universal (Caracas), February 2, 2007, p 1-13
34) Luhnow and Millard. How Chávez Aims to Weaken U.S. Fulfilling the 1 million-barrel goal hinges on China’s decision to downplay coal and to finance the construction of a pipeline from Venezuela to Colombia’s Pacific Coast. El Universal (Caracas), February 2, 2007
35) Cardoso y Chávez se reúnen en Brasilia. El Universal, April 3, 2001 http://buscador.eluniversal.com/2001/04/03/int_art_03107DD.shtml
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. Free Trade Area of the Americas Update. Draft Text of FTAA to be Made Public Following Québec Summit. Bridges Weekly News Digest 5, No 13, April 10, 2001 http://www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/10-04-01/story2.htm
Primer mandatorio pasó 10 horas en Uruguay y anoche llegó a Argentina, Chávez califica de ‘nefasto’ el FMI y asegura que el ALCA ‘no sirve’. El Universal, August 17, 2003
http://www.eluniversal.com/2003/08/17/pol_art_17104EE.shtml
Palast, Greg. Chávez versus the Free Trade Zombies of the Americas. Venezuelanalysis, November 30, 2003
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/251
James, Deborah. Stopping the FTAA: Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, February 23, 2004
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1110
Timerman, Jordana. Chávez and Maradona Leads Massive Rebuke of Bush. The Nation, November 6, 2005
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/timerman
No trade deal at Americas Summit. BBC News Channel, November 6, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4410190.stm
Kozloff, Nicholas. ‘Chávez and his fight against neoliberalism’ in Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics, and the Challenge to the U.S. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, 2006, p 65,73
36) Janicke, Kiraz. Controversy Erupts Over Nominations for PSUV Candidacies in Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis, May 26, 2008 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3494
37) Ellner, Steve (NACLA). Using Oil Diplomacy to Sever Venezuela’s Dependence. Venezuelanalysis, October 3, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2677
38) Yedlin, Deborah. Chavez Gives Boost to Oil Sands. The Globe and Mail, December 8, 2006 http://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20061208/RYEDLIN08
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)