A Method to the Madness: Venezuelan Foreign Policy under Chavez

Abstract
Hugo Chavez Frias is the charismatic president of Venezuela, and the self styled revolutionary leader of a neo-socialist movement in Latin America. His foreign policy actions seem, at times, to be nonsensical, but when examined on a systematic basis, they reflect a rational, calculated execution of an ideological philosophy. What this philosophy does is blend devotion to a radical ideology with a precise pragmatism.

Introduction
In this paper I will address the question of Venezuela’s grand strategy under the governance of Hugo Chavez. My thesis question is hat motivates Venezuela to act in the way that it does? On what ideological, or practical basis are decisions made? It is necessary to determine the rational explanation for the seemingly irrational and contradictory actions that Chavez makes as the president of Venezuela. This paper will approach the issue with the thesis that there is a logical reason for any action that Chavez makes, and will try to determine what that reason or reasons might be. Under his leadership, Venezuela has been spontaneous, determined, loud, and at times, patently absurd. Often Chavez appears to guide Venezuela with an opportunistic political instinct, but at times seems to be a naïve and inept blundering dramatist posturing as a statesman. Given the enormous oil resources that Venezuela possesses, Chavez has a potentially powerful bargaining chip for achieving his interests. But what these interests? It is unclear what Chavez’s ultimate goal is when he sidles up to world leaders so ideologically opposed to him as Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, president of Iran. The obvious answer is that they are both radically anti-American, or at least radically opposed to the US administration of George W. Bush. But that begets another question: what does Chavez have to gain from going head to head with unequivocally the most powerful player in the international field?
From an academic perspective, the reason that this sort of research is important is the rapidly changing status of various countries around the world. As the economic hegemony of the United States is challenged by several states, the emerging powers seem not to be compatible with previous theories explaining and predicting international behaviour. Models that academics use to analyze countries are generally designed for either a bipolar or hegemonic international system, specifically that of international idealism or realism. With the increasing multipolarity of the world, it is necessary to attempt to tailor old theories from strictly realist, or idealist, to fit the new polarity, or determine whether the time has come to throw out outdated theories and determine a new way of looking at the international system. Alternatively, one might attempt to take selected features from theories and combine them to create an amalgamated model with which to view countries. To further determine the grand strategy of Venezuela, it is necessary to understand exactly what influences Venezuelan policy. Hence, a levels of analysis based examination is also in order, to determine what factors, system, state, or individual (or whatever blend of these three) go into creation of policy.
Practically, there is plenty of legitimacy in examining Venezuela. They are a major exporter of oil, and the Chavez government appears to have increasing influence over others around the globe, such as the president of Peru, Evo Morales, who seems to tailor his policy to that of Chavez. Subsequently, it is in the interests for anyone remotely affected by the evolving world to understand, and to have a means of evaluating the behaviour of developing states such as Venezuela and by world leaders such as Chavez.
Literature Review
Unfortunately, there is not a plethora of literature concerning the foreign policy of Venezuelan under Chavez. He is the darling of the sensation-driven media, especially given his absurdist antics, but there is little of gravitas written about him. In “Breaking the Mold” Venezuela’s defiance of the Neoliberal Agenda,” Sheila D. Collins discusses Chavez’s leading of an anti-neoliberal movement in Latin America. This article gives an extensive review of Chavez’s economic and political ideology and motivation. She details his rise to power and his reforms that, while anti-neoliberal, are not the traditional leftist strongman tactics. She claims that the American media has a skewed view of Chavez and that Venezuela is much more open and “free” than the media acknowledges (Collins 383). With the media as a source anti-Chavism in the United States there is a general misconception of the reality of Venezuela. Collins accuses anti-Castro Cubans in the US State Department for orchestrating the anti-Castro foreign policy. She cites Chavez’s refusal of aid from the United States during 1999 as the first “act of defiance” against the United States. Collins portrays Chavez’s decision as a refusal of military intrusion into Venezuela. This action set the tone for the Chavez presidency to date: “America is not our friend” (Collins 394). While she justifies this particular unfriendly gesture towards the United States, Collins fails to explain the extreme vitriol which Chavez expresses against what he views as an imperialistic war mongering nation, an example of which is Chavez referring to George W. Bush as “the devil” in a General Assembly meeting. She does touch on one very important point, however, by postulating that much of Chavez’s actions are due to his individual character. Is it merely a personal grudge against the United States? Collins does not address this question, but if that is the answer, other factors must be examined as well.
While Chavez certainly wants nothing to do with the United States, except to lambaste them, he is by no means an isolationist. He has reached out to the countries around him, wishing to create a “Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas” (ALBA) (Collins 392). This initiative is intended to counter the US-sponsored Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, Collins tells us. Creating economic solidarity in South America, to the exclusion of the United States seems to be one of Chavez’s many ambitious goals. The other countries of Latin America have been increasingly in favour of ALBA as an alternative to the US model, which points towards a growing regional clout wielded by Chavez (Collins 393). However, Chavez is not content merely to exclude the United States; it seems that he has declared an ideological war, evident in his flowery, personal rhetoric.
To fully understand Venezuelan foreign policy it is vital to explore why the relations between Venezuela and the United States have gone so far beyond the normal ideological differences that states find themselves in. The conflict between Chavez and the United States has become quite personal, with high profile personalities, such as the influential televangelist Pat Robertson, who has ties to the Bush administration, in the United States calling for his assassination. (USA Today)
In her book “The Chavez Code” Eva Golinger blames the United States for the escalating the situation by continuing the long standing tradition of Washington meddling with South American affairs. She accuses the US of having a direct hand in the failed coup that attempted to remove Chavez from power in 2002. (Golinger 2) If this is true, then why does Chavez continue to antagonize such a powerful and influential enemy? In his article “Hugo Boss” Javier Corrales makes the claim that Chavez simply acts this way because it “endears him to the international left” (Corrales). The veracity of this argument is questionable, however, because Chavez’s allies in South America, such as Kirchner in Argentina and Lula da Silva in Brazil, are consistently more moderate than him. Further, other countries that Chavez has courted have decidedly right-wing governments, such as Iran, which is headed by the hard-line theocrat Ahmedinejad and Supreme Leader Khamenei. It is worthy to note, however, that these right wing governments are either blatantly anti-US, or at least have less than warm relations with the United States. Western Hemisphere right-wing countries, however, traditionally side with the United States, so Chavez has been less than cordial to countries such as Colombia and Guatemala. Corrales goes on to claim that “trashing the United States is a low-risk, high-return policy for gaining support” for the policies and international initiatives that Chavez pursues. (Corrales) However, subscribing to this argument contradicts Golinger’s argument that Chavez’s anti-US policies are anything but low-risk, as the United States was instrumental in his attempted overthrow, and currently maintains anti-Chavez operations within Venezuela. (Golinger 133) Also, if the returns are so high for cozying up to Anti-American governments, why did Chavez fail to secure a seat for Venezuela on the United Nations Security Council when anti-Americanism is so prevalent around the world? Clearly the aforementioned arguments, from Golinger and Corrales, are incompatible, thus further examination is called for.
In “Why Chavez Wins,” Francisco Rodriguez proposes the idea that Chavez is using his “showboating” foreign policy actions to distract Venezuelans from the dramatic failures of his domestic policies. (Rodriguez) The problem with this assessment, however is that these conclusions are drawn from the same data that Sheila Collins uses to claim that Chavez’s policies are a burgeoning success. While the numbers are the same, the interpretation is entirely subjective. Collins refers to a program to end illiteracy through which the government has claimed to given 1.5 million Venezuelans basic literacy (Collins). Rodriguez, on the other hand, takes the same data and says that the level of education is insufficient and therefore a failure. Similarly, Collins attributes Venezuela’s booming economy in part to Chavez’s policies, whereas Rodriguez claims the economy is doing well despite Chavez. As such, there is no conclusive evidence that Chavez’s showboating foreign policy is designed to distract from failing domestic policy, because there is inconclusive evidence that the domestic policy is, in fact, failing. Thus one must determine if there are not other explanations for the overly dramatic policy that is observed.
A consistent problem with any analysis of issues regarding Venezuela is that, almost universally, most analyses have a biased agenda, usually to either support Chavez, or more often, to discredit him. While these polemics may have various desirable political results, it does little to further our knowledge and understanding of what Chavez’s goals are, what his techniques are, and the implications of them for the future.

Methodology
Because of the polarizing nature of literature regarding Chavez, it is important that an objective analysis be based as much as possible from credible reports and fact rather than rhetoric and opinion. As such, for this paper my main sources will be a variety of news articles regarding Chavez’s international activities. Bearing in mind that the American press is often implicitly hostile towards the Venezuelan president, I will attempt to glean only the actual occurrences, that is to say specific actions: speeches, foreign policy decisions, meetings with other leaders, etc., from the news article, not the opinion of the journalist. By looking primarily at events instead of the subsequent biased analyses of these events, I will be able to remain relatively objective. To further my objectivity I will attempt to draw from a diverse selection of news reporting organizations including The New York Times, The Economist, The Miami Herald, Worldpress.org and Reuters. For a more in depth look at certain areas, I will rely mainly upon the sources discussed in the previous section.
Once a sound base of data is accumulated, it can be plugged into theories of international Realism and Idealism to help determine why Chavez does what he does, and what he plans on doing in the future. Thus, the first determination to make is whether Chavez is a realist, acting only in the benefit of Venezuela, or an idealist, whose actions, such as giving discounted, or even free oil to poor nations, are based purely in ideological altruism. For this purpose, we will use Laura Neak’s discussion on international relations theory, that is, realism and idealism, as a basis for evaluating whether Chavez’s policies are consistent with idealist or realist tenets.
According to Neak, there are two basic tenets of realist theory. First is the negative view of human nature, that humans are essentially selfish creatures. This translates into international theory with the assertion that states are essentially selfish entities. The second is the concept of the international system as an anarchical environment, where states act only in their self interest, and are loath to trust one another. Idealist, or Liberal, theory, on the other hand, approaches the subject with a positive view of human nature, that humans are naturally inclined to cooperate for mutual benefit. As such, it is possible for states to construct a sort of international social construct, either institutionally or implicit, and operate in a cooperative manner. Examining Venezuelan policy under these auspices can help gain an understanding of the construction of this policy.
It is also important to examine Venezuelan policy under Chavez from the levels of analysis. This is important because it shows whence stems policy. The determining factors, system, state, or individual, can greatly change the outcome as far as strategy and goals are concerned. Thus to form a comprehensive view of Venezuela’s grand strategy, a levels of analysis view is in order. For this we will use David Singer’s article “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations.” First we must view Venezuela on the system level: what are Venezuela’s national interests, what pressures does it face from the surrounding world, what advantages and influence does it retain over other countries? Second is the examination of Venezuela from the state level. What are the influences of the media, public opinion, type of political institutions and interest groups? The state level, in Venezuela’s case, ties in very closely with the Individual level. For this level, of course, we examine the character, history, ideology, and personality of Hugo Chavez himself.
Because Chavez has clearly had a great influence directly upon Venezuelan policy, it is important to be especially methodical in our examination on the individual level. As such, “Populism: Archival Concept or 21st Century Reality” by Jonathan Gilbert provides an analysis of Chavez’s singular nature as a populist leader. This article helps to understand Chavez’s nature and ideology.
As stated above, it is probable that no particular theory will adequately explain Chavez’s behaviour. Thus it may be necessary to adapt and dissect different theoretical frameworks to find the most appropriate parts to apply. The final part of the analysis process will be attempting to reconcile Venezuelan foreign policy to a methodological explanation. With this accomplished, I will be able to more accurately determine what precisely Venezuela’s, and Chavez’s goals and interests are.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas