#74 Chavez’ vs. Putin’s Freedom of Speech Crackdowns

The events of the recent weeks surrounding the scandalous closure (and the reopening of its unfortunately less far-reaching and accessible cable/satellite version) of an opposition-leaning Venezuelan TV channel, RCTV have revealed that, in addition to Mr. Chavez showing alliance propensity gyrating around controversial nuclear ambitions, weapons, oil and even gas arrangements with the aspirant “outsiders” such as China, Iran and Russia, lately he also proved to employ, even though in a somewhat maladroit approach, some of those countries’ leaders’ “tried-and-proved” censorship maneuvers.

In the midst of the RCTV crisis, hardly anybody seemed to recall a similar - though more perversely masked as compared to Chavez’ frankness - scandal that revolved in 2000-2001 around a privately held Russian TV channel, NTV.

The evolvement of the Russian, much more craftily performed analogue, started in June 2000 with the controversially executed arrest ordered by the prosecutor-general of Vladimir Gusinsky - charged with embezzlement - head of the Media-Most group that owned NTV (Russia’s first independent TV station), a newspaper and an openly opposition-leaning radio “Echo Moskvy,” which even President Bill Clinton favored during his visit to Moscow earlier that month, ignoring any Russian state-run radio or television during his visit. Media-Most publications, especially through its most widely accessible and highly popular TV channel NTV, had at the time openly refused to be loyal to the Kremlin. NTV, through its daily news, political programs, and a satirical puppet show, has broadly criticized the policies of the Kremlin and president Vladimir Putin, brought to light alleged atrocities during the Chechen war and other social issues in Russian life often ignored by state-owned channels.

A month later, in an informal deal, the charges against Gusinsky were dropped after signing an agreement with the minister of media, under which Gusinsky was to sell Media-Most to a state-dominated Gazprom, which already possessed a 30% share in NTV since 1996, for a price forced by Gazprom, in return for a guarantee that Gusinsky would not be prosecuted. After Media-Most itself refused to comply with the agreement, Gazprom publicly announced its acquisition of a controlling stake in NTV and the voting rights of a minority stake held by Media Most were frozen by a court decision.

Almost a year later, in April 2001 Gazprom took over NTV's old board of directors by force in a boardroom coup and replaced its director. Fearing that the Gazprom takeover would lead to government censorship, demonstrations of several thousand people in Moscow and St. Petersburg showed their support for NTV staff. Although the protests were weak when compared to the recent Caracas’ demonstration, they were incredibly brave by the practically non-existent Russian protest standards. Nevertheless, the majority of the prominent journalists have since left the channel, while the rest were been fired soon afterwards. Furthermore, rather conspicuously, two other independent channels were shut down in the next several years.

These events, which were critically commented on by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the Council of Europe, and by former White House spokesman Joe Lockhart, for some reason have been swiftly forgiven of Putin.

How damaging are such freedom of speech crackdowns for the future of these countries?

The answer most likely lies in the countries’ past. A principle difference between the two is that since 1958 Venezuela has been evolving under an incessant period of democratic government; whilst Russia, except for a short period of Yeltsin’s laissez-faire unprecedented freedom (which was most likely due not to his proclaimed democratic aspirations, but to his inability to adequately manage the Russian chaos of the 1990’s), have been living under constant, multi-dimensional fear and rigid totalitarianism for at least the last 80 years. As opposed to the turmoil of the past decade, Putin brought in “order” – an archaically authoritarian “order” the nostalgic Russians are willing to give up many freedoms for; freedoms they probably never even owned in the period of modern history.

Thus, while Chavez acted in a military-background induced, atrociously blunt, and prospectively self-detrimental manner, having openly and ruthlessly commented on and pronounced the (upcoming) closure, Putin, owing to his KGB - the single most efficient Soviet-generated structure - experience, proceeded more furtively, and consequently more “effectively” in the long run, which makes it even more appalling and daunting.

Since this cunning de facto elimination of the only opposition-channel almost 8 years ago, there have virtually been no more attempts to reinstate any similar channels in Russia ever since; and no remembrance of these events, as if they were something insignificant, seems to currently permeate the discontent of the existing opposition.

Compared to Putin’s slyness and carefully premeditated conspirative approach, Chavez’ clumsy shutting of a dissident channel from the public system, which triumphantly reemerged soon afterwards in independent cable broadcasting (and even YouTube) following the logically predictable strong international reaction, seems just a poorly calculated whim, regardless of how intrinsically erroneous it is.

What is obvious is easier to confront and has a tendency to backfire eventually.

Optimistically, the support for Chavez and his “revolutionary” policies is just a temporary Venezuelan poor’s “nervous breakdown” and the nouveau riches’ “folly” that - under favorable circumstances of the opposition’s effort supported by a strong-willed, though diminishing, middle class that has been manifesting great dissatisfaction with and spirit to oppose Chavez - can theoretically be reversed.

Unfortunately for the Russians - even the younger and notably increasingly more prosperous ones - continuing complacence with a latent, concealed and consequently more enduringly perilous governmental “iron-fist” seems to be metaphorically an almost genetically inherent mentality trait.

- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Julia Socolov

#65 Political Tectonics: The Slow Drift

The recent souring of EU-Russia relations and U.S.-Russia relations is a greater cause for concern for the post Cold War status quo than most people realize. Gone are the Yeltsin years of warm rapprochement between nuclear super powers Russia and America. The realities of multipolarity are beginning to dawn on the recently predictable Pangaea world of diplomacy. The post 911 world has shaken the "stable" world order on its foundations. What we are in fact witnessing is the start of a slow drift to a truly multipolar world. A world of divided power and divided interests.

This divided world comes at a rather bad time in world history. Humanity needs to make a series of concerted, fundamental global changes in an array of areas ranging from energy security to climate change and poverty. Instead of focusing on these critical issues that are beneficial to the well being of all mankind, we are increasingly distracted by the deplorable and volatile political situation in Iraq and the Palestinian territories.

The gradual but steady shift in Latin American political attitudes vis a vis the United States should also not be underestimated. In the case of Venezuela, Chavez is not only talking the talk, but clearly walking it as well. The recent moves to nationalize the oil industry and pull out of multilateral institutions such as the World Bank is a vivid example of how the combination of self interest and anti-Americanism is shaping a new diplomatic paradigm in world politics. The trend of resource nationalization is a trend that should be followed with absolute caution, be it in Russia, Myanmar, Bolivia, or Venezuela.

In fact, we are only at the beginning of a long energy squeeze that is bound to exacerbate, in great part due to the current climate of global political fragmentation. The up and coming leadership change in the White House comes at a critical moment in time: can a new President repair the years of void respect for American political leadership and lack of Democratic enlightenment?

In any case the new presidency faces a number of tough challenges. A new administration and President in the United States is going to face a much harsher international diplomatic climate for reaching consensus. Unilateralism is surely a no go area now, something which even current President George Bush Jr. has understood given the precarious international political climate that has arisen in large part due to this unilateralism. The imminent talks with Iran are a good example of this. They are by no means a stroke of enlightened political leadership, but rather a measure of acute desperation.

#60 A Warrior Pur Sang

Do you remember the Watergate scandal? Or the Missile Crisis pitting US President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev? What about the Vietnam War or the recent Iraq invasion? I'm sure all our readers know Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, U.S. President George Bush Sr., Jr. and Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad. Do they also know the leaders of a time long passed, such as Chile's Salvador Allende, China's Mao Zedong and America's Dwight D. Eisenhower? Most probably you do. So what is it that all these events and people have in common?

The answer is: Cuban President Fidel Castro has been in power to witness and deal with each and every one of these episodes and leaders, as well as scores of others. And despite the vast reports claiming his time has now finally come, it seems he might be around for a while longer.

It is unclear which illness (he suffered from intestinal bleeding and is believed to suffer from diverticular disease) the Cuban President is battling exactly, but there is little disputing his resolve and ability to deal with whatever challenge is thrown at his entity. Castro has survived numerous attempts on his life, prompting the British newspaper The Guardian to write an article about the matter and Channel 4 to make a documentary. They came to the conclusion that 638 ways have been devised by various parties - most notably the CIA - to assassinate him (for an interesting read on the 638 ways attempted to kill Fidel Castro, have a look at the Guardian's article on the subject). These include an exploding cigar, a poisonous ballpoint pen and a jar of cold cream containing poison pills. Castro fittingly responded to these numerous attempts by making what has become a legendary comment; "If surviving assassination attempts were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal."

Attempts on his life haven't managed to kill him, old age doesn't seem to damage him too much and now it appears disease has failed as well. After what was considered to be a series of life threatening operations, rumours of Castro's death spread like wildfire. But little by little, pictures and videos emerged of a recovering Castro at the side of his main ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Last week Castro even published an article denouncing U.S. plans to turn corn into ethanol as a means to create an alternative energy supply to oil. The most recent and puissant proof that Castro is on his way back to leading his country is the meeting he held with Wu Guanzheng, a member of the Chinese Communist Party's Politiburo.

The meeting with Wu is all the more substantial given that Castro received a letter from Chinese President Hu Jintao that delved, amongst other things, into economic issues. According to Chinese officials in Cuba, trade between the two countries has blossomed in recent years, growing to $1.8 billion last year, double that of 2005. Most of this trade is accounted for by Cuban imports of Chinese buses, locomotives and farm equipment and supplies. Cuba would very much like to capitalize on China's booming economy and overall growth, providing it with a golden opportunity to get the Cuban revolutionary engine back on steam.

Castro's Cuban revolutionary movement has survived many catastrophes - the most notable being the collapse of the Soviet Union - but survived them all. This is very much due to the unique leadership abilities of El Commandante. When it comes to Fidel Castro, never say die.

#59 Divisive Ethanol

Ethanol has become the new "it" thing in terms of energy fashion. Whether you are a proponent of expanding ethanol production for energy use, believe it would be a disaster to do so, or if you could not care less about the topic, one thing is for sure: you have something to say about it. The scope of discussion on the topic extends far beyond merely energy, encompassing a wide array of sectors such as food, agriculture, energy, trade and the environment. No matter in what context ethanol is debated, it has become a particularly divisive topic.

The environmental field is one such area. High profile politicians, scientists and lobby groups such as the Renewable Fuels Association - the largest Washington ethanol lobby group - are touting it as a 'green' alternative to the heavy pollutant, gasoline. Others, such as Stanford University civil and environmental engineering professor Mark Jacobson, loudly dispute this claim. Jacobson conducted a study analyzing the environmental effects of switching to ethanol and concluded "It's not green in terms of air pollution...If you want to use ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds. It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse." Green or not, ethanol has set the stage for a tough debate worthy of competing with the ever contentious notion of Global Warming.

At the top of the world's political echelons, ethanol has garnered a prominent and cosy space for itself as well. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, following the words of Cuban President Fidel Castro, has issued a stark warning against the use of ethanol as a main source of energy, warning there is a lack of arable land and arguing it will lead to food prices skyrocketing, subsequently causing mass starvation among the world's poor. Bush, on the other hand, has hailed ethanol as a fitting alternative to the American addiction to foreign oil, sealing a bilateral deal with the world's largest ethanol producer, Brazil. The fact that these two leaders disagree on something is far from surprising, of course. What is noteworthy, however, is the effect that ethanol is having on Chavez's relationship with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Lula), who Chavez considers to be a close ally.

At a Venezuelan hosted energy summit involving eight Latin American nations, Lula responded to Chavez's comments regarding massive production of ethanol in an unprecedentedly stark manner, saying “The truth is that biofuel is a way out for the poor countries of the world...Obviously there is no possibility of competition between food production and biofuel production...No one is going to stop planting rice to plant biofuels. The problem of food in the world now is not lack of production of food. It's a lack of income for people to buy food.” Chavez was seemingly taken aback by these statements, softening his position afterwards by insisting that his real objection is to the U.S. corn-based variety of the biofuel – not Brazilian ethanol produced with sugar cane. Nevertheless, ethanol has managed to become the first topic to create public disagreement between the two leaders.

Let's just hope that either the proponents of ethanol as a substitute or additive for oil are correct, or that other, cheaper, cleaner and less divisive methods will be found in the meanwhile. Divisive ethanol must not become a distraction for the real reasons - which are a plenty - that we are seeking alternatives to oil.

#47 Chavez vs Bush

It is nearly impossible these days to escape the continuous taunting of US President Bush by Venezuelan President Chavez. A large portion (in any case a very loud portion) of the world seems to be squarely on the side of the Venezuelan leader, either because they truly agree with his Socialist policies or simply out of blind disgust for anything Bush-related. Both leaders are currently on a tour of Latin America, with the not all too subtle aim of beating out the other in the eyes of the local populace. While Bush is in Brazil and Uruguay, Chavez is in Argentina; Bush in Colombia, Chavez in Bolivia; Bush in Guatemala, Chavez in Haiti. Again, whether justified or not, it seems Chavez has a clear advantage, though Bush certainly wins the award for most dignified demeanor.

Indeed, by repeating calls like "Gringo go home!" and "Yankee go home!" Chavez is using highly irresponsible terminology that creates hate for an entire nation, rather than only for the man Chavez claims to be taking aim at. "Gringo" and "Yankee" have evolved into highly derogative slurs, which, coupled with the use of terms such as "devil," are nutrients for widespread incitement. Accusatory calls that the CIA is plotting to assassinate him will also do little good for US sentiment in Venezuela and beyond. Chavez recently repeated this allegation, saying "Who did they swear in at the White House as deputy secretary of state? A professional killer: John Negroponte...They have assigned special units of the CIA, true assassins, who go around not only here in Venezuela, but in Central America, in South America."

Chavez's calls resonate in the region, however, with anti-US sentiment quite possibly at an all-time high. Wherever Bush visits, he is welcomed by major protests and often violent demonstrations. Mayan priests in Guatemala have even promised to purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits. Chavez easily garners tens of thousands of supporters at "anti-imperialist" rallies in any given Latin American nation.

Rather than yelling back with slogans of his own and organizing rallies (granted, it seems highly unlikely that Bush would be able to attract enough supporters to his rally), Bush remains cool, proclaiming "I bring the goodwill of the United States to South America and Central America. That's why I'm here." He rightfully notes that bilateral aid has doubled under his presidency from 800 billion to 1.6 billion and stressed "I don't think America gets enough credit for trying to help improve people's lives. And so my trip is to explain, as clearly as I can, that our nation is generous and compassionate." In this respect Bush is wise to ignore Chavez's provocations and not stooping to his level. This might count for something in time to come.

Besides the ethanol deal, Bush has pledged medical aid in the form of a new project that dispatches a Navy medical ship to 13 countries in the area in order to treat the poor. Millions have also been made available for affordable housing for the poor, while a new initiative was also presented in which $75 million is to be made available to help Latin American youth learn English and study in the United States.

Chavez, in turn, is offering free goodies such as sending doctors and teachers to allies such as Bolivia, providing an oil refinery and a highway free of charge to Nicaragua, and paying off billions of Argentina's debt. Chavez has also pledged $15 million in aid for flood victims in Bolivia, including a squadron of helicopters to deliver food to remote villages, making the $1.5 million sent by the US pale in insignificance.

In terms of direct aid, Chavez has a slight upper hand overall in Latin America today, but the years of US aid added together dwarf anything Venezuela or Chavez can dream of offering. When it comes to public opinion and image, Bush doesn't stand a chance next to Chavez. However, Bush has managed to retain his dignity in the face of ridiculous taunts and accusations. For example, the world praises Brazil for their advanced use of alternative fuels and urges the world's greatest polluter to follow suit. With the newly signed ethanol (a bio-fuel made from sugar cane or corn) deal between Brazil and the US, Bush is doing precisely this. Unsurprisingly, Chavez found a way to turn this around, saying "the US is taking food from the poor and giving it to vehicles instead." With this kind of logic, you can criticize everything and anything, of course.

The Bush vs. Chavez rivalry is far from over and is sure to provide enough interesting material for future reference.

#42 A Soft Landing in Venezuela?

When it comes to oil, there is hardly ever a moment of quiet. If there is, it most likely represents the equivalent as terrestrial quiet does in an earthquake prone country: preparation for a major eruption. In that sense, the latest from Venezuela might be good news. Rather than a sudden, very damaging bang, the nationalization of Venezuelan oil projects will be gradual.

Now ruling by decree, Chavez announced that state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) will take at least a 60 percent stake in the Orinoco river region oil projects, proclaiming that "by May 1, we will occupy these oil fields and have the national flag flying on them." Chavez is referring to four heavy oil-upgrading projects run by BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Total and Statoil. Thus far, foreign companies running smaller projects in various industries have been compensated less than they would have liked perhaps, but clearly more than they had expected. The Orinoco oil fields, however, involve a much larger sum of money.

In light of the announcement, it has not been made clear how the government expects to be able to pay for its increased share in the huge projects (the foreign companies are estimated to have invested some $17 billion). Indeed, a big issue is money. Whereas the average price for the Venezuelan “basket” of crudes in 2006 was $56 a barrel, according to the Economist, last month, that figure was about $46. Nationalization of the oil fields has been made a pertinent part of the 'Socialist Revolution,' but in order to keep the revolutionary engine running, a high oil price is absolutely essential. If prices do not stop declining, there will be a very serious problem for Chavez. The countless subsidised programs are key for popular support. Furthermore, Chavez decided that it would be worthwhile for Venezuela to sell its oil at discount prices to 'friendly' nations, in order to spread the revolution and drum up support. A halting of this philanthropic policy would quite possibly mean a loss of 'good friends.'

With comments from Chavez such as "I am going to send some sulfur to Lula for when the little gentleman comes so that he can place it out there in Brasilia" (in reference to Bush's - who he refers to as the devil - upcoming visit to Brazil), it has become evident that political tact is not his strongest point. Nevertheless, he is no idiot. He will be careful not to end up without friends and stuck with oil fields that cannot be run without help from the outside. His talk is big, but it seems the means employed on the ground will be more docile. While the revolutionary policies will most probably not yield significant positive long term results, the pain at least appears limited.

#20 Axis of the Deranged

I have never been a big fan of the term "evil" used to describe certain elements in global politics, for it seems so asinine. It's like hearing a child cry "he stole my pencil, he's evil"! At first thought, substituting "evil" with "deranged" might seem equally juvenile, but given the original meaning of the word deranged (to throw into disorder; disarrange), it is rather fitting. If you think about it, throwing into disorder is exactly what Chavez and Ahmadinejad are doing (while the sanity of some of their statements can be put to question as well). The two are without doubt intelligent people, but there have been enough wacky events involving the two characters to allow for the term deranged to be used.

The latest on the two is that Chavez has just won another 6 years in office, while Ahmadinejad and co. continue to laugh in the face of the world. How long Ahmadinejad will be around for depends on the Mullahs (or on an Iranian revolution or international conflict for that matter), but how long Chavez will be in power might come to depend on a new proposal that seeks to allow indefinite reelection of the president of the republic. Chavez has repeatedly stressed that in order for the revolution to succeed, there must be continuity of government and policy, meaning the step of allowing indefinite reelection could be just a prelude to Dictatorship. Since winning the first election back in 1998, Chavez has increasingly dominated all branches of government and his allies now control congress, state offices and the judiciary.

Chavez has also spooked the international investor community by calling for the constitution to be changed to allow the government to take control of the natural gas industry from foreign companies. He has already pledged to increase state control over four key oil production projects in the Orinoco Belt, which are currently operated by firms such as U.S. Exxon Mobil and Chevron, Total of France, and British Petroleum. Besides these four heavy crude upgrading projects, plans were also announced for the state to take control of the country's largest telecommunications company, and its electricity and natural gas sectors.

On a global level, Chavez has become 'best buddies' with a man who calls for a UN member state to be "wiped off the map" and flat out denies the occurrence of one of human's worst tragedies; the Holocaust. Both men are deeply religious, though only recently has Chavez been increasingly alluding to Jesus Christ, whom he called "the greatest socialist of all." Indeed, the two have much in common and were both graciously offered the platform at last years UN General Assembly, where they were welcomed with rapturous applause by an audience that apparently appreciates the use of the word "devil" as a form of name calling.

Ahmadinejad is currently in Caracas, which is his second visit to Venezuela in less than four months. The two have pledged to strengthen their anti-US alliance and have promised to invest in countries "whose governments are making efforts to liberate themselves from the imperialist yoke." The funds will come from a joint USD 2 billion fund intended to finance investments in Venezuela and Iran, but the two leaders announced Saturday (January 13) that the money would also be used for aiding friendly countries (which means countries hostile to the US). During Ahmadinejad's visit to Caracas last September, the two already agreed to establish a joint petrochemical and steel company and a shared firm for the exploration of petroleum. There have also been heavy rumours that Iran had secured Venezuela's uranium for Tehran's nuclear program, but this has been denied by both sides.

After Venezuela, Ahmadinejad will visit newly elected leftist governments in Nicaragua (Daniel Ortega) and Ecuador (Rafael Correa). While in Ecuador, he will also meet with Bolivian President Evo Morales. All three countries fall under the category "friendly" and are likely to be courted by Chavez and Ahmadinejad into joining an anti-US alliance, while being the most likely recipients of Iranian/Venezuelan aid. Other prominent figures that have been conniving with either Chavez or Ahmadinejad include unsavory types such as Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi and Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko.

The Axis of the Deranged currently consists of two members, but these happen to be very big talkers with the potential to strike hard. They say dogs that bark don't bite. This may be true, but these dogs don't have to bite, as they (especially Ahmadinejad) are masters at finding others to do the biting for them (notably Hezbollah, and more recently it seems Hamas is willing to take orders from Tehran as well). Ignore these puppet masters at your own peril, for they really will throw the world into disorder.