Think That Hugo Chavez Doesn't Threaten American Security Interests?
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Foreign Affairs | Hugo Chavez | National Security | oil — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Well, think again:
On Dec. 2, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez can tip the world into a recession.
On that day, if Venezuelan citizens pass the dozens of constitutional amendments on the ballot, Chavez will essentially be granted dictatorial powers -- an elected strongman reminiscent of Spain's Franco, Italy's Mussolini and Orwell's Big Brother. The day could easily deteriorate into one of violence, martial law and suspension of oil production, the latter calculated to inflict maximum damage on the U.S. economy.
With the price of oil hovering near $100 a barrel and markets skittish because of the sub-prime housing crisis (not to mention the stability of U.S. banks, the U.S. trade deficit, the weak dollar and deteriorating domestic consumer confidence), such a move on Chavez's part would go a long way in triggering a recession. An oil crisis during the Christmas season -- with its 40% share of annual retail sales -- would be especially detrimental in the U.S.
Rising oil prices have caused global recessions in the past. The Saudis and other oil-producing countries have tried to increase output to offset rising costs. But working against stability and for high oil prices are Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who are in a strategic alliance to push up the price of oil.
Oil economists calculate that on a supply-and-demand basis alone, the price of oil would be about $50; the remaining $45 in the current price is a political premium caused by uncertainty in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran's suspected nuclear plans, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and social unrest in Pakistan, Nigeria and Venezuela. But where the world sees a threat, Ahmadinejad and Chavez see opportunity: Civil discord lines their pockets.
The presence of dictatorial powers in Venezuela directly affects the quality of life here in the United States. Never let it be said that we weren't warned. And at some point, we are going to have to address this threat. So, for that matter, might the Spaniards; interesting how Spanish banks get threatened with retribution merely because King Juan Carlos properly observed that Hugo Chavez mouthes off way too much. Name another leader as sensitive as the Venezuelan dictator or one as willing to throw the fate of his own economy to the winds merely because he felt slighted.
« So Tell Me, Mr. Immelt, Why Are You Killing American Servicemen? — Comments (30) | I join Jules Crittenden and Ace of Spades HQ in appreciating that lovely Sunday morning. — Comments (4) »
Think That Hugo Chavez Doesn't Threaten American Security Interests? 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The question with Vz. is not whether or not we are energy independent. The issue is the violation of the Monroe Doctrine and the enslavement of millions of people and his threats against Colombia and us.
"The issue is the violation of the Monroe Doctrine"
What European influence is at work here, exactly? Vz isn't under the influence of a foreign power, European or otherwise.
"Enslavement of millions" Please explain. I know he nationalized companies, which I'm not in favor of. Enslavement? Sounds pretty made up. I do know he got 58% of the vote in a democratic national election that international monitors endorsed as clearly representative of the will of the people. Maybe it's the other 42% he's enslaving.
"Threats against Columbia" - Columbia and Venezuela have minor border disputes (as do about half the countries in the world... even Japan has them)and it's been alleged Venezuela has supported FARC. They've actually been mending fences in recent years. If you have a reputable source that says otherwise, please post it.
"... and US" - The only way they can have any affect on us is through oil. And guess what... the world generally embraces the free market system. The affects of him not selling oil to the US is minimal. Oil is a commodity. They will sell it to someone. Unless he has the cooperation of OPEC to cut off the worldwide supply, he can't control the price any more than my refusing to buy Milk Duds will affect the global candy supply. The threats are really just insults.
How do I know you're a liberal? Well let's count:
1. Pej says that Hugo and his proclivities toward a dictatorship can disrupt oil supplies and negatively affect economic matters for the US and others.
You respond: You sound like a hawk. Are you going to bomb him?
2. Due to your deep concern with the coming neocon hawk inspired nuclear winter you propose energy independence.
Oh, yeah. We'll do that tomorrow. Today we think we'll just go start a war. And I'll bet you still oppose drilling in ANWAR and in coastal waters. And how do you feel about natural gas from the national parks? (Like I don't already know the answer.)
You live in Lala land. Here's your sign.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
is permitting Chavez to fester from infection to cancer.
Hugo Chavez has a very big reason not to stop sending oil to the US: because his oil is heavy and sour (sulfurous) and at this point in time, there are three refineries that can handle it, all in the United States. (China is working on building similar refineries so they can buy from Chavez too.)
If he is stupid enough to cut off his only revenue source, the US will make up the supply shortfall from the same place we do when hurricanes shut down normal production in the Gulf: from Canada.
And there already appears to be some evidence that the oil price-spike that followed from the Fed's interest rate cuts has already reduced demand in the US.
We may yet get a recession, but it won't be from high oil prices. I'm on record here as predicting a fall in oil prices into the 80's and possibly lower. I stand by that.
If he were able to sell his oil somewhere else then someone else would not be buying from their present sources and those sources would be freed up for the US.
As for $80, lower way lower. If I knew when I would be rich.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Actually, I'm not that liberal and none of my previous posts have indicated that. Perhaps I should have elaborated.
Should we just attack everyone we think is a threat? If Venezuela didn't have oil, would we give a rat's ass about them from a strategic point of view. No. What was the writer suggesting we should do?
As far as energy independence, I'm all in, I'm a realist. I support building more nuclear power plants, funding alternative fuels, more coal (but hopefully more cleanly), solar, whatever. I support some balance. If the ROI is minimal, I wouldn't support drilling in national parks. If it was the next Alaska, I'd reconsider.
"The issue is the violation of the Monroe Doctrine and the enslavement of millions of people and his threats against Colombia and us."
The Monroe doctrine isn't applicable, isn't "law", and isn't an excuse to overthrow governments we dislike because they're somewhere in the same hemisphere. Chavez is a POS and a scumbag. There are a lot of leaders and governments that are terrible, including Venezuela's.
"And at some point, we are going to have to address this threat."
Sounds awfully hawkish. Shall we start bombing? Take him out?
Just one more reason for the US to try and become more energy independent. Would we care about Venezuela (or most of the middle east) if they didn't have oil?