Within the past decade diplomatic relations between the U. S. and Venezuela have become increasingly difficult to manage, and even though President Obama has taken a different approach to this issue then the previous administration, it would appear that matters aren’t getting any better as Venezuela is now partnering itself with Russia. Indeed, much of the past problems can be attributed to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a dictator who has been running on an anti-American platform ever since he was elected to office in 1998, and who has threatened numerous times to cut off the “1.2 billion barrels” of oil that the U.S. receives daily from Venezuela in order to influence policy (Romero). Though it would be easy to place all the blame on Chavez, the problems facing this relationship can’t simply be placed on his lap alone, as some of the problems might be due to U.S. actions in the region, creating severe trust issues. In fact, President Chavez’s distrust of the United States might be based off three factors: Chavez’s historical perspective of the U.S. within Latin America, the past relationship between Venezuela and the Bush administration, and the growing U.S.-Colombian alliance. Ultimately, these factors may have caused Chavez to distrust the United States enough to strengthen military ties with Russia.
First and foremost, many will likely disregard the following analysis based off the fact that Hugo Chavez continues to ally himself militarily with Russia even though President Obama has already attempted to acknowledge some of the past mistakes of the United States within Latin America. They of course are referring to Obama’s speech at the Summit of the Americas last year where he addressed the concerns of many Latin American leaders. During this speech Obama’s words echoed the importance of fostering trust with the attending nations. Obama went on to say that:
While Obama’s words are an extremely important beginning to a much needed healing process, it still remains to be seen as to how the U.S. plans to back up his statements with actions that will prove this commitment. Also, much of Obama’s words are far too ambiguous to know if he’s talking about the entirety of U.S. involvement in Latin America or if he’s simply stating that his presidency will be different from the Bush years. While the immediate history within Latin America, especially the history between U.S. and Venezuela, has suffered from extreme hostilities, one cannot overlook the distant wounds of history that many Central and South American nations have suffered at the hands of U.S. interests’. Certainly, the United States has been a force for much good, as well as a champion of democracy in the world. It would be a simplistic view to ignore this fact, but it would be an equally simplistic view not to attempt to understand the ethical implications of U.S. actions, and how they have caused many people within Latin America to distrust the United States – regardless of who’s in office. By closely examining some of these actions one will hopefully be able to appreciate the historical perspective held by a polarizing figure like Hugo Chavez. In addition to this, one should also see the obvious parallels that current U.S. actions have with the actions of the past, and how the combination of the both are the reasons behind the Russian and Venezuelan military alliance. This new found appreciation should lead to the conclusion that it might be an appropriate time to take a new approach that goes beyond mere apologetic words by acting in a manner that is empathetic to the historical feelings of a continent. Unquestionably, Chavez may continue to purchase weapons from the Russians even if the U.S. government takes this new approach, but nevertheless the effort may perhaps be worth trying.
In order to fully grasp the situation, it’s important to understand that during the Venezuelan leader’s first encounter with President Obama it became quite apparent that Chavez’s distrust of the United States originated from his perspective of history. At one point in this meeting Chavez handed Obama a copy of Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent, by Uruguayan author and Latin American historian, Eduardo Galeano. Galeano not only writes about the arrival of Columbus to Hispaniola in 1492, as well as the violent and oppressive rule of the Spanish conquistadors that followed thereafter, but also about U.S. and other Western influences in Latin America. In later chapters, Galeano explores U.S. actions in Latin America, explaining that “U.S. concerns took over lands, customs houses, treasuries, and governments; Marines landed here, there, and everywhere,” and this was all done in the name of “protect[ing] the lives and interests of U.S. citizens” (108). Due to the subject matter of Galeano’s book, and the fact that it is peppered with passages similar to the aforementioned excerpt, Chavez has given Obama a glimpse into his historical perspective. Moreover, the BBC quoted Chavez as saying Galeano’s “book is a monument in…Latin American history. It allows us to learn history, and we have to build on this history” (“Chavez Effect Creates Bestseller”). Not only does Chavez’s comment verify his desire for his historical perspective to be acknowledged and hopefully accepted by a U.S. president, but it also directly reveals his need for U.S. and Venezuelan relations to move forward from this understanding of history. But what is this understanding of history, and more importantly why would events that took place decades or possibly centuries ago cause him to distrust the United States?
For many people, like Hugo Chavez, the United States has historically been seen as undermining democracy in Latin America, and this is the main reason for growing distrust, as well as anti-American sentiments in the region. According to Galeano, Latin American history in the 1900’s was filled with U.S. led “invasions, interventions, bombardments, forced loans, and gun point treaties” (107). One of the best examples of a U.S. led intervention in Latin American politics took place during 1954 when there was growing concern within the United States government about Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz. After being democratically elected to office, Arbenz began to follow through on his campaign promise of redistributing land to landless Guatemalans. According to Economist writer Michael Reid’s book, Forgotten Continent: The Battle For Latin America’s Soul, the main concern was that Arbenz’s “land reform would create a base for the communists in the countryside,” and that such a threat would endanger democracy in the region making U.S. intervention even more urgent (85). In response to Arbenz’s actions, President Eisenhower gave the CIA permission “to organize the takeover of Guatemala’s government” and as a result “U.S.-trained pilots bombed…Guatemala City” (Whitford). However, the toppling of Arbenz’s government was short lived, as the military leader chosen by the United States was eventually killed and “succeeded by a series of ruthless dictators” (Whitford). Regardless of how correct the U.S. was in its’ justification for overthrowing Arbenz, the only thing the U.S. succeeded in doing was “crush[ing] democracy not communism in Guatemala” (Reid 85). Even though the historical events of 1954 are only one example of intervention, it doesn’t weaken Chavez’s perspective because for many the actions in Guatemala are symptomatic of a reoccurring theme in the United States’ history within the region. Based off of this perspective it’s easy to see how Chavez may suspect the U.S. of having ill intentions towards him and his Venezuelan government.
With that in mind, one can understand the difficulty that the Obama administration, or any future administration for that matter, will have at not only mending Chavez’s historical perspective, but also fixing the tense diplomatic relations that Venezuela had with the Bush administration. According to New York Times journalist, David Stout, Chavez expressed his distrust of U.S. policies during his 2006 UN speech by calling Bush the “devil” and “the spokesman of imperialism” (Stout). Chavez’s constant American imperialist rhetoric only resulted in the Bush administration categorizing the Venezuelan leader as a radical, a label that has been used to describe the president of Iran. This in turn created more fuel for Chavez’s long winded anti-American speeches.
However, the turbulent nature of this relationship was much more than merely Chavez’s charged words, in fact there were also the various accusations he made about Bush’s plots to overthrow him. In September 2008, Rory Carroll of The Guardian reported that Chavez “ordered the US ambassador to leave Venezuela within 72 hours and accused Washington of fomenting a coup attempt against his socialist revolution” (Carroll). While the U.S. has denied any involvement in such a plot, the alleged coup attempt “[c]oincidental or not…fell on the 35th anniversary of the CIA-backed coup which replaced Chile's leftist president, Salvador Allende, with the dictator Augusto Pinochet” (Carroll). Regardless of how paranoid Chavez might be, one must understand that he has already survived a previous coup attempt in 2002 that temporarily removed him from power. Even though it has never been proven that either the 2002 coup attempt or the alleged plot of 2008 were orchestrated by Washington, he may still be justified in his paranoia if one is to recall the 1954 coup in Guatemala. Avoiding future incidents such as this may prove difficult for the current administration since Chavez “believe[s] Obama has the same stench” as Bush (Silva). Furthermore, it is likely Chavez also believes that Obama has the same desire for removing Latin American governments that other U.S. administrations had in the past.
Furthering Chavez’s distrust of the United States is the strong military alliance between the U.S. and Colombia. This bordering country has an extremely volatile history with Chavez, and the fact that the U.S. has a strong partnership with Colombia is only making matters worse. According to Reuters journalist Hugh Bronstein, The Obama administration proved last October that the U.S. was dedicated to Colombia’s security when both countries signed an official agreement “increasing U.S. access to military bases in the South American country” (“Columbia, U.S. Sign Military Cooperation Deal”). Bronstein later reported that the new U.S.-Colombian deal resulted in Chavez “order[ing] his army to prepare for war in order to assure peace” (“Colombia Turns to U.N., OAS After Venezuela War Talk”). This didn’t amount to much more than Chavez beating his chest, but it did frighten Colombian President Alvaro Uribe enough to go to the United Nations for help. It still remains to be seen as to how this will all play out, but New York Times journalist Simon Romero stated that “depending on how the accord is put in place, American troop levels in Colombia could climb sharply,” and Chavez is so threatened by this deal that he has called it a “new aggression against” Venezuela (“Increased U.S. Military Presence in Colombia Could Pose Problems With Neighbors”). Obviously, the U.S. has every right to protect Colombia, especially since it’s the strongest partner in the region and an ally that is of vital importance, but the increased military presence in Colombia, a country that borders Venezuela, is somewhat reminiscent to U.S. actions in the 1954 Guatemalan coup, in which “the CIA assembled, armed, and trained an invasion force in neighboring Honduras” (Whitford). Without a doubt, this growing alliance is becoming increasingly ominous to Chavez, so much so that the Venezuelan government has sought to counter this perceived intimidation through a strong partnership with a powerful and influential ally.
Due to the mounting fears of the U.S.-Colombian alliance, and growing distrust of the United States, the Venezuelan government has forged a strong military bond with Russia. Voice of America News reported that the new found partnership has allowed Chavez to buy “$4 billion of Russian arms, including fighter jets, Mi-17 helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles,” and more recently he has discussed purchasing an additional “$5 billion worth of weapons” with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (“Russia, Venezuela Strengthen”). Moreover, Chavez’s intentions were made clear when he said that these “purchases are to counter U.S. influence in Latin America, especially in Colombia” (“Russia, Venezuela Strengthen”). According to a BBC report, the Venezuelan leader stated that the numerous military deals with Russia are “because the North American empire... has plans to invade Venezuela, [and] to disarm Venezuela” (“Chavez Calls For Russia Alliance”). In Chavez’s mind the former Soviet Union was the only world power that has historically ever stood against the United States. It’s likely that the Venezuelan leader holds a romanticized account of the Cuban-Missile Crisis, as one cannot ignore the symbolic nature that the Russian-Venezuelan military alliance has. Such a deal has likely made Colombia’s government uneasy, and could threaten the stability of the region. Furthermore, the Russian and Venezuelan union wouldn’t even exist if Chavez had stronger trust in the United States, or if he had a clear understanding of Washington’s intentions were in Colombia.
Of course the validity of Chavez’s perspective of the United States in Latin America is debatable. However, the issue isn’t whether he is right or wrong, but that he has this historical perspective to begin with. In order to eliminate speculation of U.S. intentions’ in the region the U.S. should address concerns by taking actions that refute any fears of invasion Chavez might have. Certainly, one mustn’t’ get stuck in an illogical state of mind where one blames America for every evil in the world. Likewise, one shouldn’t ignore past mistakes, as well as actions that parallel these actions. The United States should remind Venezuela of the good qualities of the American people by acting in manner that reflects these qualities, and that historically the United States has stood for peace and justice within the world. Such redeeming actions would force Chavez to confront his historical perspective, and hopefully realize that the west has turned the page on history. By doing so the U.S. will not be seen as a weakened apologist nation, but rather, as a forward thinking nation of action that is able to move beyond what it once was in order to become a transformational symbol. One way to back-up Obama’s speech at the Summit of the Americas with actions would be to eliminate the current military treaty between the U.S. and Colombia. By returning troop levels to where they were prior to this deal Obama will remove any thoughts of similarities between present day actions and the coup attempts of the past. This would also reduce the need for Chavez to strengthen ties with the Russian military. If Chavez’s distrust continues on the path that it’s been heading for the past decade then diplomacy with the U.S. and Colombia will only get worse, and this could threaten the stability of the region starting an arms-race in the south-western hemisphere. Whether Chavez accepts the United States’ future gestures as a strengthening of relations is up to him, but trust is a two-way street, and the U.S. will certainly have plenty of expectations for him to uphold once his trust is reestablished.
Bronstein, Hugh. “Columbia, U.S. Sign Military Cooperation Deal.” Reuters. 30 Oct. 2009. Thomson Reuters. Web. 11 Jun. 2010. <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59T1S720091030>
Carroll, Rory. “Venezuela: Hugo Chavez expels US ambassador amid claims of coup plot.” The Guardian. 12 Sep. 2008. Guardian News and Media Limited 2010. Web. 8 Jun. 2010. <>
“Chavez Calls For Russia Alliance.” The BBC. 22 Jul. 2008. MMX. Web 12 Jun. 2010. <>
“Chavez Effect Creates Bestseller.” The BBC. 20 Apr. 2009. MMX. Web. 8 Jun. 2010. <>
Galeano, Eduardo. Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. New York. Monthly Review Press, 1997: 107-108. Print.
Malcom, Andrews. “Obama Tells Leaders of Americas the U.S. is too disengaged, Dictorial.” The LA Times. 18 Apr. 2009. A Tribune Website. Web. 15 Jun. 2010
Reid, Michael. Forgotten Continent: The Battle for Latin America’s Soul. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007: 85. Print.
Romero, Simon. “Chavez Threatens to End Oil Exports to U.S. in Exxon Fued.” The New York Times. 11 Feb. 2008. New York Times Company. Web. 8 Jun. 2010.
Works Cited
Romero, Simon. “Increased U.S. Military Presence in Colombia Could Pose Problems With Neighbors.” The New York Times. 22 Jul. 2009. New York Times Company. Web. 12 Jun. 2010. <>
"Russia, Venezuela Strengthen Economic, Political Ties. " Voice of America News / FIND 7 Apr. 2010: Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 7 Jun. 2010.
Silva, Jorge. “Venezuela’s Chavez says Obama has ‘Stench’ of Bush.” Reuters. 18 Jan. 2009. Thomas Reuters Corporate. Web. 9 Jun. 2010.
Stout, David. “Chavez Calls Bush ‘the Devil’ in UN Speech.” The New York Times. 20 Sep. 2006. New York Times Company. Web. 9 Jun. 2010.
Whitford, Ellen, and Manning, Steven. "1954: Coup in Guatemala." Scholastic Update. 11 Mar. 1988: Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 10 Jun. 2010.
Read more
First and foremost, many will likely disregard the following analysis based off the fact that Hugo Chavez continues to ally himself militarily with Russia even though President Obama has already attempted to acknowledge some of the past mistakes of the United States within Latin America. They of course are referring to Obama’s speech at the Summit of the Americas last year where he addressed the concerns of many Latin American leaders. During this speech Obama’s words echoed the importance of fostering trust with the attending nations. Obama went on to say that:
…promises of partnership have gone unfulfilled in the past and that trust has to be earned over time. While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership…There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values. So I'm here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration… (Malcolm)
While Obama’s words are an extremely important beginning to a much needed healing process, it still remains to be seen as to how the U.S. plans to back up his statements with actions that will prove this commitment. Also, much of Obama’s words are far too ambiguous to know if he’s talking about the entirety of U.S. involvement in Latin America or if he’s simply stating that his presidency will be different from the Bush years. While the immediate history within Latin America, especially the history between U.S. and Venezuela, has suffered from extreme hostilities, one cannot overlook the distant wounds of history that many Central and South American nations have suffered at the hands of U.S. interests’. Certainly, the United States has been a force for much good, as well as a champion of democracy in the world. It would be a simplistic view to ignore this fact, but it would be an equally simplistic view not to attempt to understand the ethical implications of U.S. actions, and how they have caused many people within Latin America to distrust the United States – regardless of who’s in office. By closely examining some of these actions one will hopefully be able to appreciate the historical perspective held by a polarizing figure like Hugo Chavez. In addition to this, one should also see the obvious parallels that current U.S. actions have with the actions of the past, and how the combination of the both are the reasons behind the Russian and Venezuelan military alliance. This new found appreciation should lead to the conclusion that it might be an appropriate time to take a new approach that goes beyond mere apologetic words by acting in a manner that is empathetic to the historical feelings of a continent. Unquestionably, Chavez may continue to purchase weapons from the Russians even if the U.S. government takes this new approach, but nevertheless the effort may perhaps be worth trying.
In order to fully grasp the situation, it’s important to understand that during the Venezuelan leader’s first encounter with President Obama it became quite apparent that Chavez’s distrust of the United States originated from his perspective of history. At one point in this meeting Chavez handed Obama a copy of Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent, by Uruguayan author and Latin American historian, Eduardo Galeano. Galeano not only writes about the arrival of Columbus to Hispaniola in 1492, as well as the violent and oppressive rule of the Spanish conquistadors that followed thereafter, but also about U.S. and other Western influences in Latin America. In later chapters, Galeano explores U.S. actions in Latin America, explaining that “U.S. concerns took over lands, customs houses, treasuries, and governments; Marines landed here, there, and everywhere,” and this was all done in the name of “protect[ing] the lives and interests of U.S. citizens” (108). Due to the subject matter of Galeano’s book, and the fact that it is peppered with passages similar to the aforementioned excerpt, Chavez has given Obama a glimpse into his historical perspective. Moreover, the BBC quoted Chavez as saying Galeano’s “book is a monument in…Latin American history. It allows us to learn history, and we have to build on this history” (“Chavez Effect Creates Bestseller”). Not only does Chavez’s comment verify his desire for his historical perspective to be acknowledged and hopefully accepted by a U.S. president, but it also directly reveals his need for U.S. and Venezuelan relations to move forward from this understanding of history. But what is this understanding of history, and more importantly why would events that took place decades or possibly centuries ago cause him to distrust the United States?
For many people, like Hugo Chavez, the United States has historically been seen as undermining democracy in Latin America, and this is the main reason for growing distrust, as well as anti-American sentiments in the region. According to Galeano, Latin American history in the 1900’s was filled with U.S. led “invasions, interventions, bombardments, forced loans, and gun point treaties” (107). One of the best examples of a U.S. led intervention in Latin American politics took place during 1954 when there was growing concern within the United States government about Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz. After being democratically elected to office, Arbenz began to follow through on his campaign promise of redistributing land to landless Guatemalans. According to Economist writer Michael Reid’s book, Forgotten Continent: The Battle For Latin America’s Soul, the main concern was that Arbenz’s “land reform would create a base for the communists in the countryside,” and that such a threat would endanger democracy in the region making U.S. intervention even more urgent (85). In response to Arbenz’s actions, President Eisenhower gave the CIA permission “to organize the takeover of Guatemala’s government” and as a result “U.S.-trained pilots bombed…Guatemala City” (Whitford). However, the toppling of Arbenz’s government was short lived, as the military leader chosen by the United States was eventually killed and “succeeded by a series of ruthless dictators” (Whitford). Regardless of how correct the U.S. was in its’ justification for overthrowing Arbenz, the only thing the U.S. succeeded in doing was “crush[ing] democracy not communism in Guatemala” (Reid 85). Even though the historical events of 1954 are only one example of intervention, it doesn’t weaken Chavez’s perspective because for many the actions in Guatemala are symptomatic of a reoccurring theme in the United States’ history within the region. Based off of this perspective it’s easy to see how Chavez may suspect the U.S. of having ill intentions towards him and his Venezuelan government.
With that in mind, one can understand the difficulty that the Obama administration, or any future administration for that matter, will have at not only mending Chavez’s historical perspective, but also fixing the tense diplomatic relations that Venezuela had with the Bush administration. According to New York Times journalist, David Stout, Chavez expressed his distrust of U.S. policies during his 2006 UN speech by calling Bush the “devil” and “the spokesman of imperialism” (Stout). Chavez’s constant American imperialist rhetoric only resulted in the Bush administration categorizing the Venezuelan leader as a radical, a label that has been used to describe the president of Iran. This in turn created more fuel for Chavez’s long winded anti-American speeches.
However, the turbulent nature of this relationship was much more than merely Chavez’s charged words, in fact there were also the various accusations he made about Bush’s plots to overthrow him. In September 2008, Rory Carroll of The Guardian reported that Chavez “ordered the US ambassador to leave Venezuela within 72 hours and accused Washington of fomenting a coup attempt against his socialist revolution” (Carroll). While the U.S. has denied any involvement in such a plot, the alleged coup attempt “[c]oincidental or not…fell on the 35th anniversary of the CIA-backed coup which replaced Chile's leftist president, Salvador Allende, with the dictator Augusto Pinochet” (Carroll). Regardless of how paranoid Chavez might be, one must understand that he has already survived a previous coup attempt in 2002 that temporarily removed him from power. Even though it has never been proven that either the 2002 coup attempt or the alleged plot of 2008 were orchestrated by Washington, he may still be justified in his paranoia if one is to recall the 1954 coup in Guatemala. Avoiding future incidents such as this may prove difficult for the current administration since Chavez “believe[s] Obama has the same stench” as Bush (Silva). Furthermore, it is likely Chavez also believes that Obama has the same desire for removing Latin American governments that other U.S. administrations had in the past.
Furthering Chavez’s distrust of the United States is the strong military alliance between the U.S. and Colombia. This bordering country has an extremely volatile history with Chavez, and the fact that the U.S. has a strong partnership with Colombia is only making matters worse. According to Reuters journalist Hugh Bronstein, The Obama administration proved last October that the U.S. was dedicated to Colombia’s security when both countries signed an official agreement “increasing U.S. access to military bases in the South American country” (“Columbia, U.S. Sign Military Cooperation Deal”). Bronstein later reported that the new U.S.-Colombian deal resulted in Chavez “order[ing] his army to prepare for war in order to assure peace” (“Colombia Turns to U.N., OAS After Venezuela War Talk”). This didn’t amount to much more than Chavez beating his chest, but it did frighten Colombian President Alvaro Uribe enough to go to the United Nations for help. It still remains to be seen as to how this will all play out, but New York Times journalist Simon Romero stated that “depending on how the accord is put in place, American troop levels in Colombia could climb sharply,” and Chavez is so threatened by this deal that he has called it a “new aggression against” Venezuela (“Increased U.S. Military Presence in Colombia Could Pose Problems With Neighbors”). Obviously, the U.S. has every right to protect Colombia, especially since it’s the strongest partner in the region and an ally that is of vital importance, but the increased military presence in Colombia, a country that borders Venezuela, is somewhat reminiscent to U.S. actions in the 1954 Guatemalan coup, in which “the CIA assembled, armed, and trained an invasion force in neighboring Honduras” (Whitford). Without a doubt, this growing alliance is becoming increasingly ominous to Chavez, so much so that the Venezuelan government has sought to counter this perceived intimidation through a strong partnership with a powerful and influential ally.
Due to the mounting fears of the U.S.-Colombian alliance, and growing distrust of the United States, the Venezuelan government has forged a strong military bond with Russia. Voice of America News reported that the new found partnership has allowed Chavez to buy “$4 billion of Russian arms, including fighter jets, Mi-17 helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles,” and more recently he has discussed purchasing an additional “$5 billion worth of weapons” with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (“Russia, Venezuela Strengthen”). Moreover, Chavez’s intentions were made clear when he said that these “purchases are to counter U.S. influence in Latin America, especially in Colombia” (“Russia, Venezuela Strengthen”). According to a BBC report, the Venezuelan leader stated that the numerous military deals with Russia are “because the North American empire... has plans to invade Venezuela, [and] to disarm Venezuela” (“Chavez Calls For Russia Alliance”). In Chavez’s mind the former Soviet Union was the only world power that has historically ever stood against the United States. It’s likely that the Venezuelan leader holds a romanticized account of the Cuban-Missile Crisis, as one cannot ignore the symbolic nature that the Russian-Venezuelan military alliance has. Such a deal has likely made Colombia’s government uneasy, and could threaten the stability of the region. Furthermore, the Russian and Venezuelan union wouldn’t even exist if Chavez had stronger trust in the United States, or if he had a clear understanding of Washington’s intentions were in Colombia.
Of course the validity of Chavez’s perspective of the United States in Latin America is debatable. However, the issue isn’t whether he is right or wrong, but that he has this historical perspective to begin with. In order to eliminate speculation of U.S. intentions’ in the region the U.S. should address concerns by taking actions that refute any fears of invasion Chavez might have. Certainly, one mustn’t’ get stuck in an illogical state of mind where one blames America for every evil in the world. Likewise, one shouldn’t ignore past mistakes, as well as actions that parallel these actions. The United States should remind Venezuela of the good qualities of the American people by acting in manner that reflects these qualities, and that historically the United States has stood for peace and justice within the world. Such redeeming actions would force Chavez to confront his historical perspective, and hopefully realize that the west has turned the page on history. By doing so the U.S. will not be seen as a weakened apologist nation, but rather, as a forward thinking nation of action that is able to move beyond what it once was in order to become a transformational symbol. One way to back-up Obama’s speech at the Summit of the Americas with actions would be to eliminate the current military treaty between the U.S. and Colombia. By returning troop levels to where they were prior to this deal Obama will remove any thoughts of similarities between present day actions and the coup attempts of the past. This would also reduce the need for Chavez to strengthen ties with the Russian military. If Chavez’s distrust continues on the path that it’s been heading for the past decade then diplomacy with the U.S. and Colombia will only get worse, and this could threaten the stability of the region starting an arms-race in the south-western hemisphere. Whether Chavez accepts the United States’ future gestures as a strengthening of relations is up to him, but trust is a two-way street, and the U.S. will certainly have plenty of expectations for him to uphold once his trust is reestablished.
Works Cited
Bronstein, Hugh. “Colombia Turns to U.N., OAS After Venezuela War Talk.” Reuters. 9 Nov. 2009. Thomson Reuters. Web. 12 Jun. 2010. <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5A80B020091109> Bronstein, Hugh. “Columbia, U.S. Sign Military Cooperation Deal.” Reuters. 30 Oct. 2009. Thomson Reuters. Web. 11 Jun. 2010. <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59T1S720091030>
Carroll, Rory. “Venezuela: Hugo Chavez expels US ambassador amid claims of coup plot.” The Guardian. 12 Sep. 2008. Guardian News and Media Limited 2010. Web. 8 Jun. 2010. <>
“Chavez Calls For Russia Alliance.” The BBC. 22 Jul. 2008. MMX. Web 12 Jun. 2010. <>
“Chavez Effect Creates Bestseller.” The BBC. 20 Apr. 2009. MMX. Web. 8 Jun. 2010. <>
Galeano, Eduardo. Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. New York. Monthly Review Press, 1997: 107-108. Print.
Malcom, Andrews. “Obama Tells Leaders of Americas the U.S. is too disengaged, Dictorial.” The LA Times. 18 Apr. 2009. A Tribune Website. Web. 15 Jun. 2010
Reid, Michael. Forgotten Continent: The Battle for Latin America’s Soul. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007: 85. Print.
Romero, Simon. “Chavez Threatens to End Oil Exports to U.S. in Exxon Fued.” The New York Times. 11 Feb. 2008. New York Times Company. Web. 8 Jun. 2010.
Works Cited
Romero, Simon. “Increased U.S. Military Presence in Colombia Could Pose Problems With Neighbors.” The New York Times. 22 Jul. 2009. New York Times Company. Web. 12 Jun. 2010. <>
"Russia, Venezuela Strengthen Economic, Political Ties. " Voice of America News / FIND 7 Apr. 2010: Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 7 Jun. 2010.
Silva, Jorge. “Venezuela’s Chavez says Obama has ‘Stench’ of Bush.” Reuters. 18 Jan. 2009. Thomas Reuters Corporate. Web. 9 Jun. 2010.
Stout, David. “Chavez Calls Bush ‘the Devil’ in UN Speech.” The New York Times. 20 Sep. 2006. New York Times Company. Web. 9 Jun. 2010.
Whitford, Ellen, and Manning, Steven. "1954: Coup in Guatemala." Scholastic Update. 11 Mar. 1988: Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 10 Jun. 2010.
