The photo-op that could shut up Chávez

Thu, 04/16/2009 - 4:49pm

Barack Obama doesn't have to become best friends with Hugo Chávez. But he does have to be civil with the Venezuelan leader if he wants the real Summit of the Americas work to get done.

By Joseph S. Tulchin

As Barack Obama heads to the Summit of the Americas beginning April 17 in Trinidad and Tobago, the outlook for U.S.-Latin American relations looks brighter than it has in the last eight years. The U.S. president has already taken on the two issues that were most likely to distract from the summit's real business: Mexico and Cuba. He's visiting Mexico on the way to the summit to reemphasize U.S. cooperation in combating the drug problem. And Obama has relaxed the travel and remittance restrictions imposed by his predecessor on Cuban-Americans who wish to visit family members in Cuba, relieving tension on the second touchy subject.

Still, there's one thorny issue that could spoil the party: U.S.-Venezuelan ire. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez said on April 4 that he would like to reset the U.S.-Venezuelan relationship. (Since Fidel Castro, Chávez's mentor, declared his willingness to open a dialogue with the United States over recent weeks, Chávez could do no less.) But what exactly would a reset look like?

At first glance, the U.S.-Venezuela spat amounts to little. Even through the heated rhetorical exchanges (Chávez calling Obama an "ignoramus," Obama saying that Chávez was halting progress in the region), Venezuela has continued to ship oil to the United States and, with a very brief interruption, has been sending heating oil to Bostonians at a subsidized price. Indeed, since candidate Obama made it clear that he would talk to everyone, even the states that George W. Bush defined as the axis of evil, why not talk to Chávez? Yes, Chávez threw out the U.S. ambassador last year, but all he has to do is invite the United States to send another one, right?

If only it were so easy. First, there are U.S. security fears, justified or not. Southern Command, for example, continues to study threats that might come from Iran, Russia, or China as they conduct joint military exercises in the Caribbean basin or even penetrate the Venezuelan armed forces. Second, a few bilateral disputes remain unresolved. Venezuela, for example, wants the United States to turn over Luis Posada Carriles, the Cuban-Venezuelan who masterminded the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976. Several U.S. companies allegedly owe back taxes to Caracas and have taken the matter to international courts. Third, the United States is concerned about Venezuelan aid to Colombian rebel groups such as FARC, both on Venezuelan territory and inside Colombia. Finally, the United States worries about Chávez's accelerating authoritarian drift.

But hitting the reset button, distasteful though it may seem, would be a smart move. If Obama doesn't proactively work to defuse tensions, Chávez and his big mouth could be tempted to cause trouble, especially for U.S. allies such as Chile, Colombia, and Brazil. In that respect, he could hamper progress on arguably more important regional issues, such as the economy, Mexico, or Cuba.

Small steps might be the best way to begin. The United States, for example, could promise to turn over all but the Posada case to the Organization of American States to moderate, a gesture that would signal to Latin America that the Obama administration is serious about multilateralism. Reinstating direct U.S. diplomatic representation in Caracas would also open doors, and the ongoing trade in oil and gas could form the cornerstone of productive new ties.

Even a photo op between Obama and Chávez might get the ball rolling. A follow-up conversation between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon and a Venezuelan counterpart would be an added bonus. Obama doesn't have to hit it off with Chávez. He just has to make sure the Venezuelan leader doesn't have an excuse to interrupt the real work of the summit.

Joseph S. Tulchin is senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Joseph S. Tulchin | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

A fair summary

by Rexw on Fri, 04/17/2009 - 5:42pm

Mr. Tulchin's rational summary of the possible 'meeting of minds' (so to speak) between Hugo Chavez and Barak Obama was fair and accurate and because of those two words, was also refreshing. There is so much rubbish written about the Venezuelan and his management style that it doesn't bear repeating on the pages of FP. Similarly, with even more vitriol, the Cubans come in for their share as well fuelled by the simmering hatred of the Miami Cuban population and the media. It is times like these conferences where all the countries of the region, with the exception of Cuba, of course, can meet and talk and see who is and who isn't being totally compliant to the American way and economic dictates. After all, members, if we can carry on a petty and vindictive embargo for 50 years, yes, let's say it again, 5o years (30 in Iran)on a little country like Cuba, imagine what we could do to you given one step out of line. Remember Chile...we gave them 16 years of Pinochet. We're big, militaristic and arrogant, so watch it!
Can't tolerate any independent ideas coming from the likes of Chavez, but we will take all the oil he can give us.
The outcome of the conference will be of little value to the poor South American states, just more of the same except that there will now be visits to Cuba...oops, they weren't there at the conference though were they. Now that's real equality, thumping out the same old mantra.
One day the US will realise that making other countries fit into a 'one mould suits all' with the background of the foreign policy disasters caused over 60 years of economic domination and warlike escapades to acheive US objectives in the region, is not the way to go. Is there any country that hasn't felt the insidious interference of the deservedly disgraced CIA who still live for the glory days of the School of the Americas and its famous but deadly graduates, now under a different name but still with the same ideals and management? How many of these killers have been dispatched to Venezuela over the years?
So against that kind of thinking, anything that happens between the President and Mr. Chavez has got to be an improvement and while the US, in their occasional wisdom, continues to try such meetings as a starting point, we can keep moving forward. They may even like each other.
Is that allowed?

There's a difference between

by JasonDI26 on Sat, 04/18/2009 - 2:09pm

There's a difference between not being entirely compliant and causing as much trouble as possible, unfortunately Chavez falls in the second category. I'm in total aggreance that we need to change our foreign policy. We need to not intervene in the affairs of others, but when someone legitimately poses a threat to you, despite your past policies, it cannot be ignored. Cuba allowed our arch nemesis to place nuclear weapons 90 miles from our shores and you consider an embargo petty and vindictive?

Importance of Latin American Issues.

by JasonDI26 on Sat, 04/18/2009 - 1:46pm

In the article it's stated that we need to placate Hugo Chavez so we can deal with more important issues like Cuba and Mexico. Cuba doesn't seem to me like a very crucial problem, they pose no threat to us. Mexico yes is a very large problem with violence from the drug trade spilling over into our country, and Mexico by some accounts could collapse leaving us with one less ally and a nation run by trafficers on our southern border. However what could possibly be more important than Venezuela conducting joint millitary operations in the Carribean with Russia, China, or even Iran? On top of that Venezuela is a major supplier of our oil, not to mention the country undermines our allies in the region. Something needs to be done about this menace, but with Obama bending over backwards to please everyone, I doubt anything will.

Reply to Jason D126 above, first comment

by Rexw on Sat, 04/18/2009 - 5:52pm

You were right to raise the memory of the Russian alliance and the missiles, but that was a long time ago and even harder to ever see again if US-Cuba relations were normal. Except for that episode, finalised quickly, all other activities have been of our doing and the embargo has reduced Cuba from being a 'threat' to just a joint landowner in the Guatanamo Bay environment. It is hardly a warlike nation, capable of any militaristic future.
My argument is that so much time has passed.
It would be interesting to see if China, as is happening in Africa, the Pacific, cuddles up to Cuba economically. That's a possibility worthy of cutting off in its prime.
Normalising relations is really a simple matter, the longer it continues the more riciculous it seems, to me anyway.