Can a brother get a quote?
.jpg){kind=icon}
Last week, Venezuela's hyper-nationalist government - the same one that bitterly decried the 1990s' Apertura Petrolera as a giveaway of National Sovereignty - signed an enormous deal with multinational oil companies to expand Venezuela's oil production. It was the first such deal in the oil industry in Chávez's 11 years in power. Chevron and Repsol won.
The event was remarkable on several counts.
In contrast to the much-maligned apertura, the winning bidders will actually be able to list Venezuela's oil reserves under the "assets" column in their balance sheets - a virtual privatization of our oil before it's even been pumped out of the ground.
And while chavismo hailed the auction as a victory, the process took much longer than it needed to, and the government's initially preposterous terms were significantly softened after the first couple of attempts to auction off the blocks flopped.
It's when you get to the details that the irony gets heavy: a government that spent years gleefully going to town on the low royalty rates charged on the initial set of heavy-oil apertura projects ended up having to slash its regalía demands by fully one third. A movement that has long portrayed international arbitration clauses as "instruments of transnational capital's domination of the third world" found itself forced to put the clauses back in. All to sweeten the deal for transnational capital. Even then, their name is so black in international oil circles that one of the three blocks put up for auction didn't manage to attract any bids - which is crazy, considering there was zero exploration risk.
But I'll leave debate of the terms of the transactions to the experts (a good place to start is Miguel's excellent summary). What strikes me is that if all you did was listen to our opposition politicians, you wouldn't have heard about any of this.
Given the significance of the move, our opposition politicians' inability to articulate an opinion about this is inexcusable.
You would be hard-pressed to find a more important public policy issue than the terms under which Venezuela is going to develop its oil resources. Sure, education and electricity are important, but as a good friend once incisively noted: "Venezuela es un pais eminentemente petrolero."
In other words, oil is where you start. Anything you want to do in the future begins with oil rents: how much of them you generate, how you get the money to pump out the oil, and - most sensitively - who actually owns the stuff.
Only when you have the answers to those questions are you on solid footing to move the debate forward and answer: what do we do with the rents? Failure to do this puts you on shaky ground, rhetorically speaking.
Proyecto Carabobo poses many questions: is this a model for how the opposition will invite foreign investment in a future government? Will they review the legality of these agreements if they win a majority in the AN? Have they stopped to consider that the cash being paid by Repsol and Chevron up front is now being used to repress opposition activists? What do they think of the winners, given Chevron's tawdry reputation in the region? Have they wondered whether Repsol's victory was unrelated to the company's President serving as Madrid tour guide to Hugo Chávez last fall? And what role did the Spanish government's acquiescence to the chavista regime play in all of this?
Fertile ground abounds. It's easy to step into the breach Chávez is leaving to his left and play the nationalist card. Or you could show support for the government on big issues when it gets them right to defuse the "they're-just-naysayers" angle. Or they could stake out a Hamletian position, criticizing the process but hailing the outcome.
Many questions, numerous possibilites, silence from our side.
Google the main opposition figure heads' names (Borges, López, Ledezma) along with Proyecto Carabobo, Repsol, or Chevron, and you get nothing. Attempts to get a statement from several opposition politicians yesterday via Twitter went unanswered.
I did see a lot of tweets, though, on Juanes and Chávez.
The failure of our opposition leaders to address critical policy issues in a timely manner is a disappointment. It speaks volumes about the professional capabilities of their operation, and raises serious doubts about how ready they are to take over the reins of the country when chavismo's inevitable demise materializes.
But more than that, I'm disappointed at our failure as a society to demand answers from our leaders and focus on the important issues.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised - it is Carnaval, after all - but I'm still disappointed.
Kepler
Francisco Toro
lgg.jpg)
.gif)
Crea fama y acuéstate a dormir - or The Teflon Caudillo
In a weird way, Chávez has spent so much energy establishing his anti-imperialist credentials that he's sort of immune to the obvious criticism here.
To most people either inside or outside Venezuela, the idea that the guy is pimping out the country's oil reserves to Transnational Capital sounds plainly preposterous. Like a contradiction in terms. To such an extent that he can actually get away with stuff like this, and makes it incredibly awkward for the opposition to criticize him.
It's sort of Nixon-to-China syndrome in crazed overdrive.
So I kind of appreciate the bind this puts oppo leaders in: I can sort of see how they would perceive very little upside in pursuing a line of attack that's just literally devoid of sense for most of the audience. It'd be like accusing George W. Bush of inviting Osama Bin Laden for Tea in the Rose Garden: even if it was demonstrably true, it would've made too little sense to be believed.
Weird times, Juan...
Do they even realise it?
You know, you are right that Hugo has become almost inmune due to his talking about the issue, but even homophobe senators see an end to their career when discovered trying to hit on someone at a US airport.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/28/content_6621206.htm
We could Hugo...if our leaders spent some time preparing something about it, if they produced a press release to the international press. They do nothing of the sort (I hope to be proven wrong!)
I am afraid that most in the opposition leadership don't even realise what is happening with those deals, like with other previous oil deals. Juan wrote about that deal, Miguel did, I did, El Nacional did and surely others, but
I really wonder what politician of ours does even see those things.
The protests about devaluation? I think they were mostly NOT just populism, but simple ignorance.
(Juan, remember your tweet discussion with them? it seems you HAD to explain it)
take a position, any position
"It's easy to step into the breach Chávez is leaving to his left and play the nationalist card. Or you could show support for the government on big issues when it gets them right to defuse the "they're-just-naysayers" angle. Or they could stake out a Hamletian position, criticizing the process but hailing the outcome."
So...pick one, Juan.
Where's the nexus between policy and politics on this one, in your opinion?
I agree with Juan on this
The guys must take some position.
Gosh, why can't they have something like shadow ministers? Perhaps because each one of them wants to be the next president and no one wants to "have to read" something too specific.
As far as I understand the deals, they are pretty bad for Venezuela, but Hugo needs them as he is again short of money.
But the oppo says nothing.
What does any of those parties have to say about
the law on trawling fishing? They said nothing.
What does any of those parties have to say about the legislation and, most importantly, the implementation of legislation regarding native Americans? Nothing.
What proposal has there been regarding basic education?
Nothing. Just "con las escuelas privadas no te metas", "la independencia de las universidades no se toca"
Some people here will say "but they cannot be specific because they would break unity, each party has its own programme".
Well no, they haven't got a programme. They are just people who pretend to have a party, 12 parties per major "political orientation" (or pretense of one)
If parties did start to articulate clearly what they stand for they could 1) realise some of them should merge right away and 2) those that don't would still find ways to work together as is the case in all other South American countries when this has happened and 3) the population would start to believe they have brains and thus some ideas
hmm, you're putting me on the spot
If I had to pick one I would say (in Spanish, of course) something like:
"Chevron and Repsol have another thing coming if they think Venezuela's opposition is going to just sit around while they make deals with Chavez and he turns around and uses that money to repress the people. Once we reach the AN, we will review these contracts with a fine-toothed comb. We are favorable to foreign investment, and we want Venezuela to expand its capacity, but these transactions were made too opaquely for us to simply approve of them. Chevron and Repsol may have convinced the government, but they've yet to convince the Venezuelan people that these projects are good for us."
There is simply no room in Venezuela for bi-partisan agreement on this stuff. The opposition has been shut out of pretty much everything, and the opposition's commitment should be, first and foremost, to transparency and accountability. We should not privilege foreign investment over this - specially if there is a case to be made that this is not how we would proceed if we were in power.
Multinationals should not simply assume Chavez will be in power forever. They should not be as eager to get on fours and, in turn, screw the Venezuelan people for a buck. The opposition should voice those concerns.
But that's just my gut reaction. I agree this issue presents a challenge, but that's the thing about politics - you don't simply get to sit on the sidelines if you want to be a leader.
Man, you're good at this...
I think that's much better than the positioning I would've suggested. (i.e., "I'm rubber and you're glue...")
Hamlet
I don't know, I'm not persuaded by the politics of this.
"We're gonna fine-tooth-comb-it" translates into "It could be good, it could be bad...we'll keep you posted."
An honest response to the whole deal would have to include a lot of "on the one hand, on the other hand"...
Doable, but hardly the worst thing in the world if the opposition gives it a pass, considering Quico's first take above, which I think gets it right.
One real challenge with opposing Chavez is that the sheer number of possible attacks is staggering. Not a day goes by without a statement or scandal or policy failure that could serve as the entire basis for an entire anti-incumbent campaign in another country.
Which means you could easily spend your days responding to the latest outrage...without ending up with a coherent line of attack, one that sticks.
Multiple Audiences
I guess I agree for the most part, but I think Juan has a point in the sense that there are multiple audiences at play here. The opposition also needs to talk to Chevron and to Repsol and let them know that just because the State's accountability mechanisms are not operational right now they shouldn't assume that they never will be.
ok
Sure. That makes a certain sense.
(We should keep a running tally of CC's recommendations to the opposition.)
That's the point
Not only do we signal to foreign companies that there may be a cost to doing business with Chávez while running roughshod over the rest of civil society, we also send a message to other multinationals: we are interested in expanding production, but in doing so honestly and transparently. If we come to power, you may benefit.
I dunno, but if I'm a competitor to Chevron, I'm thinking: Chevron and Repsol are already in these guys' bad side, I better side with them.
Coherent line of attack
Yes, there is a coherent line of attack!!!:
CHAVEZ LIES
Simple and to the core of the issue: Chavez is lying to everybody, even to his hard-core followers.
Let's repeat that mantra/meme over and over, each time offering different proofs about that statement. That's the first part of the attack.
Of course, the second part of the attack is that the opposition must not tell lies... otherwise it will never win over the ni-nis...
He doesn't lie all of the time
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. The opposition can't be seen as opposing everything Chávez does, even though it may be a good deal for the country.
Remember, if our side is serious about running the country in the future, it has to be able to articulate what sort of policies they will implement. By opposing the projects in a knee-jerk way, we are bound to not approve similar ones in the future, and that may become a problem.
Unless, that is, there are principled reasons to reject these projects outright. Which just brings us back to the main point of the post: there are pros and cons to each opinion, but you need to have one at least.
I'd better explain myself
I'm not talking about knee-jerk opposition. Sorry if I gave that impression. I consider that knee-jerk opposition is as bad as the current government.
I think that there are some initiatives in the Chavista government that are indeed GOOD and NECESSARY. Some "missions" address acute and long-standing problems.
My issue with those initiatives is that they are wrapped with an ideology and bad management layer that renders most of them useless at best, and become political blackmailing tools at worst.
When I say "CHAVEZ LIES", I mean that he is lying even to his own people, and the opposition should stress those lies in order to fracture his followers and attract the ni-nis. For instance:
- The terms of the current Orinoco Belt agreements are indeed worst for Venezuela than the original "Apertura Petrolera". No "sovereignty affirmation" here, but only lost opportunities.
- The cancellation of the Orimulsion project (and the following "gift" to China) was not a good thing for Venezuela. Indeed, the new thermoelectric plants being built could be running on Orimulsion instead of natural gas, lessening the incoming gas crisis.
- The "Simon Bolivar" telecommunications satellite was not a "technology revolution": It is an expensive piece of junk working way, way below its performance specifications.
And I could go on and on, with a myriad of technical and mundane issues.
In summary:
CHAVEZ LIES
Both right
I think your dialogue sums up a lot of the issues.
Unfortunatelly, but for some honourable exceptions, our opposition seems to be leading similar marches as this one
in Washington:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nations_morons_march_on_washington
Marxist
"I am a Marxist" -- not a lie.
He's such a bad dude that the fact that he does lie, repeatedly, and about important things, isn't even the heart of the case against him.
Oil and politics
There is one thing that strikes me as odd in your posting. In general terms I do agree with it, in a perfect world where politics plays are basically modeled in those of Europe I can find fault with the opposition lack of interest or even ignorance in oil issues; but what if critics of PDVSA were right and it did work as a "black box" that only provided cash, and created an upper middle-clasas of technocrats out of touch with the realities of the country? (I do not believe so, but I want to see where this reasoning would take me) as a a result of this black-box discourse (akin to the "magic state" of Coronil) how can it surprise anyone to have a politico-class unable to deal with oil questions? People like Pérez Alfonzo, Pérez Guerrero, or even Rómulo Betancourt! are not a dime a dozen, and destroying PDVSA meant more than dismantling that feared (and envied) social experience in "meritocracy": it also helped the regime to eliminate oil from politics by literally physically eliminating the know-how at levels where political discourse take shape (or where our oil gurus came from).
Then again, it is Carnival, we still have to see what "la rentrée" brings...
Bueno, veremos jfombona...
But what I do see is that the far left managed to create a coherent, influential discourse on the oil industry (c.f., Bernard Mommer, Alí Rodríguez, my Tio Alfredo) even in the absence of any official sponsorship or support from the state. They sustained it over several decades, and eventually took its tenets to power.
You'd think that the supposedly all-powerful old oligarchy could do the same: at least sustain, in the public sphere, a critical discourse on the proper way to handle the nation's oil resources. Instead, Chávez pimps out half the Orinoco Belt to transnational capital in terms that would've gotten Luis Giusti lynched and...nary a peep from our side!
Qué bolas!
Sí pariente, veremos
There is a lot of CENDES here! but I do not think it is fair to say only the left had something to coherent to present; the right (or the center right) also had its discourse on oil, remember Quiroz and Monaldi Norway-inspired, market-driven plan to give ownership of PDVSA to the entire country?
My fear, or my point, has to do more with what happens with discourses when something like a technocracy appears, and it, as a class, is unable to articulate a politics. Perhaps the key is that qualifier you use before all-powerful, "supposedly"...
Failure
The worst thing is that it was a failure, they managed to assign only two of the three fields and barely...
Luis Pacheco blog ”El Recadero - The Gofer”
Here an excellent article about the subject: LA NEO-APERTURA PETROLERA http://elrecadero.blogspot.com/2010/03/la-neo-apertura-petrolera-luis.html
LA NEO-APERTURA PETROLERA by Luis Pacheco
Here is an excellent article written by Luis Pacheco in his blog El Recadero - The Gofer: http://elrecadero.blogspot.com/2010/03/la-neo-apertura-petrolera-luis.html
Pacheco - good writer
I thought it was good, but it was a little ponderous. Know where I can get in touch with Mr. Pacheco?