Closed Consulates and Closed Minds: Bush’s Last Shot at Chávez





Mr. Buzzanco is Professor and Chairman, Department of History, University of Houston. He is the author of Masters of War: Military Dissent and Politics in the Vietnam Era and Vietnam and the Transformation of American Life, and numerous other publications on foreign policy and political economy.

Last Friday, November 7th , the Department of State closed the Venezuelan consulate in Houston and gave the consul general and staff 72 hours to leave the country, another distressing development in the continuing U.S. program to isolate and destabilize the government of Hugo Chávez. While Chávez’s personal dislike for President George Bush may make diplomacy between the two nations difficult, the history of U.S.-Venezuelan relations complicates matters and breeds Venezuelan distrust even more. As U.S. power has waned, Latin America has turned more to the left than at any time in its history, with the Venezuelans establishing credible alternatives to American hegemony after a long century of suffering under regimes propped up by Washington.

The United States long backed military dictators in Latin America as a bulwark against nationalism and socialism and because they adhered to the U.S. principles of “free” trade and investment. In reality, this meant that the Americans recognized leaders produced by military coups, such as Marcos Pérez Jiménez in Venezuela, who had overthrown elected governments. President Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, awarded Pérez Jiménez the Legion of Honor, the highest honor given to a foreign national.

Key to U.S. support of the Venezuelan dictator was his coziness to U.S. business interests. By the 1950s, Americans held up Venezuela as a “showcase” for Latin America, proof of the benefits of economic cooperation with Washington. U.S. investments there rose to about $2.5 billion, or about a third of all American investment in the entire region.

Most of that money went into the oil industry, as Venezuela was one of the biggest exporters of petroleum to the United States [and is still third today, after Canada and Saudi Arabia]. Inside the country, the “oil-garchy,” as it was labeled, lived lavishly while the average Venezuela survived on $500 a year and about half of the adults remained illiterate. With his oil money, Pérez Jiménez spent huge amounts on military programs and other benefits to the elite, while poverty was stifling.

It was amid this history that Hugo Chávez emerged, promising independence from the Americans and social benefits to the mass of those mired in poverty. Not surprisingly, Chávez understood that control of oil resources was the key to economic autonomy, and he has taken steps to nationalize Venezuelan petroleum and remove the overwhelming American control of the oil industry there. He also led the creation of the Banco del Sur, an investment and development institution for Latin America to challenge the U.S.-led International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

In return the U.S. government and media has waged a virulent campaign against Chávez, calling him a “dictator” (particularly ironic since he has been elected several times, has accepted elections that his side has lost, and has more claim to being democratically chosen than Bush did in the U.S. election of 2000) or “crazy.” His associations with other Latin American leftists like the Castro brothers in Cuba or Evo Morales in Bolivia raise the fear of an independent Latin America unwilling to any longer be an economic colony of the United States, so much so that the U.S. supported and abetted a failed coup against the Venezuelan leader in 2002.

But Chávez has pulled back too. Despite warning that he might cut off oil exports to the United States, the Venezuelans still send about 1.25 million barrels a day to the United States and its national company, Citgo, continues to operate throughout the U.S.

Still, the tensions are escalating. In a show of solidarity with the Bolivians and due to his continued fears that the Bush administration would try to oust him, Chávez expelled the U.S. ambassador to Caracas on September 10th , and the Americans expelled the Venezuelan ambassador immediately thereafter.

The more recent closing of the Houston consulate, apparently because of a technicality about moving without State Department permission, was the latest escalation in this political battle and a final salvo by Bush as he prepares to leave office. However, during this latest episode, Chávez has removed Padrino as consul general due to his diplomatic faux pas. Clearly, and contrary to media caricatures, the Venezuelan leader has approached relations with the U.S. on the whole in a reasonable manner and is abiding by diplomatic protocol.

I have met the ex-Venezuelan consul general, Antonio Padrino, and he is an impressive man, with a degree in economics, a background in petroleum, and a desire for better relations with Washington. Various U.S. officials to whom I have spoken say much the same, that it is time to take a more realistic and mature approach to Venezuela. Their hope is that the end of the Bush administration will create the conditions for diplomacy with Caracas. After all, as both sides understand, Venezuela has oil to sell and the Americans are good consumers.

President-elect Barack Obama caught heat during the campaign for saying he would meet with Chávez to improve U.S-Venezuelan relations. But that is the only realistic approach that both sides can take, especially given the U.S. need for more oil and the drop in global petroleum prices that imperils Chávez’s social programs. Ironically, the current economic calamity may provide a chance for Obama to reopen relations with Venezuela, since he, the media, and the public are preoccupied with the crises in banking, the auto industry, pensions, and unemployment, and may have little stomach for petty escalations of this cold war with Caracas.

It is absurd for the United States, a country with a $671 billion military budget, to fear Venezuela, but Caracas has legitimate reasons to be very wary of a country which has supported a coup, openly backs the political opposition, the remnants of the “oil-garchy,” and has waged an incessant public relations campaign against it.

Hopefully, the grown ups will triumph, the Houston consulate, which serves several states and is vital to the lives of Venezuelans in the U.S.–and American businesses seeking to trade and invest in Venezuela–will reopen, and the Americans and Venezuelans will put their mutual need for each other ahead of political differences. Continued tit-for-tat attacks will only damage everyone. Instead of closing the consulate, U.S. officials should open their minds to a new relationship with Caracas.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Heide Bronke - 11/21/2008

In response to Mr. Buzzanco’s November 17 posting that asserts that Department of State actions with regard to the Venezuelan Consulate in Houston were politically motivated, I am writing to clarify several facts about the case:

In August, the Venezuelan government requested that the Department of State authorize it to lease new office space for the offices of its Consulate General in Houston.

Prior to Department response, the consulate leased the office space and began operations from the new location.  This action was in violation of the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. 4305(a).  Under the Act, foreign missions are required to notify the Department of State of proposed real property acquisitions, including leases, prior to executing any contract or other action required for the proposed acquisition.

Upon learning that the consulate was open without authorization, on October 2 the Department directed the Venezuelan Embassy to cease operations immediately of the Houston consulate pending a decision on the authorization request. 

The Department subsequently learned that despite express oral and written instruction that the Houston consulate cease operations, it in fact was continuing to do business.  The Venezuelan government has admitted this.

On October 31, the Department informed the Venezuelan Embassy that it intended to withdraw the privileges and immunities of the Venezuelan staff at the consulate, and cancel their diplomatic visas.  The Department therefore invited those individuals to depart the United States.

The Department has not withdrawn its permission for Venezuela to operate a consulate at Houston.  We indicated to the Venezuelan Embassy that we would permit a consular officer to serve on a temporary basis at its newly approved Houston location until the Venezuelan government makes requests for visas for permanent replacement staff.

We will continue to work with the Government of Venezuela to resolve staffing issues at the missions in both of our countries.


Arnold Shcherban - 11/18/2008

The technicality you pointed out is just a drop of water in the lake.
But you're right about blaming just Bush administration for worsening relations with Venezuela and other latin American countries which recently elected left political leaders. As the author of the article
has clearly mentioned (and all honest and objective historians/observers know too well,) the real culprit in the US Latin and Central American policies is the imperialistic strategic design being advanced by every US administration for about two centuries by now, according to which
this country treats its Southern neighbors as the habitants of the US backyard... The rest are more or less consequences (mostly tragic ones for the neighbors) of such a strategy.


Whoppa Wichee - 11/17/2008

Ah, the old "it's-all-Bush's-fault" logic. Sorry, but that doesn't fly here.

First, some background on the issue, from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/6101535.html:

'The expulsion stemmed from the Venezuelan Consulate's decision to move its Houston office to another location less than five miles away — apparently without getting permission from the State Department.

Angelo Rivero Santos, the deputy chief of mission at the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington, D.C., declined to answer questions about the Houston consular office, instead saying in a statement that "the situation which occurred in the General Consulate of Houston is of a technical nature relating to consular rules; it is not political."'

Now, a statement from The Man in the Red Shirt himself, via http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6106406.html:

'Chavez said in a speech Monday that the lead diplomat in Houston made a mistake and moved the consulate without approval from the U.S. or Venezuela's Embassy in Washington. Chavez says he removed the consul "and the situation was cleared up."'

So who's to blame here? Maybe....the vaunted Mr. Padrino???

History News Network