by David A.G. Fischer

Created on: June 29, 2008   Last Updated: July 11, 2008

The dawn of rejection toward U.S. neo-liberal policies

President Lt. Colonel Hugo Chavez Frias' criticism of U.S. policies runs deep with an insightful history. The Venezuelan dissident has been criticizing the U.S. Government and its policies since before winning the presidency in 1998. In fact, his most discordant statement occurred six years prior to his free and fair election victory.

In Hugo's failed coup attempt of 1992, he had hoped to overthrow the country's U.S. supported, demoligarchic [1] power structure which had trapped the country in mounting debt by fleecing its petroleum revenues to foreign investors' banks and adhering to Washington's neo-liberal, economic policies. Instead, he found himself incarcerated.

The Venezuelan military leader, however, made good use of his time while in jail. It was behind bars where Chavez honed and polished the principles for his Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement (MBR), which he would finally implement after being awarded a pardon that allowed him to rally the impoverished majority of Venezuelan society. His campaign for the 1998 elections pointed to the corrupt Venezuelan leaders, who for nearly two decades had complacently conformed to hegemonic neo-liberal policies, as the culprit for Venezuela's financial maladies, growing poverty and widening economic gap between the rich and the poor.

Chavez brilliantly relied on rhetoric that associated him with the region's heroic Spanish colonial liberator, Simon Bolivar, who brought independence to the region in the early 19th century. The military leader consistently compared Washington's role in the country, and the region, with that of the Spaniards'. His campaign was effective and his mandate from the people was the key to his success in overturning U.S. influence in Venezuela.

Since coming to power ten years ago, the past decade has seen radical changes in the social and political spheres of Latin America. Almost every nation in the region has a recent history of violence under either totalitarian leaders who terrorized society, or oligarchs who financially sapped the system which they governed. By 2005, people of the region had become intolerant with their corrupt leaders. That year, the Economist indicated that 71 percent of Latin American respondents say their countries are "governed for the benefit of a few powerful interests" instead of "the good of everyone" [2].

Without a doubt, Chavez is the fiercest critic of Washington and its influence in the region. He is known

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page >>