I wrote the following for a class presentation for PetE 489. Since this was an academic assignment I noted my references even though they weren't specifically required. The presentation was based on an Annotation in the June 2006 issue of
Harper's Magazine "The end of cheap oil and the rise of the House of Chavez".
For most of the early part of the last century global relations were dominated by the two World Wars. With the unconditional surrender of Axis forces in 1945 however, a new world order was quickly established out of which grew the Cold War. From virtually the end of the Second World War until the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990’s the world was consumed by bipolar relations; the free world versus the soviet bloc, NATO versus the Warsaw Pact. With the Soviet Empire crumbling it became increasingly clear that the Cold-War model of world relations would soon be inadequate, if it wasn’t, in fact already. Several models were advanced including one by Samuel P. Huntington in a 1993 Foreign Affairs article that later culminated in this 1996 book entitled “The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of World Order.” The basic premise of this model is that, in Huntington’s own words, “the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” It is to this geopolitical model that I subscribe and one that I believe is useful in describing the antagonistic relationship between Chavez’s Venezuela and other OPEC members as well as between petroleum importing nations, especially western importing nations, such as the United States.
According to the June 2006 Harper’s Magazine article, Chavez plans to offer the US a chance to lock in the price of oil at $50 a barrel to stabilize investment in his country’s heavy oil sector. This offer will be ignored as the US – Chavez relationship has been rocky at best. At various times Chavez has threatened to cut the US off from Venezuelan exports and has accused the US, perhaps rightly, of attempting to spy on, or overthrow his regime. Despite the often-combative nature of their relationship, the US is the largest consumer of Venezuelan petroleum, which in turn forms the fourth largest source for all US petroleum imports. So why is the US – Venezuelan relationship so much more tenuous than, say, the US – Canadian relationship when Canada is the largest source of foreign oil for the Americans? The reason can be explained by the “clash” theory presented previously. Canada and the US are cultural kin whereas the US and Venezuela are not. Therefore Canada and the US are able to more easily work towards resolutions while the US and Venezuela trade acid-tongue remarks, and economic ultimatums. There are certainly other forces at play, but they are ultimately rooted in a clash of civilizations. Many countries have historically seen petroleum resources as strategic, including both the US and Venezuela. In fact, the “U.S Strategic Petroleum Reserve” is the world’s largest government owned stockpile of crude oil, which is to be used in the case of a commercial supply disruption, in the style of the ’73-’74 oil embargo, or to quote “provide a national defense fuel reserve.” Clearly when petroleum supply is viewed in this light it is easy to see where differing foreign policy goals can come into conflict. Further once the “clash of civilizations” model is accepted, it seems only natural that the United States and other western importing nations would have an antagonistic relationship with oil-exporting Venezuela.
The keen observer will note at this point, that the American-Saudi relationship appears far less hostile than the US-Venezuelan relationship and certainly Saudi Arabia is not the cultural kin of the Americas. This is true and I will deal with it shortly, it is however important to keep in mind, as Thomas Kuhn stated in his “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that quote “a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which is can be confronted.” The answer to the earlier question though, is that yes, the Americans and Saudis do clash and even, or perhaps, especially over oil. In fact at the height of the 1970’s oil boom John B. Kelly noted that “for the Saudi’s, there is undoubtedly a double satisfaction to be gained from the infliction of humiliating punishments upon Westerners” and further that actions of Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Muslim states “amount to nothing less than a bold attempt to lay the Christian West under tribute to the Muslim East.” Since then the American-Saudi relationship has been strengthened and made less tenuous by a myriad of other factors and a symbiotic relationship has formed in spite of their cultural disparity. On one hand the Americans reliably import significant quantities of Saudi petroleum, as well as providing tacit support to the House of Saud, despite it being one of the most draconian, totalitarian regimes on the planet. On the other hand, as mentioned in the Harper’s article, the Saudi’s return many of their American petrodollars to the US treasury, they allow Americans to operate in the Saudi oilfields in large western style camps, and the royal family keeps a tight leash on both the oft volatile OPEC and internal revolutionary forces that would certainly be less American friendly. So while there is a civilization clash between the US and Saudi Arabia, for the moment it is off set by complimentary foreign policy and domestic goals.
So what does the future hold for Chavez and the world? It’s hard to say really. Chavez has recently been elected to another six-year term that extends until 2013 and has further stated his intentions to alter the Venezuelan constitution to allow him to run for additional terms. It is therefore safe to say Chavez is here to stay. While it’s no secret that the personal relationship between Bush and Chavez is hostile, don’t bet on friendlier relations between Chavez and Bush’s successor in 2009. The new US Democratic congress is determined to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil especially from such enigmatic sources as Chavez’s Venezuela.
References:Huntington, Samuel P. “Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993.
Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Associated Press, “Venezuela’s Chavez sworn in for third term.” [Online document] 2007, [2007 Jan 16], Available at: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070110/chavez_070110/20070110/
Russo, Tracy. The Democratic Party of the United States of America. “Middle Class Mandate” [Online document] 2006, [2007 Jan 16], Available at: http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/12/middle_class_ma.php
Energy Information Administration, “Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries” [Online document] 2007, [2007 Jan 17], Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
BBC News, “Chavez makes US oil export threat” [Online document] 2005, [2007 Jan 17], Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4153318.stm
U.S Department of Energy. “Fossil Energy: U.S Petroleum Reserves” [Online document] 2007, [2007 Jan 17], Available at: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/
