January 31, 2006
Parliamentary seminar on Venezuela

The meeting was organised by the All Party Parliamentary Latin America Group and held in Committee Room 7 of the House of Commons and was attended by 12 MPs and Members of the House of Lords.

Representatives of VIC and other groups with an interest in Venezuela had been invited and were also present. Guest Speakers were: Doctor Julia Buxton (Centre for International Co-operation and Security, University of Bradford), Professor George Philip (Head of the Department of Government, London School Of Economics) and Alfredo Toro Hardy, Ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

In his welcome to the seminar Bob Blizzard, MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Latin America Group (APPLAG), said that the purpose of the Group was to promote interest in Latin America in Parliament and in the wider community and to encourage good relations between the UK and Latin America. The seminar had been arranged in response to the interest generated by recent events in Venezuela and the realisation that there was a need to obtain reliable information on and analysis of current developments. He said that each of the speakers would be asked to make a ten minute presentation and that this would be followed by a question and answer session. He invited Dr Julia Buxton to speak first.

Doctor Julia Buxton

Doctor Buxton said that there was a need to understand the style and approach of President Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian process in the context of the governments that had preceded him. She referred to the widespread corruption and lack of democratic accountability that existed under President Chavez's predecessors and emphasised the need to place the negative coverage of the Chavez government and characterisation of the administration as 'authoritarian' into context. Many of the criticisms of President Chavez had arisen from his need to react defensively against attacks which were part of an orchestrated campaign to destabilise his administration. She said that the Bolivarian revolution had been implemented to address the needs of the poor, to assert state identity and to diversify foreign relations away from dependence on the US. The Chavez government policies allowed for redistribution of wealth and power. This process of change faced great resistance from within Venezuela and from the US administration. Internal opposition was being fuelled through funding of the media and trade unions from the National Endowment Fund for Democracy (NED). The government had introduced highly accelerated social programmes, predominantly in the areas of health and education. President Chavez had also sought to build regional alliances and this had struck a significant chord among Latin American societies. The US approach could be characterised as clumsy, unsophisticated and informed by a cold war mentality. Opponents had accused Chavez of supporting the FARC in Colombia but Dr Buxton refuted this charge and said that it was unfounded and unsubstantiated. Accusations had also been made of non-co-operation with anti-drugs initiatives. This was clearly inconsistent with the fact that record drug and chemical precursor seizures were made in 2005. Dr Buxton said that the Chavez government was making serious attempts to address and tackle poverty.

Professor George Philip

Professor Philip said that he was in no doubt that when elected President Chavez had massive popular support and offered something very different from his predecessors, who had previously neglected the poor and marginalised. Venezuela had been an oil exporting country since the 1920s without ever adequately directing these revenues toward social programmes and eradication of poverty. Chavez had won by a clear majority in 1998 and has since maintained popular support. He said that historically there was no correlation between oil abundance and well functioning economies and that the Venezuelan civil service had hitherto proven itself incapable of effectively overseeing social projects. Lack of infrastructural development had been part of the reason for Chavez involving the military in some projects and for importing Cuban doctors. Capital flight had been a major problem in most oil exporting countries and stricter controls on capital were therefore necessary. Under President Chavez there had manifestly been a very worthwhile attempt to tackle poverty. At the end of the cold war US values had appeared to take hold in Latin America. This adherence to the free market had ceased at the end of the 1990s. Professor Philip said that he did not discern a general trend to the left throughout Latin America. He felt that there had been a lot of over-reaction and that there was a need to calm down. He believed that democratic societies were attempting to address poverty in many different ways. In his view Venezuela currently represented a very good case of a democracy which was effectively addressing poverty.

Ambassador Alfredo Toro-Hardy

Ambassador Alfredo Toro-Hardy outlined recent electoral history. He said that all these elections had been carried out under the supervision of international electoral monitors who had certified them as free and fair. He referred to the non-participation of the opposition in the December 2005 referendum. This had been one of "the most audited and certified elections in Latin America". He said that Latino Barometro, a Chilean group monitoring countries throughout Latin America on levels of satisfaction with government and levels of democracy, had found that Venezuela currently led all its' neighbours. They had found that only in Venezuela and Uruguay were people generally satisfied with the levels of democracy. On these measures Venezuela was now 14 points higher than in 1996; this was in marked contrast with the general trend elsewhere in Latin America where 70.5% had expressed themselves less satisfied over the same period. He said that Venezuela had also scored highly on measures of social development and on gains in literacy under Mision Robinson. He refuted opposition claims that the Venezuelan government was authoritarian and undemocratic. The opposition had waived its right to nominate eight members to the Supreme Court and had given away its 'space' in the democratic process. Economic growth rates had risen progressively to 12.4% overall with a 21% growth in the industrial sector. Inflation had dropped to 14% from a rate of 21% in 2004. GDP was expected to grow further in 2006. Chavez had encouraged good relations with the US and had a good relationship with President Clinton whom he had met on seven occasions. Relations had rapidly deteriorated after President Bush took office.

Bob Blizzard invited questions. Colin Burgon, MP, said that he found events in Venezuela very exciting but wondered about US capability to intervene. Julia replied that US attempts to destabilise Venezuela centred on media distortion and funding of the opposition. Jon Trickett, MP, said that the US feels threatened by a successful alternative to neo-liberalism. Professor Philip said that Chavez had taken OPEC much more seriously and had played a key part in strengthening its role. Lord Alan Howarth asked about the role of the NED. Julia said that it was an institution that had had its' day and that it was necessary to question its' legitimacy and legality. She also felt that it was counter-productive in its' provision of funds for lock-outs etc. The role of the NED had also impacted negatively on the opposition in that it had tended to work against the formation of a legitimate opposition and had instead encouraged illegitimate actions such as the failed coup. She said that cold war warriors were now in control of US foreign policy. Professor Philip said that he agreed with this analysis. Tony Lloyd, MP said that people in the UK should be supporting attempts in Venezuela to help the poor. He said that he hoped the 'culture of confidence' generated by recent events could be exported. He asked how robust the Venezuelan social experiment was and what Washington could do to destabilise it. Ambassador Alfredo Toro-Hardy said that he was unsure what the US would do but that their antagonism represented a Damoclean sword over the head of President Chavez and his government and that there was a constant fear of assassination. Chavez saw building alliances internationally as a crucial element in defending himself against these threats. Baroness Susan Thomas said that she wanted to congratulate President Chavez on his attempts to assist the poor and said that she considered that the neo- liberal 'trickle-down' approach never worked. She asked how stable the efforts of Chavez and his government were. Julia replied that the government needed to work towards consolidation of its initiatives and had to build a functioning civil service. This process was not being assisted by opposition pressure on civil servants to resign. Help from abroad had been hindered by hysterical media coverage. There was also a need to build technical capacity. Present policies were sustainable whilst oil prices remained above US$25 a barrel. Non oil, tax-based, revenues were also helping to sustain these projects. In response to a question on the quality of Venezuelan democracy Julia replied that, prior to Chavez , Venezuela had only been a 'procedural democracy'. Addressing poverty had transformed it into a 'meaningful' democracy. The neo-liberal approach had hitherto served Venezuela poorly and had set back Venezuela's economy. Bob Blizzard, MP, asked how interested President Chavez was in the European Union. The speakers said that he was very interested in building diplomatic and economic alliances with Europe and had made a number of visits, although not yet to the UK. They expressed the hope that he might come here soon.

The discussion would have continued much longer but the room was booked by another group. Bob Blizzard thanked the speakers for their very informative and interesting presentations and expressed the hope that this event would act as a spur to continuing discussions on Venezuela and to consequently improved relations.