Venezuela has agreed to export 20,000 barrels of gasoline per day to Iran.

Here’s something from the Associated Press that needs some refining:

TEHRAN, Iran — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sealed an agreement to export 20,000 barrels per day of gasoline to Iran, state TV reported Monday. The deal would give Tehran a cushion if the West carries out threats of fuel sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program.

The two countries signed the agreement late Sunday during a visit by Chavez, who pledged to deepen ties with Iran and stand together against what he called the imperialist powers of the world.

Before we start fretting about Hugo Chavez giving aid and support to an enemy (it’s not helpful to talk about Venezuela or Iran that way), let’s take a look at the reality. Iran’s oil production of about 4 million barrels daily is twice as large as Venezuela’s. Its refineries have a capacity to produce more than 1.5 million barrels of gasoline daily — Chavez’s generous offer to Iran amounts to about 1.5 percent of Iran’s ability to produce refined products. Iran has been a gasoline importer, but is taking steps to halt imports within four years.

In short, Iran won’t benefit much with gasoline from Venezuela, its fellow OPEC member. If the United States and Europe were to follow through with sanctions, Iran probably would still be importing all of the goods it needs and its refineries would still be running. (Not to get too technical: a barrel of oil is about 42 gallons, and that yields roughly 19 gallons of gasoline)

Chavez is actually making a small deal with Iran to thumb his nose at the United States, an exercise he and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad practice whenever they can. Europe is part of the game in this case, because Chavez is supporting Ahmadinejad’s defiance of a deadline declared by U.S. and European officials, threatening sanctions by the end of September if no progress is made on reining in Iran’s nuclear program.

Whatever you want to call Chavez, whose country sells roughly 1 million barrels of crude to the United States daily, you’re not going to change his mind, or change the policies of the Iranian government by employing threats and boycotts. Ahmadinejad and Chavez share something -– they are both reactionaries in the true sense of the word: They do and say things to be provocative.

The Obama administration, in both cases, appears to understand that better than its predecessor, which railed and saber-rattled to no end. Meanwhile, boycotts and embargoes, state-sponsored, rarely if ever work. The United States imposed a boycott on Cuba 50 years ago, and that policy is widely considered a failure. The United States slapped a grain embargo on the Soviet Union in the 1980s after the Communist government invaded Afghanistan — international grain merchants kept the grain running through subsidiaries in places like Brazil and Argentina.

Sanctions usually paper over the lack of a policy. The problem with Iran and Venezuela is that the United States would do well to find ways to negotiate. Unlike George W. Bush, President Obama has said that you don’t only talk to friends; sometimes you have to negotiate with people you don’t necessarily like.

It is one of many challenges that will define U.S. foreign policy these years, and provocative acts and speeches have to be understood and kept in context.

- Peter Eisner

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Magnera under a Creative Commons license.

Fernando Coronil, a professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss how the export of oil to Iran undermines any new sanctions. They also talk about this weekend’s protests in Venezuela and Hugo Chavez’s suspension of radio stations.

Chavez pledged closer ties to Iran and inked a deal yesterday with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to supply the Middle Eastern nation with up to 20,000 barrels of oil per day.

Today, Chavez appeared at the Venice Film Festival premier of a new Oliver Stone film about the Venezuelan strongman.

Meanwhile, massive protests erupted in Caracas this weekend. Anti-Chavistas are furious about the government’s economic policies and media crackdown. The news report below is from RCTV, an anti-Chavez Venezuelan news network.

Blogger Daniel-Venezuela writes about the importance of recent demonstrations. Read the original post here.

You only need to look at the overreacting of many Chavistas to notice that no matter how big yesterday’s No Mas Chavez rally were, Chavista officialdom is really upset. They cannot hide it.

Be it Chavez who takes lots of time to explain to us he does not care, from Syria, from Iran.

Be it the Venezuelan ambassador in Bogota who says that Venezuela is insulted (correction, you might be insulted, I am not) and implying that the Bogota government should not allow such demonstrations.

In fact Chavismo is so upset that revenge must be exacted. Thus Globovison, the closest object at hand, once again is under attack by a particularly bitter Diosdado Cabello, the guy in charge while Chavez visits the planets collection of tyrants. Not only a new investigation against Globovision is undertaken for a single alleged SMS (whereas the VTV ticker spews constant violence that the regime supports by ignoring them), but 29 more radio stations are to be taken off the air waves (in addition to the 34 already killed). Globovison offers the video of Cabello threats and bitterness. But the world is noticing and Diosdado words hit the news wires fast, even in English. They sure will be a nice complement to Chavez words supporting Iran’s nuclear program today…

Meanwhile there will be more wounds to lick for Chavismo: BBCMundo reports that in Honduras the No Mas Chavez was big in 5 cities of the small country while the pro-Chavez Zelayista camp could only manage an activity in Tegucigalpa…A very bad P.R. week for Chavismo.

Venezuela shut down 34 radio stations.

My guess is that you are one of the poor deprived people among us who has not had the opportunity to watch and understand the charming, engaging, benevolent, all-knowing president of Venezuela — Hugo Chavez — in action.

It also could be that you are doing this on purpose — that would make you not just deprived, but depraved. Perhaps you are an agent of Venezuela’s enemies.

Fortunately Chavez is protecting Venezuela against you and all such agents. Last week, to root out the vermin that spread lies and plot against the people, President Chavez shut down several dozen private radio stations. His parliament — whose members understand exactly what needs to be done in all cases — has promoted new libel laws that protect the Chavista revolution from foul lies that could be spread on the airwaves. “Any person who speaks out in any form in the news media” can be considered a “media criminal” for disseminating seditious opinions, we’ve learned from Teodoro Petkoff, a long-time Venezeulan political analyst. Petkoff’s column last week was titled with a large headline reading “Censorship Law.”

It all makes perfect sense.

Venezuela’s enemies fall into two categories — you are either well-meaning but deceived and brainwashed; or you are an enemy of the revolution, and you could be a spy sent by the Central Intelligence Agency.

I learned this by watching Chavez’s televised performance at a meeting of his Cabinet in February, during his successful campaign for a referendum that abolished presidential term limits. Chavez apparently has a little button he can press when he wants to preempt all television and radio broadcasting in Venezuela to speak directly to the people. In the particular meeting, he told jokes, gave orders and questioned Cabinet members seated around the table, who looked uncertain when to laugh, agree, disagree, or react in any way, fearing for their heads. He also denied any involvement, as the CIA-stooge opposition was charging, in an attack on a synagogue in Caracas some days earlier.

In any case, when you can have the president speaking directly to you, why do we need a filter from these troublesome, CIA-funded newspaper and broadcast reporters, who are certain to be on a vendetta to destroy the country? If the president is all-knowing, infallible and looking out for our interests, who needs critics, dissent, or anything that will get in the way of the true path that the president has now set out for us?

Such a filter is Teodoro Petkoff, the journalist and politician, who has been a prominent critic of Chavez. Petkoff, by the way, is an ex-guerrilla, a student leader, and ran against Chavez briefly for the presidency in 2006. Beware — how can he be reliable? He disagrees with the president.

Nevertheless — understanding that the president of Venezuela doesn’t want you to hear about this, read about it, or even think about it — here’s what Petkoff has to say about the new censorship law promulgated by Chavez:

The proposed law has to be sent to all the governments of America, to all the news media of the world, so that they might see for themselves the dictatorial and totalitarian monstrosity that has been placed before our nation. It is not necessary in any way to even comment about it. It is so obvious, so naked in its repressive intent, that it explains itself. For us, Venezuelans, this “law” is a call to battle stations. One can hope that everyone is listening.

- Peter Eisner

A banner voices opposition to the coup in Honduras.

International politics have never been far from the surface of the presidential crisis in Honduras.

– What was the role of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in supporting ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya?

– Was the mediator in the case Costa Rican President Oscar Arias truly neutral? Or did he have advance warning that Zelaya would be deposed and then sent into exile in his pajamas to Costa Rica?

– And what is the full agenda of U.S. policymakers, who don’t like Chavez, but overtly support Zelaya as the constitutional president of Honduras?

Zelaya is vowing to march back into the country overland through Nicaragua this weekend. He hopped into an SUV in Managua on Thursday and drove himself north to the border, urging supporters to meet him there. Zelaya and his interim successor, Roberto Micheletti, have not budged on their mutual demands despite the mediation of Arias.

One new wrinkle in the story is the revelation that Lanny Davis, a longtime ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton, was working with Honduran businessmen who opposed Zelaya and promoting his ouster. Davis has been talking up the coup in Congress.

Davis’ role in the Honduran case was described in a report by Roberto Lovato at the online magazine, American Prospect.

Robert White, a former U.S. ambassador to El Salvador, now president of the Washington-based Center for International Policy, an independent think-tank in Washington, discussed the case with
Lovato.

“If you want to understand who the real power behind the [Honduran] coup is,” White told Lovato, “you need to find out who’s paying Lanny Davis.”

Davis was White House counsel to President Clinton from 1996-1998, and worked with Hillary Clinton on her unsuccessful presidential bid. He has been making the rounds in Congress, promoting the idea that the Honduran coup was justified and playing down widespread reports of repression and curbs on the news media.

Lovato also interviewed Davis:

“My clients represent the CEAL, the [Honduras Chapter of] Business Council of Latin America,” Davis said when reached at his office last Thursday. “I do not represent the government and do not talk to President [Roberto] Micheletti. My main contacts are Camilo Atala and Jorge Canahuati. I’m proud to represent businessmen who are committed to the rule of law.” Atala, Canahuati, and other families that own the corporate interests represented by Davis and the CEAL are at the top of an economic pyramid in which 62 percent of the population lives in poverty, according to the World Bank.”

White and those who oppose Micheletti and the coup said that the underlying problem is that a small class of businessmen in Honduras don’t recognize or care about that larger context — the vast majority of Hondurans are abjectly poor and have suffered while an oligarchic minority has thrived.

Coups, White told Lovato, “happen because very wealthy people want them and help to make them happen, people who are used to seeing the country as a money machine and suddenly see social legislation on behalf of the poor as a threat to their interests. The average wage of a worker in free trade zones is 77 cents per hour.”

One of Zelaya’s cardinal sins, critics of the coup charge, was that he was a dissident member of the wealthy business class, and converted to social-minded pursuits only after he was elected to office.

Davis and other opponents say that Zelaya had been in the process of creating an official coup, subverting the constitution and attempting to maintain himself in office much the same way as Chavez has seized absolute power in Venezuela.

Again, the bottom line, what does this all mean to the suffering, malnourished Honduran majority? They watch politicians come and go from squalid slums and never see life getting any better at all.

- Peter Eisner

Photo courtesy of Flickr user pablo.cardozo under a Creative Commons license.

Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere.

Most police around the world will tell you that they’re always wary about getting into the middle of a domestic dispute. It can be a no-win situation, and everybody ends up hating the cops.

Case in point, how to deal with the Honduras crisis — so far, the United States appears to have steered clear of getting stuck. The Obama administration has been listening to both sides and endorsed the entry of a neutral non-U.S. mediator, Oscar Arias, the Costa Rican president and Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Most important, the two sides in Honduras — Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president, and his old friend and former ally, Roberto Micheletti — have agreed to the mediation. This is a complicated domestic matter, seated in rivalries and seething questions about power, influence, economic interest and the long-term welfare of a desperately poor country.

Zelaya and Micheletti hold steadfastly to their positions — the deposed president said his return to office is not negotiable, and Micheletti is equally adamant against him returning to power.

But they will be talking with Arias’ help this week, instead of fighting at the borders.

Ideologues of various stripes — from The National Review to the halls of power in Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez holds forth — are looking in from the outside and bloviating about what is best of Honduras.

Chavez’s government Web site, “Gobierno En Linea,” said that the coup plotters were attempted murders and should be dealt with accordingly:

[...] it was an attack directly against the head of state [Zelaya], by which the coup members and those responsible for the military coup should be taken to court and judged for the crime of attempted murder.

[..] atentó directamente contra la vida del Jefe de Estado, motivo por el que los golpistas y responsables del golpe militar deben ser llevados a una corte y juzgados por el delito de homicidio frustrado.

Most governments and publications in the hemisphere and beyond were saying more mildly that the coup was illegal and Zelaya had to be returned to power. However, the National Review, the voice of conservatives in the United States, defended the coup on grounds that Zelaya would have turned Honduras into “a satellite” of Chavez’s Venezuelan revolution:

It was an affirmation of democracy and the rule of law, both of which the president had flouted. If anything, it was a counter-coup, the real coup having been attempted by Zelaya.

The resolution has to lie somewhere in between the extremes, and here’s hoping that one group — the millions of desperately poor people in Honduras — will somehow benefit in the end.

Those were the sentiments of Arias as he went into the round of mediation:

Those of us who seek to protect democracies in this hemisphere have no time to waste. I urge all leaders in the Americas to see the Honduran crisis for what it is: an urgent call for the profound social and institutional changes our region has delayed for far too long.

- Peter Eisner

Photo courtesy of Flickr user living water international under a Creative Commons license.

Ousted Honduran President José Manuel Zelaya.

What’s your take on democracy? Time to think about it a bit after reading this front-page headline in the New York Times today:

Honduran Army Ousts President Allied to Chavez

The elected president of Honduras, José Manuel Zelaya, was deposed on Sunday by that country’s armed forces, one of the first military coups in Latin America in more than a decade.

Part of the answer lies in our own prejudices and subliminal responses to the words. If Zelaya is an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, should we be happy, unhappy or neutral? And in terms of democratic principles, should the United States be supporting the deposed president or pleased that his absolutist policies have been derailed?

Zelaya won the Honduran presidency in a tight — but fair — election more than three years ago, and, like Chavez, was trying to tinker with rules that bar presidents from serving more than one term. Chavez, who was also elected by a popular majority, has progressively gathered up power, weakening his country’s legislative and judicial branches. Using various populist techniques and the bully pulpit of the presidents, Chavez has won approval for his actions through national referendums.

For his part, Zelaya was trundled off to the airport on Sunday, and declared from Costa Rica, still in his pajamas, that his ouster was illegal: “I am the president of Honduras.”

The United States, governments throughout the hemisphere and Europe have condemned the coup and say they support Zelaya’s return to office. That hasn’t stopped Chavez from decrying “oligarchs” who should be opposed by force.

One last question: Has U.S. policy been steadfast in supporting election results? Answer: No. Consider the case of Guatemala in 1954, when the CIA engineered the overthrow of a democratically-elected government deemed to be leaning the wrong direction; Chile in 1973, when the United States applied economic sanctions, and U.S. officials supported and aided a coup against the democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, a Socialist. Or further afield, but more recently, when Hamas won democratic elections in Palestine in 2006, the United States sided with Israel and imposed economic sanctions.

Are there limits to supporting the will of the people? Or is the pragmatic solution in dealing with foreign policy questions more complicated than a knee-jerk ideological response? Consider this, then, a vote for critical thinking.

- Peter Eisner

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Presidencia de la República del Ecuador under a Creative Commons license.

Barack Obama meets with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

At the 34-nation Summit of the Americas over the weekend, U.S. President Barack Obama promised a new approach to Latin American relations, meeting with such harsh critics of the U.S. as Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. 

Cuba was a hot topic, as Obama recently loosened travel and remittances restrictions for Cuban Americans. ”The policy that we’ve had in place for 50 years hasn’t worked the way we want it to. The Cuban people are not free,” Obama said at the close of the summit on Sunday. 

Worldfocus editorial consultant Peter Eisner, the former deputy foreign editor of the Washington Post, puts Obama’s position on Cuba in context. 

No question about it: President Barack Obama brought his A-game to the Trinidad summit of Western Hemisphere leaders over the weekend and upstaged potential efforts to embarrass and castigate the United States over its 50-year embargo against Cuba.

The president was warm to overtures by Cuban President Raul Castro and held out the possibility for real changes; he also disarmed Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, by sprinting across the dance floor to break the ice. As in Europe, as in Mexico, President Obama also talked about a new beginning and said that the United States has made its share of mistakes.

The question is: How soon will action follow all the words?

Antonio Caño of the Madrid newspaper, El País, saw little more than “handshaking and good intentions.” Even that was an accomplishment, he said, compared to disastrous, confrontational meetings during the Bush era. However, he said, the good intentions “will be erased from memory quickly if no there are no quick, recognizable results.”

President Obama’s position on Cuba has to be viewed in context. So far, he’s done little more than roll back restrictions imposed by George W. Bush that limited the ability of Cuban-Americans to visit Cuba or send money to family members. Obama has opened the possibility of licensing telecommunications contacts with Cuba.

In fact, the president hasn’t completely rewound U.S.-Cuban relations to where they had been before the Bush years. It doesn’t take an act of Congress, for example, to quietly resume bilateral talks with Cuba. The president has not reinstated periodic meetings with Cuba as part of a 1995 migration agreement. The meetings, halted by Bush, grew out of decades of periodic chaos caused by Cuban refugees fleeing the island –- sometimes meeting death in the treacherous Florida Straits.

Phillip Brenner, a professor at American University who specializes on Cuban-U.S. relations, told me U.S. overtures so far “will move the two countries towards a normal relationship only a little.”

“Cuban officials rightly view President Obama’s decision as signifying nothing more than fulfillment of a campaign promise to Cuban-Americans.”

He said the U.S. plan on telecommunications with Cuba “was couched in the same language the United States has used for fifty years. They are intended to bring ‘freedom’ to Cubans, which Cuban officials see as code for ‘regime change.’ ”

President Obama has enough problems as he deals with the ongoing economic crisis, and the dire problems of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Certain to face conservative ire, including a vocal minority in Congress, how much Cuban political capital is the president willing to spend?

- Peter Eisner

Photo courtesy of Flickr user El_Enigma under a Creative Commons license.

Venezuelans recently voted for a referendum to end term limits, which could potentially extend President Hugo Chávez’s term indefinitely.

Chávez is a darling of news headlines worldwide with his colorful, often anti-American rhetoric and socialist agenda, but Worldfocus’ online radio show looked at what the headlines miss:

• What do the Venezuelans who elected him want?
• Why has trade with China, Russia and Iran has expanded across Latin America? Has the U.S. “neglected” Latin America?
• Is Latin America swaying left with elections of seemingly leftist and socialist leaders, like Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Evo Morales in Bolivia?

Worldfocus’ weekly radio show examined the hype of Hugo Chávez and the expectations of the Venezuelans who elected him. The program surveyed the political players in Latin America and explored the social and political movements from the ground up.  Our panel also discussed the Obama administration and the U.S.’s role in Latin America’s future.

Credits:
Host: Martin Savidge
Producers: Lisa Biagiotti, Katie Combs and Stephen Puschel

Worldfocus anchor Martin Savidge hosted a panel of guests:

Charlie Devereux is a correspondent based in Venezuela for GlobalPost. Born and raised in Panama, he has traveled throughout Latin America. Charlie’s work has appeared in the Daily Telegraph, CNN International, the Sunday Telegraph, the San Francisco Chronicle and openDemocracy.

Sujatha Fernandes is an assistant professor of sociology at Queens College, City University of New York. She spent 9 months living and carrying out field research in a popular barrio of Caracas during the presidency of Hugo Chávez. Her book, “In the Spirit of Negro Primero: Urban Social Movements in Chávez’s Venezuela,” will be published by Duke University Press in Spring 2010.

Tony Spanakos is an assistant professor of political science and law at Montclair State University specializing in comparative politics, political economy, democratization and Latin America. He co-edited the book “Reforming Brazil” and is a two-time Fulbright scholar, most recently researching the reception of economic policy in different communities in Venezuela. He conducted this research while living in Caracas between January and August of 2008.

Venezuela had rejected a similar measure about 15 months ago.

Moisés Naím, editor of Foreign Policy and a former minister of trade and industry in Venezuela before Chávez came to power, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the possibility of Chávez getting re-elected when his current term is up in 2013, how oil prices will impact the election and how the Obama administration should deal with Chávez.

Below, read what bloggers in Venezuela had to say about the referendum and the country’s future.

A blogger at “Caracas Chronicles” describes the scene at one polling station:

We’re leaving the polling center. Tibi gave the results and Chavez is shouting the national anthem on the radio. Everyone is in a commotion because a motorcyclist has just been shot in the head and killed near this polling station. His name was Ismael and it seems many people knew him.

Before I left, I told one of the Chavista, member of the mesa, that I was afraid that today we gave a blank check and too much power to a single guy, and that they day they wanted to change presidents it could be too late. Her reply: “el pueblo es sabio y paciente, nosotros sabremos pasar factura”. I sure hope so.

Blogger “Daniel” in Venezuela voices his disappointment with the results:

Venezuela has voted for an unacceptable type of politics. As such it has proven that a large majority of its people does not believe in democracy [...] The novelty tonight is that as of now this is a permanent chasm, a profound division of the country that cannot be solved through democracy alone.

[...]The soft language of the opposition that “we agree with Chavez social programs but we can run them better” is never going to work. Today it has reached its limit.

Blogger “Julia” in Caracas strikes a more resigned tone:

The nasty purple finger confirms that I already voted, a few hours ago to be exact. I “voted” on some “elections” I never asked for, in front of an Electoral Institution I do not trust. But it is done.

The retiring Central Intelligence Agency chief said last week the drug violence in Mexico could pose a bigger problem for President Obama than Iraq. Another report by the U.S. military says Mexico is at risk of “sudden collapse.” 

Meanwhile, Cuban President Raul Castro has expressed an interest in working with President Obama — while Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Monday that the new Obama administration already has what he called the “stench” of the Bush administration.

Shannon O’Neil, a specialist on Latin America at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how President Obama might tackle Mexican drug violence and relations with Cuba and Venezuela.

Read more about world reactions to Obama’s inauguration: The world watches as President Obama takes office.

Nikolas Kozloff, the author of “Revolution, South America and the Rise of the New Left,” speaks with Martin Savidge about the importance of Medvedev’s visit and how it affects the U.S. and other countries in the western hemisphere.

Shannon O’Neil, a specialist on Latin America at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss Chávez’s position, joint naval exercises between Russia and Venezuela and Obama’s approach to Venezuela going forward.

Sara Llana Miller of The Christian Science Monitor was in Caracas for the elections and speaks to Martin Savidge about the Venezuelan reaction.

People wait in line to vote in Sunday’s local elections in Venezuela.

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez claims the results of Sunday’s state and local elections are a validation of his socialist policies, as his supporters held on to governors’ posts in 17 of Venezuela’s 23 states.

However, Chávez’s opponents won in five states and in the two biggest cities, making gains.

Bloggers in Venezuela and around the world weigh in about the elections and the future of Venezuela after “23n” — the tag used to designate election coverage online (based on the date of the Sunday elections).

Hector Palacios at ”Rayas y Palabras” posts videos from an online campaign that encouraged Venezuelans to talk about the elections using citizen media.

Twitter users in Venezuela and elsewhere post snippets about “23n,” and Flickr users post “23n” images.

A software developer at the “Venezuela and Europe” blog writes about election technology in Venezuela and incidences of corruption.

Blogger “Daniel” live blogs from Caracas, describing long lines and confusing voting procedures. In the aftermath, he expresses happiness about the opposition’s gains.

A blogger at Salon.com’s “Devil’s Excrement” blog says the gains are “about the right amount,” hoping that Chávez will be in power and in place to shoulder the blame as the economic crisis hits.

The “Caracas Chronicles” blog writes about significant implications of the elections, including Venezuela’s urban/rural divide, potential changes for the oil industry and new opposition leaders in Caracas. The blogger also posts a final electoral map.

The opposition movement has capitalized on rising inflation and accusations of corruption. Chávez is expected to seek approval to abolish presidential term limits, which would enable a 2012 run.

Photos courtesy of Flickr user LuisCarlos Diaz and M@fe under a Creative Commons license.

Shannon O’Neil, a specialist on Latin America at the Council on Foreign Relations, speaks with Martin Savidge about Obama’s position on Cuba, the future of relations with Cuba and Venezuela and major trade issues that are currently under review in Congress.

A billboard in Havana, Cuba features the likeness of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez and proclaims “We will make the dream of Bolívar and Martí a reality.” Venezuelan Simón Bolívar and Cuban José Martí were 19th century leaders.

This week, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez welcomes over 200 intellectuals from 66 countries to an international forum called the World Meeting of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Humanity.

Intellectuals from Europe, North America, the Middle East and Latin America will discuss the social and political movements in their nations, including gender equality, media, democracy and socialism.

Chavez recently landed from his annual world tour, which stopped off in Cuba, China, Russia, Portugal and France.

According to Chavez, the purpose of the world tour was to build international relationships and sign exchange and cooperation deals on economic, social and cultural matters.

As Chavez made his rounds in Asia and Europe, a Russian warship set sail for Venezuela. The warship is scheduled to arrive in Venezuela next month to participate in joint military exercises.

Below is a map of Hugo Chavez’s recent travels — detailing his growing international interests and ties to foreign nations.

Click on START to begin, and CLICK on each plane to fly to Chavez’s next destination.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user svet under a Creative Commons license.

Follow Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez as he travels the world.

Explore his growing international interests and ties to foreign nations. /files/2008/10/th_venezuela_chavezcuba.jpg ]]> http://worldfocus.org/blog/2008/10/14/where-in-the-world-is-hugo-chavez/1835/feed/ http://worldfocus.org/blog/2008/09/23/venezuelan-president-hugo-chavez-visits-china/1365/ http://worldfocus.org/blog/2008/09/23/venezuelan-president-hugo-chavez-visits-china/1365/#comments Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:44:24 +0000 Worldfocus http://worldfocus.org/?p=1365 While many of the world’s leaders are meeting at the United Nations, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made his way to China. Shannon O’Neil, a Latin American specialist with the Council on Foreign Relations, speaks with Martin Savidge about the significance of Chavez’s visit to China and his domestic problems in Venezuela.

Shannon O’Neil, a Latin American specialist from the Council on Foreign Relations, discusses Chavez’s relationship at home and abroad. /files/2008/09/th_vid_intvshannon.jpg /files/2008/09/th_vid_intvshannon.jpg ]]>

To discuss Russia’s standing in the world and the future of the Russian economy, Martin Savidge interviews Vladimir Lensky, New York-based correspondent for Russia’s Channel One Television and Sergei Shestakov, a former Soviet foreign minister official, now with Russian International TV, which serves Russian immigrant communities around the world.

International attention turns again to Venezuela’s controversial President Chavez, but the accounts circulated around the world don’t always provide perspectives from Chavez advocates or even the citizens of Venezuela.

There are individuals, groups and governments who protest the media representation of Venezuela as unfair. For example, Samuel Grove writes about how The Guardian misrepresents Venezuela.

Steve Brouwer lives in Venezuela and writes the blog “Venezuela Notes,” dedicated to dispelling misinformation about the “peaceful revolution.” In a specific post, Brouwer describes how the “booming” Venezuelan economy has transformed the village of Monte Carmelo.

Other bloggers do not support the Chavez government and its evolution. Daniel of “Daniel-Venezuela” chronicles the “slow descent into authoritarianism, the slow erosion of our liberties, the takeover of the country by a military caste…”

Venezuela: Chavez aims at Africa

Hugo Chavez announced his intention in creating political bases in African soil. Arriving in South Africa for an official visit, Chavez said that he aims at “creating political and legal bases to antecipate bilateral cooperation”. Chavez added to his comment that his goal is to “spread the basis for South-South cooperation in the beginning of the 21^st century”. To Chavez, South America is heading towards a “new independence” from neoliberal and imperial forces.

In his evaluation, there is in Africa a renewal movement that seeks paths of sovereignty to its people. He believes that the Bank of the South must not be restrained only to South America, but to Africa and Asia as well.

We can deduce from past behaviour that Chavez is again focusing on his foreign policy instead of domestic policy. His new laws that approved many bills that have been rejected by popular referendum last year, caused some internal problem to him. He will step on the brakes for a while (domestically) preparing the terrain for the municipal elections in November. Until then he will oscillate high foreign profile with low domestic profile.

To read more, visit the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Associated thumbnail courtesy of Flickr user Que Comunismo under a Creative Commons license.