In the comment thread to my post regarding the presidential endorsements of Joe Lieberman, Colin Powell and London mayor Boris Johnson, a debate ensued over whether “Red Ken” Livingstone, former mayor of London, was correct in signing a deal wth Chavez giving cheap oil to London– the result of which was that, among other things, under-12-year-olds could ride London transit for free and others could ride half-price. As a former Londoner myself, I took great interest in these events when they first occurred, but they’ve been out of the news since Boris Johnson defeated Livingstone last May as London mayor. Johnson got rid of the Venezuelan subsidies almost immediately.
My commenter Marc lives in London and said that he appreciated the subsidies and wished Johnson had kept them; while I agree that they could be helpful to some Londoners, I maintain that the average Venezuelan is a lot poorer than even the poorest Londoner and Venezuela needs to help its own befere giving away handouts to others. Chavez was quite plainly and obviously trying to gain a better international image for himself and willing to use his people’s money to do it, and his various giveaways were not popular with his people back home.
Here is news out a few days ago which indicates that Chavez does, in fact, need to worry less about 11-year-olds being able to take buses in London and more worried about providing basic services to his own people with their country’s oil windfall.
Despite having some of the world’s largest energy reserves, Venezuela is increasingly struggling to maintain basic electrical service, a growing challenge for leftist President Hugo Chavez.
The OPEC nation has suffered three nationwide blackouts this year, and chronic power shortages have sparked protests from the western Andean highlands to San Felix, a city of mostly poor industrial workers in the sweltering south.
Shoddy electrical service is now one of Venezuelans’ top concerns, according to a recent poll, and may be a factor in elections next month for governors and mayors in which Chavez allies are expected to lose key posts, in part on complaints of poor services.
The problem suggests that Chavez, with his ambitious international alliances and promises to end capitalism, risks alienating supporters by failing to focus on basic issues like electricity, trash collection and law enforcement.
‘With so much energy in Venezuela, how can we be without power?’ asked Fernando Aponte, 49, whose slum neighborhood of Las Delicias in San Felix spent 15 days without electricity — leading him to block a nearby avenue with burning tires in protest.
Just next door, Carmen Fernandez, 82, who is blind and has a pacemaker, says she has trouble sleeping through sultry nights without even a fan to cool her.”
Londoners may not have as many free rides on the Tube or discounted Oyster cards, but at least they have access to electricity. Not to mention electricity to power the Tube.
venezuela has been in poverty for a long time, chavez is changing things, which has been difficult considering the malign view of the bush administration to an openly communist country right on their doorstep. to quote red ken himself:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, Livingstone said that Chavez had been responsible for significant social reforms and called him ‘the best news out of Latin America in many years.’
Dismissing human rights groups’ concerns about Venezuela’s treatment of political opponents, Livingstone said: ‘He’s won 10 elections for his party in the last decade and he’s pushed through a whole programme of social reform.
‘Venezuela was like a lot of those old Latin American countries – a small elite of super-rich families who basically stole the national resources. He’s now driven a new economic order through, you’ve got for the first time healthcare for poor people, illiteracy has been eradicated.’
and….
“‘The reason he [Chavez] wants to come to London is because clearly, as the Latin American economies really begin to emerge from the American shadow and grow, they don’t want all their eggs in the Washington basket,’ Livingstone contended. ‘They’re looking for allies in Europe and Asia and it’s very much in London’s interests that as Venezuela’s companies go, they should see London as a natural home every bit as much as Madrid.’”
the oil deal was as much about ending america’s hegnomy (which is why so much bile is directed at chavez in the “rightist” newspapers you quote) as it is helping londoners.
marc
October 29th, 2008
my biggest problem with ken though, is the de menzenes shooting, and him backing ian blair. if it hadn’t of been for that, i’d have voted for him, plain and simple. he’s certainly closer to my views than boris is.
marc
October 29th, 2008
The Economist is actually quite a socialist rag these days, as opposed to rightist. It even endorsed Hillary Clinton. It has been leaning that way since the new editor, Mickelthwait, took over.
There’s a difference between what amounts to short-term social reform in a country that has natural resources like oil (spreading that wealth around to everyone) vs. creating a sustainable infrastructure for lasting social reform, in creating jobs and allowing people to begin businesses that will employ people for decades to come. When oil goes down in price, runs out, or doesn’t attract infrastructure investment due to fears of nationalization, Chavez’s reforms have no means of sustaining themselves. They’re simply handouts based on current riches, rather than a format for creating future prosperity in the country.
Of course Venezuela should pursue friendships with countries worldwide; it shouldn’t have to give out handouts to do so, though. I think the same about the United States.
The shooting was very unfortunate and badly handled all around. It is a symptom of Britain’s loss of civil liberties and government accountability overall, in my opinion.
libertariangirl
November 30th, 2008