Anything Hugo Can Do, Evo Can Do Better

The president of Bolivia brings the crazy again:

Evo Morales has claimed that both homosexuality and baldness can be caused by the humble chicken.

Speaking at an environmental conference on Tuesday, Morales said chicken producers injected fowl with female hormones and insisted that "when men eat those chickens they experience deviances in being men". ...

Morales's theories do not appear to have been immediately accepted by the scientific community, to put it mildly, and have been criticised by Spain's National Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals, which sent a letter of protest to the Bolivian embassy in Madrid describing the president's remarks as homophobic.

Seriously, what's with these guys? Is there some competition for best crazy talk by quasi-authoritarian that I'm not aware of? Chavez thinks the Haiti earthquake was purposefully caused by a U.S. military experiment and likens Twitter users to terrorists. Ahmadinejad thinks there are no homosexuals in Iran (what... they don't eat chicken there?), which of course inspired the classic video above.

Come on, guys. At least try to act sane.

Chavez is a BLOGGER!

Joshua Keating over at FP informs us that Hugito will be joining the blogosphere:

While his media-savvy is undeniable, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has never been the most tech-savvy of leaders. He has equated Twitter users with terrorists and threatened to impose controls on Internet content. But apparently not satisfied with his weekly TV broadcast or his radio-show that can air at any time of day, Chavez has apparently decided he needs a beachhead in the blogosphere:

He said a computer is being set up in a room of the presidential palace of Miraflores--and from it he would directly inform the public on who he is meeting with, what legislation he's signing, and other presidential matters.

"I'll be communicating with millions, and not just in Venezuela, but the whole world," Chavez said, who didn't provide any possible start-up dates for the blog.

Chavez said he also would use the blog to respond to comments and questions from readers, both supporters as well as those opposed to him. "It's going to be a battle, indeed," Chavez said.

I can't wait for Chavez to start going nuts on imperialists online. I'll definitely keep you all posted once he starts.

Just How Socialist Is Latin America?

Is there a "centrist-socialist" category? Greg Weeks reports:

Yet even in countries that are supposedly Hugo Chávez satellites, such as Ecuador, 35 percent approve of U.S. leadership, and 33 percent of Venezuelan leadership. On the flip side, despite all the talk of a rightward tilt, 22 percent of Chileans approve of Venezuelan leadership. And 35 percent of Venezuelans even approve of U.S. leadership!

So we end up with the unsurprising conclusion that in the aggregate, Latin Americans very often want the state involved in the economy and, like most people in the United States, do not simply want free market capitalism. But the Venezuelan model does not necessarily appeal to them.

Has anybody contrasted political attitudes in Latin America to those in other regions like Europe? How much is this effect is a product of diffusion? It seems like there are quite a lot of interesting research questions raised by these two questions. I'm sure some of them already have answers, but my knowledge of the Latin American literature is sparse in the best of times. If anybody knows of related material, please post it in the comments.

Chavez: U.S. Purposefully Caused Haiti Earthquake (and a lesson in overcoming bias)

No joke:

Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez Wednesday accused the United States of causing the destruction in Haiti by testing a 'tectonic weapon' to induce the catastrophic earthquake that hit the country last week.

President Chavez said the US was "playing God" by testing devices capable of creating eco-type catastrophes, the Spanish newspaper ABC quoted him as saying.

Evo Morales was only slightly more sane, calling US relief efforts a "gringo military occupation":

President Evo Morales said Wednesday that Bolivia would seek U.N. condemnation of what he called the U.S. military occupation of earthquake-stricken Haiti. "The United States cannot use a natural disaster to militarily occupy Haiti," he told reporters at the presidential palace.

"Haiti doesn't need more blood," Morales added, implying that the militarized U.S. humanitarian mission could lead to bloodshed. His criticism echoed that of fellow leftist, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who said Sunday that "it appears the gringos are militarily occupying Haiti."

Robert Farley adds comment:

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that Chavez' comment is substantially stupider than Pat Robertson's, if only because I suspect that God actually could cause an earthquake in Haiti if He so desired. I suppose we could debate the point, but I also find God's motivation (get back at the Haitians for their Satanic proclivities) considerably more plausible than that which Chavez and Morales attribute to the United States; the single last thing that anyone in the Pentagon wants to do right now is devote more troops and treasure to Haiti...

I'm with him, even though I'm an unbeliever. Robertson's quip is eminently more sensible than Chavez's (although I can understand Morales' skepticism of the U.S.'s intentions given our history in Haiti).

Chavez, Morales, and Robertson are interpreting current events through their ideological prisms. Their presuppositions are absurd, so this predictably leads to bias, and these biases lead to borderline-insane statements. Farley is right to poke fun at their expense.

Unfortunately, Farley's co-blogger Charli Carpenter recently made a similar -- though much less egregious -- mistake when she referred to the Haiti earthquake as a "climate disaster". I took umbrage in comments to that post, and she responded by posting this link as evidence that the Haiti disaster could have been related to climate change. But what does the author of that post conclude about the likelihood that the Haiti earthquake was caused by climate change?

Who knows.

I don't mean to pick on Carpenter, who is one of my favorite bloggers and who provides a unique and vital voice to the blogosphere generally and the IR blogging community specifically. I know that I regularly make the same mistakes in bigger ways. And her broader point -- that the U.S. and international community don't have a coherent disaster-response program, much less standards for infrastructure development -- is certainly well-taken.

But framing matters, and framing crises like the one in Haiti as a climate disaster can be counter-productive. Even people who acknowledge the reality of global warming can be skeptical that every natural disaster is a result of these processes, so claiming any particular crisis is a result of climate change can come across as opportunistic. That turns people off, as it did when similarly dubious claims were made about Hurricane Katrina. The fact is that no one can know, nor could they prove, that the Haitian earthquake or Hurricane Katrina was caused by climate change, and such needless spinning-of-wheels distracts from what's really important: improving and institutionalizing emergency responses to disasters, and improving global infrastructure so that the effects of disasters are not as extreme.

If it's counter-productive when Chavez or Morales or Robertson do it, it's no more productive when we do it. So let's not.

UPDATE: I can't believe it, but Chavez has just jumped his own shark:

In a recent speech against capitalism (South Americans must never get tired of them) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez lambasted Playstation videogames because they encouraged violence, which is, uncoincidentally, just what capitalism wants. According to the babelfish translation of the spanish language article, Chavez warned that:

In those electronic warlike games “cities are bombed, pumps are thrown”, and are promoted by “Capitalism” to seed the culture of the “violence” that, is saying, guarantees that soon it can “sell arms”.

I’m going to assume that “pumps are thrown” is not a mistranslation, but rather some strange Venezuelan violence phenomenon. The best part of the article though is the picture juxtaposing it

Click the link for the pic; it's well worth it. When Hugo Chavez and Tipper Gore agree on something, you know it's wrong.

Not a Good Trend

The above picture is worth a thousand words, but here's some more:

Despite alot of incendiary rhetoric from the Chavez regime over the years, The United States secures alot of its just-in-time supply from Venezuela. (I’m not convinced that the power outages in the country’s grid will actually get the price of oil to 100 just yet). However, it’s instructive that along with geological declines in Mexico, hemispheric supply to the United States remains on a well-established downward path. It appears that Chavez is about to achieve dysfunctional petrostate status for Venezuela.

Via Felix Salmon.

Lessons in Bad Governance

Brad DeLong says "Electricity shortages in a country whose sole export is energy are truly a miraculous thing. It takes a very special government to produce them."

Which government do you think he's referring to? It could only be one:

This country may be an energy colossus, with the largest conventional oil reserves outside the Middle East and one of the world’s mightiest hydroelectric systems, but that has not prevented it from enduring serious electricity and water shortages that seem only to be getting worse. ...

“We’re paying for the mistakes of this president and his incompetent managers,” said Aixa López, 39, president of the Committee of Blackout Victims, which has organized protests in several cities. In some cities, protesters have left household appliances on the steps of state electricity companies.

In response, the president is embarking on his own crusade: pushing Venezuelans to conserve by mocking their consumption habits.

He began his critique last month with the amount of time citizens spent under their shower heads, saying three-minute showers were sufficient. “I’ve counted and I don’t end up stinking,” he said. “I guarantee it.”

Then he went after the country’s ubiquitous love motels and shopping malls, accusing them of waste. “Buy your own generator,” he threatened, “or I’ll cut off your lights.” He similarly laid blame with “oligarchs,” a frequently used insult here for the rich, for overconsumption of water in gardens and swimming pools.

Mr. Chávez is even going after his countrymen’s expanding waistlines. “Watch out for the fat people,” he said last month, citing a study finding a jump in obesity. “Time to lose weight through dieting and exercise.”

Blaming the fat people for an electricity shortage? Even by Chavez's standards, that's pretty crazy. So what are the real reasons?

They said the president encouraged consumption with a 2002 decree freezing electricity and other utility rates. A time-zone change by Mr. Chávez in 2007 that turned clocks back half an hour also led consumption to climb (the sun sets earlier here than before). ...

Most significant, though, may be the government’s failure to use its immense natural gas reserves, the second largest in the Western Hemisphere after those of the United States, to fuel existing power plants.

And so the downward spiral continues.

Is Chavez Losing His Grip?

Chavez's popularity is dropping. Why, you ask?

Hugo Chavez's support has declined in the polls as many Venezuelans say they are fed up with 27 percent inflation, a stagnant economy, faulty public services - and a government they see as incapable of doing much about it.

Despite that, Chavez still has a 53% approval rating, and just won a new mandate in February. And he is still the most popular politician in Venezuela, and he intends to keep it that way:

Yet Chavez still faces no strong political opponents with anywhere near as much support. To win back popularity, Chavez is likely to boost public spending in the coming months, especially on visible projects like fixing up hospitals and stocking state-run markets with subsidized food.

Chavez's mismanagement of the economy and state bureaucracy hasn't hurt him more because he is able to place blame for the poor economy on external enemies (i.e. the U.S.), and claim that he is working for the poor in Venezuela. And he has expanded access to education and health care.

Perhaps more importantly, Chavez has been able to consolidate power in the government while his opposition remains fractured and divided. None of Chavez's potential challengers are perceived as being viable to a majority of Venezuelans, and Chavez can always denounce dissident movements as extensions of U.S. imperialism.

So Chavez stays in power despite the fact that Venezuela is in a downward spiral and is likely to remain so unless oil prices spike again.

"Back to the Future?"

In a world in which the prevailing trend is to bend over backward to attract foreign direct investment, Hugo Chavez works across the grain by nationalizing the last privately-managed oil field in Venezuela. "The companies ceding control included BP PLC, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., France's Total SA and Norway's Statoil ASA. All but ConocoPhillips signed agreements last week agreeing in principle to state control, and ConocoPhillips said Tuesday that it too was cooperating."

One must wonder what impact this will have on Venezuelan oil output. According to the IHT, "Multinationals pumping oil elsewhere in Venezuela submitted to state-controlled joint ventures last year because they were reluctant to abandon the profitable operations...Since those takeovers, Venezuela's overall output has declined by close to 4 percent, or 100,000 barrels a day, with some companies complaining they have not been paid for the crude they have been pumping. "I expect to see a repeat of that in the Orinoco," he said.

One must also wonder about the underlying motivations--is Chavez is really in this to help the poor, or to help himself?