Hugo Chavez is the popular president of Venezuela.In 2002, the United States supported a militarycoup to remove him. It failed. In 2004, Venezuelaheld a referendum on Chavez’s presidency. In anelection monitored by and certified as fair byformer U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Chavez won anoverwhelming vote of confidence from theVenezuelan people.

Recently, Reuters reportedthat a bipartisan delegation of U.S. legislatorsmet Condoleezza Rice before she became secretaryof state to urge her to reach out to Chavez. Ricerefused saying, “We just don’t like him.”

Late last month, TV evangelist Pat Robertson called forChavez’s assassination. Chavez claims thatRobertson’s view represents that of the U.S. right-wing élite, and given the muted condemnation ofRobertson’s statement from the White House, andRice’s earlier statement, one can safely assumethat in fact the current U.S. administration doesshare Robertson’s view.

One must wonder what would have happened to anordinary opponent of President Bush had they calledfor the assassination of Tony Blair or Queen Elizabeth.No doubt the Patriot Act would have been used todisappear them into a black hole where, like anumber of others, they would be held in isolationin violation of basic principles of the U.S.Constitution.

So, why don’t the Bush Administration and theright-wing extremists and religious fanatics inthe U.S. like Hugo Chavez? Venezuela, after all,supplies the U.S. with 12 per cent of its imported oil andsits on top of the eighth largest known oil fieldin the world.

Oil is the problem — not thatVenezuela has it, but what Hugo Chavez does withit. Rather than gratuitously fatten the profitmargins of the international oil companies, theVenezuelan government under Chavez extracts highertaxes and fees from those companies, and plowsthat money back into the people of Venezuela. Hefacilitates the formation of grassrootsorganizations and worker cooperatives amongstVenezuela’s poor.

He has increased the minimum wage from about $25per week to about $40 per week, and raisedpersonal income taxes up to a rate of 10-15 per cent. Hehas established food programs to feed the poor andtraded oil to Cuba for doctors and teachers whoprovide free health care to the poor and enhancededucational opportunities. He has used oil wealthto increase public works in order to provide morejobs for Venezuelans.

Imagine, using national resources to improve thenational society and raise living standards forthe poorest citizens. Imagine increasing accessto education, health care and affordable food. Itflies in the face of modern, corporate capitalismand the demand for ever lower costs for resourcesand labour.

And, as far as the U.S. and itscorporate sponsors are concerned, it sets a badexample for the rest of Latin America. Imagine ifChavez’s programs of redirecting wealth to thepeople of the countries where it is producedrather than letting it be sucked out by foreigninvestors should catch on. That is the other partof the problem.

Chavez has named his political and socialphilosophy Bolivarianism and is pursuing aBolivarian Revolution, not just for Venezuela butfor most of South America. The name comes fromthat of Simon Bolivar who liberated what are nowPeru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Columbia and Venezuelafrom Spain in the early 19th Century. In thiscentury Chavez is providing support to populistmovements in neighbouring countries, a moveclearly designed to spread his Bolivarianphilosophy throughout the South Americancontinent.

He is making oil deals with Brazil andArgentina and advocating Latin American militaryand trade alliances to challenge the power of theU.S. in the region. Venezuela, too, is the majorpartner in a Latin American satellite televisionnetwork, Telesur, along with Argentina, Cuba andUruguay, which will provide a counter point to themessages broadcast to South America by U.S. networkslike CNN.

Chavez is plainly becoming a regionalleader in an area long dominated by U.S. influence andinterference. Like Simon Bolivar before him, whochallenged the rule of the Spanish, Chavez hasbecome a challenge in the region to the power ofthe United States.

Perhaps Hugo Chavez has a lesson for Canada. LikeVenezuela, Canada is a major petroleum producer.Maybe Canada should be increasing its nationalrevenue from that resource and directing it toimproved social security. Like Latin America,Canada is getting the dirty end of the stick in itstrade relations with the U.S. Perhaps Canada shouldbe making a greater effort to diversify itstrading patterns with less reliance on U.S. markets.

And, like Latin America Canada might want to startlooking to increase its security alliances withnations other than the U.S. in order to insulateitself more from the power and influence of acountry whose policies are veering away from thoseacceptable to most Canadians.