Venezuelan Politics DA
***Neg
1NC Shell
Maduro against US imperialism-takes a pragmatic approach to improving relations
with the BRIC countries – Plan will be perceived as a flip-flop, tanking his
credibility.
BBC News 13 [“Profile: Nicolas Maduro,” BBC News, Online, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20664349, accessed
7/11/13]
As someone who occupied the centre ground among the senior figures in Mr Chavez's powerbase, analysts say he may be able to hold together
the various factions such as the military and those groups more ideologically driven. Mr
Maduro's long-standing
connection with Cuba - where he trained as a union organiser in his youth - is also seen as
being to his advantage. As Venezuelan foreign minister, Mr Maduro followed the Chavez line to seek
openly the "construction of a multipolar world free from the hegemony of 'American
imperialism'," analyst Carlos Luna told the BBC. Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores (30 March 2013) His wife, Cilia Flores, is a
prominent lawyer who used to be part of Mr Chavez's defence team In that role, Mr Maduro was the country's top diplomat as tensions rose with
the United States and ties grew with Cuba. Hours before he announced the president's death, he rounded on his country's enemies, accusing the
US of plotting against Venezuela and revealing the expulsion of a US air force attache. Unsurprisingly, Mr Maduro was also instrumental when it
came to forging relationships beyond Latin America's borders with governments critical of the US. Venezuela
now counts
among its allies Belarus, China, Iran and Russia, as well as Syria's Bashar al-Assad, and
previously Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. But Mr Maduro has also been described as a pragmatist, whose
achievements include a turnaround in long-strained relations with Colombia. There have been
moments, however, when Mr Maduro has lost his apparent calm, such as when he called US Secretary of State John Negroponte in 2008 a "petty
bureaucrat" who - he said - was trying to bring violence to the region.
Maduro’s legitimacy already under question—any further questioning and Maduro
will be removed from office
Lees 13 (writer for The Atlantic) [Kevin, “If He Holds on to Victory, Maduro Will Have an Extremely Hard Job ,“
The Atlantic, Online, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/if-he-holds-on-to-victory-madurowill-have-an-extremely-hard-job/274984/, accessed 7/11/13]
CARACAS, Venezuela -- During
the 10-day presidential campaign to determine who will fill out the rest of late president
threatened that the "curse of Maracapana"
would fall on those Venezuelan voters who failed to support Maduro. (The name of the curse comes from
a battle in which Spanish conquistadors defeated indigenous Caribbean tribes in the late 1560s.) But the curse is now on
Maduro. Despite a flowery and defiant victory speech late Sunday night after Venezuela's National
Election Commission declared him the winner with just 50.66 percent of the vote to 49.17
percent for his aggressive challenger Henrique Capriles, Maduro's tenure in office, whether it
lasts six days or six years, will be haunted with the doubt of half the nation's voters. Maduro is a bland
apparatchik whose legitimacy, so long as he remains president, will forever be challenged by his narrow
victory. In the short term, he faces an immediate crisis over the audit of election results that could
further delegitimize his victory. Capriles defiantly refused to accept Sunday's election results in an early morning address to
the nation. Wielding a thick stack of alleged election day violations, Capriles demanded a recount of 100 percent of
the votes. While he stopped short of declaring victory himself, he ominously noted that his campaign had a different count of the results.
Venezuela's army made clear last night that it was siding with Maduro for now, but that could
change if the audit doesn't line up with the election commission's declarations. Maduro was
Hugo Chávez's six-year term, his anointed successor Nicolás Maduro
always going to face an economic crisis in the long run. But now, just five weeks after Chávez's death, Maduro faces a governability crisis as
well. If his election is upheld and he serves until the end of his term in 2019, Venezuela will have marched through 20 years of chavismo.
Maduro takes office with an economy under siege -- the country has become increasingly reliant on imports; PDVSA, its state-run oil company
actually produces less oil today than it did when Chávez took office; both international finance markets and Chinese lenders seem unwilling to
fund a growing public debt; and the country is plagued with growing inflation that was already in double digits before the government officially
devalued its currency in February and a informally devalued it even more in March.
It's far from certain that Maduro is
up to the task of salvaging it all from a major economic crisis or recession. That half the
nation believes Capriles won certainly won't help matters. It will make Maduro's position
even weaker within the inner guard of the chavistas who run Venezuela's government, and
Maduro's weak victory essentially makes chavismo a lame-duck movement more than ever.
But though Venezuela seems in dire need of at least some basic changes in economic policy, Venezuela's problems run far deeper in its society
than even the most surgical reforms could fix. When the smoke clears, the deeper curse Maduro faces will come from neither Maracapana nor
Capriles, but the curse that began in 1918 with Venezuela's oil exporting prowess -- the resources curse. At first glance, Venezuela's history
makes it seem like any other South American country. Independence won in the 1810s. Check. Civil war between "conservative" and "liberal"
oligarchs throughout the 19th century. Check. Military-backed caudillos in the early 20th century. Check. Gradual advance of democracy in the
late 20th century. Check. But though Venezuela shares many of the difficulties that its neighbors have faced, it assumed an additional
macroeconomic burden as a petro-state with complications that plague Venezuelan governance to the present day. Although Chávez came to
power proclaiming a new, 'Bolivarian,' socialist fifth republic, he in many ways simply replicated what came before -- a relationship between the
government and the governed whereby Venezuela's leaders trade a slice of the country's oil wealth in exchange for the political support it needs to
win and retain power. That's why the fiercest battles over chavismo came not in 1998 when Chávez was first elected, but in 2002, when Chávez
took direct control over PDVSA. That year saw Chávez briefly fall from power for 47 hours during an aborted coup and, later, a quixotic general
strike among PDVSA employees that caused a minor recession. Chávez responded by replacing most of PDVSA's employees with loyalists and,
increasingly, has used the oil company as a direct source to disburse funds for social programs, bypassing the formal government budgeting
process. Before 1958, the system was based on the caudillismo of military leaders like Marcos Pérez Jiménez. For the next 40 years, the system
was based on a two-party oligarchy, split between the nominally center-left Democratic Action and the nominally center-right Copei. Chavismo
marked a rupture from this system in two ways. First, he diverted a larger share of Venezuela's oil wealth to the poor than ever before -- although
the deployment of those funds was never incredibly efficient, nor was it without corruption. Secondly, he flattened the system through his own
personality cult. PDVSA, the state oil company, has a stronger brand in Venezuela than the PSUV, the governing United Socialist Party. It was
It's the second part that will make Maduro's
task especially difficult. Chávez would have been a hard act for anyone to follow, but
Maduro is a bland apparatchik in contrast whose legitimacy, so long as he remains
president, will forever be challenged by his narrow victory . He ran a largely defensive
campaign, wrapping himself in Chávez's legacy. Provided that his victory is upheld, it's hardly a mandate
Chávez personally who doled out the gifts. The Democracy Report
forchavismo, let alone madurismo, but it's not at all clear whether chavismo would ever actually work without Chávez, the personal embodiment
of the latest iteration of Venezuela's petro-state clientelism. It's not at all clear whether chavismo would ever actually work without Chávez.
Maduro's weakness means it's more likely than not that Venezuela is headed for tough
times ahead, even beyond the economic turmoil. Maduro spent negligible amounts of time advocating anything more than the broadest
slogans, but the opposition refrained from calling from any radical departure from Venezuela's fundamental system, offering essentially a more
workable chavismo that retains social welfare programs, but with less crime and a better business climate. Capriles pledged in particular to end
subsidies to provide discounted oil to Cuba in exchange for somewhat dubious services from Cuban medical and technical experts. But he raced
to pledge, like Maduro, to raise the minimum wage by 40 percent, which is likely to accelerate crippling inflation in a country where even
broken-down, used cars appreciate in value. Leopoldo López ranks among the brightest young stars of the broad opposition coalition that
Capriles led in Sunday's election. López served as the mayor of Chacao, one of Caracas's five municipalities, from 2000 to 2008 at the same time
Capriles was the mayor of Baruta municipality. Like Capriles, he's tanned and trim and just barely in his forties, and he's been a visible Capriles
adviser throughout the short, frenzied campaign. Unlike Capriles, however, he is the great-great-grand nephew of the libertador of Venezuela and
much of South America, Simón Bolívar. If not for a murky administrative ruling from Chávez's government banning him from running for public
office until 2014, it may well have been López running against Maduro on Sunday, and he argued on Friday at the opposition campaign
headquarters in Caracas that Capriles's victory alone could fix much of what ails the Venezuelan economy. "One of the key issues of our
economy is expectations. If Capriles wins, the expectations of all the actors within the economy will be favorable. There will be investment, good
conditions, there will be a very different climate for the economy," López said. "Our main income, which is oil, is at $103 per barrel but we are
living an economic crisis. Why? Because the government has decided to destroy the national production." There's obviously a lot of truth to what
López says: The caprilistas would respect the private sector more than the chavistas and are much more committed to restoring business
confidence in Venezuela. A Capriles win would have restored some balance to the long-ago distorted Venezuelan democracy in a country where
state institutions, from the armed forces to what will soon be the entirety of Venezuelan television media to PDVSA, where employees wear
chavista red shirts, are lined up behind chavismo. But if Maduro's victory is somehow overturned and Capriles becomes Venezuela's next
president, he'll need a lot more than a change in expectations to put Venezuela on a firmer footing. The opposition's hopes are based on what Paul
Krugman might call the "hada de confiaza" -- a Venezuelan confidence fairy. The underlying problem of Venezuela's past, current and likely
future woes is a kind of supercharged version of the "Dutch disease" - a term coined in the 1970s to describe how the introduction of a
commodity like petroleum ripples through the economy in two destructive ways. First, the commodity can artificially boost the value of the
currency, making the exports of other industries less competitive, especially when the value of the commodity increases sharply, just as oil prices
rose sharply from historic lows in 1998 to historical highs throughout the Chávez era. Although the government has devalued the bolívar twice in
2013 already, petroleum remains the vast majority of the country's exports. Venezuela's El Nacional reported yesterday that the manufacturing
sector shrunk from 17.3 percent to 13.9 percent during the Chávez era. Secondly, and more directly, the commodity boom pulls workers from
industries, which also leaves the country's other industries relatively weaker. Perhaps more perniciously, it changes market incentives because
there's relatively less payoff from hard work, ingenuity, and building long-term industries. When wealth is bubbling out of the ground, it's simpler
just to plot a way to divert your own share of that oil wealth. The opposition's hopes are based on what Paul Krugman might call the "hada de
confiaza" -- a Venezuelan confidence fairy. That short-termism, more than socialism, rests at the heart of chavismo, and it's another reason why
the legacy of chavismo is so precarious in Maduro's hands. So many of the social welfare programs that Chávez created are based on frenetic
transfers of wealth made on Chávez's diktat, rather than through the creation of an enduring, long-term safety net. That means the greatest gains
that chavismo has been able to claim could be endangered with one economic crisis or a change in political regime. Beyond economics, the
petro-state mentality infects the state's fundamental social compact. As in oil-rich Middle Eastern countries, resource wealth skews the link
between the state and its citizens. Although Venezuelan's treasury brings in significant tax revenue, more than half of the government's budget
comes from oil revenues, and the traditional link between government and voters is turned upside down: instead of an electorate of taxpayers
holding its leaders accountable for good government, voters look support politicians who can offer the largest slice of Venezuela's oil wealth.
That's why domestic subsidies make Venezuelan gasoline prices the world's cheapest, at just six cents a gallon. That was true before and during
the Chávez era, and it will certainly be true after Chávez. What seemed like a relatively mature democratic system before Chávez was always
institutionally weaker than it looked from the outside. When former president Carlos Andrés Pérez botched an attempt to implement genuine
Maduro, like
Pérez before him, will take office after a presidential campaign largely disconnected from the
sober economic realities facing the country. But he seems unlikely to make even the
simplest reforms that could bring Venezuela's economy back from the brink of collapse, to
say nothing of its hollowed-out civil society. Capriles and his supporters now have the scent of victory -- they know that
chavismo is falling apart without the Big Man himself to make the system work, and they will likely move to recall
economic reform in 1989 after a presidential campaign of lofty promises, Venezuelans reacted with deadly rioting in Caracas.
Maduro before his term formally ends . But merely bringing down the curtain on chavismo
won't be enough to transform the fundamental misalignment that characterizes
Venezuelan governance.
Venezuelan Population is Unhappy with Election Results--Demanding a Recount
RUEDA 13 (Manuel Rueda is a writer for ABC) ABC, 4/15/2013 [“Why People Want an Election Recount in Venezuela”
Online@http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/people-full-recount-votes-venezuela/story?id=18979669#.UeGioo2kq8R
With recent news of post-election violence in Venezuela, one issue has slightly faded away from the horizon. The reason there
is a
political crisis in Venezuela at all is because a large segment of the population does not trust in the
results that were announced by election officials on Sunday. They want votes to be audited and
counted once again, and have been angered by recent declarations from government officials that no
such thing will be done.¶ The push for a full recount of votes is led by Henrique Capriles, the opposition candidate who
apparently lost on Sunday by less than 300,000 votes. Capriles justified a recount on Sunday by explaining that a counting
of votes conducted by his party's election witnesses at voting centers across the country suggested that he had won the presidency.¶ Chávez's
protégé, Nicolas Maduro, initially accepted a recount in a speech delivered on Sunday night in front of thousands of supporters, but inexplicably
changed his mind on Monday when he was declared the election's official winner by the National Electoral Council. Still, the
opposition is
pushing for a recount, with several protests taking place on Monday and Tuesday, in which people
took to the streets in different cities.
A win for Capriles would turn the case – tanks oil production
Salbuchi 13 (a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina) [Adrian, “Nicolas
Maduro won Venezuela’s elections… now what?,” RT, Online, http://rt.com/op-edge/maduro-venezuela-successortrouble-scenario-945/, accessed 7/11/13]
A clear victory for Henrique Capriles Radonski would have firmly aligned Venezuela to US interests
and policies. Its impact would have been a complete overhaul of economic policies –
deregulation, market economy, privatizations, intensified trade with the US and greater
discipline in global oil markets – together with other US and Global Power Elite-mandated
measures, least of which would have been full foreign policy re-alignment, wrenching
Venezuela away from the independent policies of Chavez with key nations like Russia, Iran
and China, and cozying up to the US, European Union and Israel. This would have been
bad for millions of Venezuelans, especially the poorer classes, particularly after seeing what
such policies have done in countries like Argentina and the weaker Southern European
nations. But US and banker billions, plus US military “advisors”, plus US corporate “investments” would have ensured “stability” for
Capriles. He would easily become another US darling in the region, similar to Alvaro Uribe and Juan Manuel Santos in Colombia, so US
propping up and support would definitely not have been lacking.
(DON’T READ THE FOLLOWING!!!-The next cards come from the Venezuelan Oil Aff. If you need more
impacts look in that file.
Venezuela industry collapse leads to price spikes
Daniel Hellinger June ‘12 (Global Security Watch—Venezuela, Pg 172, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger) KY
Oil: Despite
significant new finds of oil and gas in the hemisphere, Venezuela will remain¶ a key player
in the hemispheric and global oil market. Should Venezuelan oil be removed¶ from the world market,
the impact will be great on the global, not just the U.S. economy.¶ Conversely, though Venezuela has been
diversifying its market and sources of investment in¶ oil, being cut off from the U.S. market would be severely detrimental to its economy. The¶
reality is that the two countries continue to trade with one another. Although Venezuela¶ arguably depends more on the United States than
vice versa, access
to the Venezuelan subsoil¶ is an important factor in the global and U.S. economy.
Venezuela, with or without Chavez,¶ will seek to attract foreign capital to extractive activities in the chain of
oil production. The¶ question is, under what terms will extraction take place? Here, Venezuelan and US. inter-¶ ests are at odds, but just
as in any relationship between landed property (here exercised as¶ territorial sovereignty) and capital can be negotiated, so too can this one. As
long as Ch¶ is present, an agreement will have to be negotiated multilaterally, with OPEC involvement,¶ not bilaterally.¶
The oil market is THE Internal Link to developed economic growth – any spike in prices
will guarantee a global recession
Jeff Rubin September 23 2012 (Former chief economist and chief strategist at CIBC World Markets
Inc., is the author of “The Big Flatline: Oil and the No- Growth Economy” from which this article is an
excerpt, economic analyst for Bloomberg, M.A. in Economics; “How High Oil Prices Will Permanently Cap
Economic Growth”) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-23/how-high-oil-prices-willpermanently-cap-economic-growth.html -KY
For most of the last century, cheap oil powered global economic growth. But in the last decade, the
price of oil has quadrupled, and that shift will permanently shackle the growth potential of the
world’s economies.¶ The countries guzzling the most oil are taking the biggest hits to potential
economic growth. That’s sobering news for the U.S., which consumes almost a fifth of the oil used in the world every day.
Not long ago, when oil was $20 a barrel, the U.S. was the locomotive of global economic growth; the federal
government was running budget surpluses; the jobless rate at the beginning of the last decade was at a 40-year low. Now, growth is
stalled, the deficit is more than $1 trillion and almost 13 million Americans are unemployed.¶ And the
U.S. isn’t the only country getting squeezed. From Europe to Japan, governments are struggling to
restore growth. But the economic remedies being used are doing more harm than good, based as they are on a fundamental belief that
economic growth can return to its former strength. Central bankers and policy makers have failed to fully recognize the suffocating impact of
$100-a-barrel oil.¶ Running
huge budget deficits and keeping borrowing costs at record lows are only
compounding current problems. These policies cannot be long-term substitutes for cheap oil because an economy
can’t grow if it can no longer afford to burn the fuel on which it runs. The end of growth means governments will
need to radically change how economies are managed. Fiscal and monetary policies need to be recalibrated to account for slower potential
growth rates.¶ Energy Source¶ Oil
provides more than a third of the energy we use on the planet every day, more
than any other energy source. And you can draw a straight line between oil consumption and gross-domesticproduct growth. The more oil we burn, the faster the global economy grows. On average over the last four
decades, a 1 percent bump in world oil consumption has led to a 2 percent increase in global GDP. That means if GDP increased 4 percent a
year -- as it often did before the 2008 recession -- oil consumption was increasing by 2 percent a year.¶ At $20 a barrel, increasing annual oil
consumption by 2 percent seems reasonable enough.
At $100 a barrel, it becomes easier to see how a 2 percent
increase in fuel consumption is enough to make an economy collapse.¶ Fortunately, the reverse is also true. When
our economies stop growing, less oil is needed. For example, after the big decline in 2008, global oil demand actually fell for the first time since
1983. That’s why the best cure for high oil prices is high oil prices. When prices rise to a level that causes an economic crash, lower prices
inevitably follow. Over
the last four decades, each time oil prices have spiked, the global economy has
entered a recession.¶ Consider the first oil shock, after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, when the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ Arab members turned off the taps on roughly 8 percent of the
world’s oil supply by cutting shipments to the U.S. and other Israeli allies. Crude prices spiked, and by 1974, real GDP in the
U.S. had shrunk by 2.5 percent.¶ The second OPEC oil shock happened during Iran’s revolution and the
subsequent war with Iraq. Disruptions to Iranian production during the revolution sent crude prices higher,
pushing the North American economy into a recession for the first half of 1980. A few months later, Iran’s war with Iraq
shut off 6 percent of world oil production, sending North America into a double-dip recession that began in the spring of 1981.¶ Kuwait
Invasion¶ When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait a decade later, oil prices doubled to $40 a barrel, an unheard-of level at the time. The
first
Gulf War disrupted almost 10 percent of the world’s oil supply, sending major oil-consuming countries
into a recession in the fall of 1990.¶ Guess what oil prices were doing in 2008, when the world fell into the deepest recession since the
1930s? From trading around $30 a barrel in 2004, oil prices marched steadily higher before hitting a peak of $147 a
barrel in the summer of 2008. Unlike past oil price shocks, this time there wasn’t even a supply disruption to blame. The spigot was
wide open. The problem was, we could no longer afford to buy what was flowing through it.¶ There are many ways an oil shock can hurt an
economy. When
prices spike, most of us have little choice but to open our wallets. Paying more for oil
means we have less cash to spend on food, shelter, furniture, clothes, travel and pretty much
anything else. Expensive oil, coupled with the average American’s refusal to drive less, leaves a lot less money for the rest of the
economy.¶ Worse, when oil prices go up, so does inflation. And when inflation goes up, central banks
respond by raising interest rates to keep prices in check. From 2004 to 2006, U.S. energy inflation ran at 35 percent, according to
the Consumer Price Index. In turn, overall inflation, as measured by the CPI, accelerated from 1 percent to almost 6 percent. What happened
next was a fivefold bump in interest rates that devastated the massively leveraged U.S. housing market. Higher rates popped the speculative
housing bubble, which brought down the global economy.¶ Unfortunately, this pattern of oil-driven inflation is with us again. And world food
prices are being affected. According to the food-price index tracked by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the cost of food
rose almost 40 percent from 2009 to the beginning of 2012. And since 2002, the FAO’s food-price index, which measures a basket of five
commodity groups (meat, dairy, cereals, oils and fats, and sugar), is up about 150 percent.¶ Food Prices¶ A double whammy of rising oil and
food prices means inflation will be here sooner than anyone would like to think.¶ Rising inflation rates in China and India are a clear signal that
those economies are growing at an unsustainable pace. China
has made GDP growth of more than 8 percent a priority
but needs to recalibrate its thinking to recognize the damping effects of high oil prices. Growth might not
stall entirely, but clocking double-digit gains is no longer feasible, at least without triggering a calamitous increase in inflation. If China and
India, the new engines of global economic growth, are forced to adopt anti-inflationary monetary policies, the
ripple effects for resource-based economies such as Canada, Australia and Brazil will be felt in a hurry.¶ Tripledigit oil prices will end the lofty economic hopes of India and China, which are looking to achieve the same sort of
sustained growth that North America and Europe enjoyed in the postwar era. There is an unavoidable obstacle that puts such ambitions out of
reach: Today’s
oil isn’t flowing from the same places it did yesterday. More importantly, it’s not flowing at the same cost.¶
Conventional oil production, the easy-to-get-at stuff from the Middle East or west Texas, hasn’t increased in more than five years. And that’s
with record crude prices giving explorers all the incentive in the world to drill. According to the International Energy Agency, conventional
production has already peaked and is set to decline steadily over the next few decades.¶ That doesn’t mean there won’t be any more oil. New
reserves are being found all the time in new places. What the decline in conventional production does mean, though, is that future economic
growth will be fueled by expensive oil from nonconventional sources such as the tar sands, offshore wells in the deep waters of the world’s
oceans and even oil shales, which come with environmental costs that range from carbon-dioxide emissions to potential groundwater
contamination.¶ And even if new supplies are found, what matters to the economy is the cost of getting that supply flowing. It’s not enough for
the global energy industry simply to find new caches of oil; the crude must be affordable. Triple-digit prices make it profitable to tap ever-moreexpensive sources of oil, but the prices needed to pull this crude out of the ground will throw our economies right back into a recession.¶ The
energy industry’s task is not simply to find oil, but also to find stuff we can afford to burn. And that’s where the industry is failing. Each new
barrel we pull out of the ground is costing us more than the last. The resources may be there for the taking, but our economies are already
telling us we can’t afford the cost.¶ Today, the world burns about 90 million barrels of oil a day. If our economies are no longer growing, maybe
we won’t need any more than that. We might even need less. Maybe the oil trapped in the tar sands or under the Arctic Ocean can stay where
nature put it.
Global economic decline would result in nuclear war
Richard Heinberg April 2013 edition (American journalist and educator who has written extensively
on energy, economic, and ecological issues, including oil depletion. He is the author of ten books. He
serves as the senior fellow at the Post Carbon Institute; “Conflict and Change in the Era of Economic
Decline: Part 2: War and peace in a shrinking economy”)
http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv09n04page7.html -KY
In his expansive and widely praised book The Better Angels of Our Nature: the Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes, Pinker claims that,
in general, violence
has waned during the past few decades. He argues that this tendency has ancient roots in our shift
from peripatetic hunting and gathering to settled farming; moreover, during the past couple of centuries the trend
has greatly intensified. With the emergence of Enlightenment philosophy and its respect for the individual
came what Pinker calls the Humanitarian Revolution. Much more recently, after World War II, violence was suppressed first by
the “mutually assured destruction” policies of the two opposed nuclear-armed sides in the Cold War, and then by American global hegemony.
Pinker calls this the Long Peace. Wars
have become less frequent and less violent, and most societies have seen
what might be called a decline of tolerance for intolerance—whether manifested in schoolyard fights, bullying, or
picking on gays and minorities. But there is a problem with Pinker’s implied conclusion that global violence will
continue to decline. The Long Peace we have known since World War II may well turn out to be shorter than
hoped as world economic growth stalls and as American hegemony falters—in John Michael Greer’s words, as “the costs of
maintaining a global imperial presence soar and the profits of the imperial wealth pump slump.” Books and articles predicting the end of the
American empire are legion; while some merely point to the rise of China as a global rival, others describe the looming failure of the essential
basis of the U.S. imperial system—the global system of oil production and trade (with its petro-dollar recycling program) centered in the Middle
East. There are any number of scenarios describing how the end of empire might come, but few credible narratives explaining why it won’t.
When empires crumble, as they always do, the
result is often a free-for-all among previous subject nations and
potential rivals as they sort out power relations. The British Empire was a seeming exception to this rule: in that instance,
the locus of military, political, and economic power simply migrated to an ally across the Atlantic. A similar graceful transfer seems
unlikely in the case of the U.S., as economic decline during the 21st century will be global in scope. A better
analogy to the current case might be the fall of Rome, which led to centuries of incursions by barbarians as well as uprisings in client states.
Disaster per se need not lead to violence, as Rebecca Solnit argues in her book A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that
Arise in Disaster. She documents five disasters—the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; earthquakes in San Francisco and Mexico City; a giant ship
explosion in Halifax, Canada; and 9/11—and shows that rioting, looting, rape, and murder were not automatic results. Instead, for the most
part, people pulled together, shared what resources they had, cared for the victims, and in many instances found new sources of joy in
everyday life. However, the kinds of social stresses we are discussing now may differ from the disasters Solnit surveys, in that they comprise a
“long emergency,” to borrow James Kunstler’s durable phrase. For every heartwarming anecdote about the convergence of rescuers and
caregivers on a disaster site, there is a grim historic tale of resource competition turning normal people into monsters. In the current context,
a continuing source of concern must be the large number of nuclear weapons now scattered among
nine nations. While these weapons primarily exist as a deterrent to military aggression, and while the end of the Cold War has arguably
reduced the likelihood of a massive release of these weapons in an apocalyptic fury, it is still possible to imagine several
scenarios in which a nuclear detonation could occur as a result of accident, aggression, pre-emption, or retaliation. We are
in a race—but it’s not just an arms race; indeed, it may end up being an arms race in reverse. In many nations around the globe the means to
pay for armaments and war are starting to disappear; meanwhile, however, there
is increasing incentive to engage in
international conflict as a way of re-channeling the energies of jobless young males and of distracting
the general populace, which might otherwise be in a revolutionary mood.
A2: Recount
Capriles calling for recount
Israel 13
Charlene Israel (writer for CBN News), 4/14/2013, “Chavez 'Heir' Wins Venezuela Election, Recount
Demanded”, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/April/Chavez-Heir-Wins-Venezuela-ElectionRecount-Demanded/, accessed 7/13/2013, ~!@#$%^&*BD
The socialist revolution in Venezuela may continue after a razor-thin special presidential election.¶ Nicolas Maduro, the hand-picked
successor of the late president Hugo Chavez, has won by less than 235,000 votes -- the narrowest margin since the
1968 presidential election.¶ But challenger Henrique Capriles says he won't accept the results and is
calling for a full recount.¶ "We are not going to recognize any results until each vote of the Venezuelan
people is counted," Capriles said.¶ Meanwhile, thousands of Maduro's supporters cheered as he spoke from the presidential palace.¶
"We are calling for respect of the results," Maduro said. "If they want do an audit they are welcome to do it. They can do whatever audit they
want to do. We trust in the Venezuelan electoral system. We welcome an audit."¶ A long-time foreign minister under Chavez, Maduro has been
serving as acting president since Chavez died last month after a long battle with cancer.¶ Maduro's victory followed an often ugly campaign in
which he promised to carry on the Chavez legacy.¶ Capriles' main message was that Chavez brought one of the most oil rich nations in the
world to the brink of ruin.¶ Venezuela's economy has been in a shambles, with 22 percent inflation, power outages and food shortages.¶ Crime
has also skyrocketed, tripling under Chavez, and Caracas is now one of the most dangerous cities in the world.¶ And while some of Venezuela's
oil money was used to alleviate poverty, a lot of it went to further Chavez so-called anti-American revolution.¶ Venezuelans living in South
Florida traveled to New Orleans by bus to vote in the election. Many had hopes for a return to full democracy in their homeland.¶ Both Nicholas
Maduro and Henrique Capriles are urging their supporters to refrain from violence over the election results.
US calls for Venezuelan election recount
Lopez 13
Virginia Lopez (writer for The Guardian), 4/17/2013, “US calls for Venezuela election recount after
narrow win for Nicolás Maduro”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/17/us-venezuelaelection-recount-maduro, accessed 7/13/2013, #BD
The United States is hesitating to recognise Nicolás Maduro as president of Venezuela and has called
for a recount of the vote from Sunday's closely fought election.¶ The procrastination is likely to
embolden Venezuela's opposition and enrage many on the left in Latin America, who have long
accused the US of interfering in the region's politics.¶ The US secretary of state, John Kerry, said he had yet to evaluate whether the disputed result was legitimate
when asked about the matter by members of the House of Representatives. ¶ "We think there ought to be a recount," he told the foreign affairs
committee in reference to Venezuelan opposition demands for a full audit of the vote.¶ At least seven people have died in
the protests that have riven Venezuela following Sunday's narrow presidential poll. The National Electoral Council declared Maduro the winner by
262,000 votes out of 14.9m cast.¶ Henrique Capriles, the opposition candidate, claims the count may
have been rigged and says he considers the outcome illegitimate unless it is checked in full. ¶ Maduro
initially agreed to a recount. But the electoral council as declared the result "irreversible".¶ On Wednesday, the president of the supreme court said a manual count was an impossibility and called
the request for a recount "a deceit of the people" that aimed to destabilise the country. ¶ The ruling party has accused the opposition of plotting a coup, as they did in 2002. Maduro – the political heir of Hugo Chávez – says the US
embassy has been inciting violence. His supporters point to WikiLeaks documents that suggest US diplomats have been trying to divide the movement that Chávez pulled together.¶ The oil-rich country can call on support from
foreign allies. The Argentinian president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and 13 other foreign leaders will attend Maduro's inauguration ceremony on Friday. Among the confirmed delegations are Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua,
Uruguay, Ecuador, Honduras, Iran, Saudi Arabia and China.
A2: US-Venezuela Relations
Venezuela-US relations still rocky even after Chavez’s death
Gupta 13 (writes for Reuters, TIME and many other outlets.) [Girish, “5 signs Venezuela-US relations are still rocky after Chavez,”
globalpost, Online, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/venezuela/130501/signs-venezuela-us-washington-rockyrelations, accessed 7/13/13]
CARACAS, Venezuela — Washington
remains the only major government that has not yet
recognized the results of Venezuela’s Apr. 14 vote, which election officials here said showed a
razor-thin win by Nicolas Maduro. For Maduro, it seems, there’s no love lost. “Take your eyes
off Venezuela, [US Secretary of State] John Kerry,” he said on state television. “We don’t care about
your recognition.” His mentor Hugo Chavez was famous for hours-long televised verbal
thrashings against the US “imperialists,” even as the superpower became chief buyer of Venezuela’s state-owned oil.
Chavez's vitriol climaxed before the United Nations in New York when, a day after a speech by then-President George W. Bush, he said: “The
devil came here yesterday. … It smells of sulfur still." Now, with Maduro in charge, many are watching for the same fiery language. What the
world is seeing may be somewhat confusing: Venezuela’s government has locked up and kicked out alleged American spies on the one hand, and
offered conciliatory messages to Washington on the other. After the country's disputed election, officials agreed to a partial vote recount one
minute, but lawmakers got in fistfights with the opposition the next. Perhaps what we’re seeing is a nuanced style that Maduro, a 50-year-old
former foreign minister, will employ to carry on the late Comandante’s socialist movement. Whatever it is ,
there are signs that
Washington and Caracas' relations are in for a rocky road. Here are a few of them. 1. The
expulsion: Just hours before Maduro solemnly announced Chavez’s death, the government
expelled two US diplomats, accusing them of attempting to destabilize the country. Here he is (in
Spanish) making the announcement. Less than a week later, Washington expelled two Venezuelan diplomats in a tit-for-tat move. The countries
have not had ambassadorial-level links since 2010. 2.
The detention: Just last week, authorities detained 35-year-old
American filmmaker Tim Tracy, accused of having “training as an intelligence agent,” according to Interior
Minister Miguel Rodriguez, and fomenting the post-election violence. "They don't have CIA in custody. They don't have a journalist in custody.
They have a kid with a camera," Aengus James, a friend and associate of Tracy's in Hollywood, Calif., told The Associated Press. It is not the
first time a US citizen has been arrested in Venezuela under dubious circumstances. 3. The
poison: Upon Chavez’s death in
March, Maduro said he would set up a “scientific commission” to investigate the cancer
that ultimately killed Chavez. He said “historical enemies” might be culprits in some kind
of cancer plot, which many interpreted to mean Washington. Chavez himself had blamed the
US government for spreading cancer, after fellow leftist leader, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, revealed that she
was also suffering from the illness. “It’s very difficult to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some of us in
Latin America,” Chavez said in December 2011. “Would it be so strange that they’ve invented technology to spread cancer and we won’t know
about it for 50 years?” “Fidel [Castro, of Cuba] always told me,” added Chavez, “‘Chavez be careful! These people have developed technology.
You are very careless. Be careful what you eat, what they give you to eat … a little needle and they inject you with I don’t know what.” On
Chavez’s cancer plot, the BBC’s More or Less did the math and the “law of probabilities” was not on Chavez’s side. 4.
The coup:
Chavez loyalists retain a clear memory of the 2002 attempted coup that ousted Chavez for
48 hours. He repeatedly blamed Washington for backing the revolt. He was outraged, and
his anti-American rhetoric grew venomous, exacerbated by the Bush administration’s post9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Documents released two years after the coup show that the United States at least had
knowledge of the plot before it took place. But many suspect deeper involvement. In an interview with Colombian newspaper El Tiempo in 2009,
former US President Jimmy Carter said: “I think there is no doubt that in 2002 the US had at the very least full knowledge about the coup, and
could even have been directly involved.” A recent US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks shows that the United States, in the years
following the coup at least, aimed to destabilize the Chavez regime. It says: In August of 2004, Ambassador outlined the country team's 5-point
strategy to guide embassy activities in Venezuela for the period 2004-2006 (specifically, from the referendum to the 2006 presidential elections).
The strategy's focus is: 1) Strengthening Democratic Institutions, 2) Penetrating Chavez' Political Base, 3) Dividing Chavismo, 4) Protecting Vital
US business, and 5) Isolating Chavez internationally. 5. Hablar English: Despite understanding English, Venezuelan opposition leader Henrique
Capriles Radonski — who is challenging his election defeat to Maduro — refuses to speak the language on camera. Some analysts suspect that’s
because he’s fearful it would remind Venezuelans of the opposition’s close ties to Washington.
A2: Obama-Maduro Relations
Obama isn’t happy with result of the Venezuelan elections-doesn’t recognize
Maduro as president
Fox News Latino 13 (“Obama Says The U.S. Will Not Get Tangled In Venezuela's Politics,” fox New Latino, Online,
Phttp://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/05/obama-says-us-will-not-get-tangled-in-venezuela-politics/resident, accessed 7/11/13)
Barack Obama
said the U.S. has not and will not get tangled up in Venezuela's political
conflict. Commenting in an interview with Spanish-language network Telemundo that's set to air Sunday, Obama said the U.S.
hasn't tried "in any way" to interfere with the recent election of Nicolas Maduro as Venezuela's
president. On Saturday Venezuela's government accused Washington and the Obama
administration of being behind violence that has followed its recent presidential election. A
foreign ministry statement said that Obama's "fallacious, intemperate and interventionist
declaration" will lead toward deteriorating relations between the countries and "confirms
to the world the policy of aggression his government maintains against our country." The
statement read by Foreign Minister Elias Jaua on state television referred to comments the U.S. president made to Spanish-language television
network Univision during his trip to Mexico and Costa Rica. In the interview that aired Friday, Obama
wouldn't say if the
United States recognizes Nicolas Maduro as Venezuela's new president following elections that have been disputed
by the opposition. When asked, he replied that it's up to the people of Venezuela to choose their leaders
in legitimate elections. He also said that reports indicate that basic principles of human
rights, democracy, press freedom and freedom of assembly were not observed in Venezuela
following the election. "Venezuela rejects with all the force of its Bolivarian dignity the
declaration by United States President Barack Obama which again attacks the legitimate
Venezuelan government," the foreign ministry statement said. Maduro, the hand-picked successor to late
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, narrowly won April 14 presidential elections. But opposition leader Henrique Capriles
contends the election was stolen from him and has challenged the result. Tensions between supporters
on both sides remain high, with tens of thousands of Venezuelans protesting in the streets. Lawmakers even brawled on the floor of the National
Assembly last week. In another interview with Spanish-language network Telemundo that's set to air on Sunday, Obama described as "ridiculous"
the idea that an American filmmaker detained by Venezuela's government is a spy. Thirty-five-year-old Timothy Tracy, of West Hollywood,
California, was formally charged last week with crimes including conspiracy, association for criminal purposes and use of a false document.
Obama says Tracy's case will be handled like every other in which a U.S. citizen gets into a "legal tangle" while abroad. The president also said
the U.S. hasn't tried "in any way" to interfere with Venezuela's recent elections.
Maduro believes Obama is the “grand chief of devils”
AFP 13 (“Venezuela's Maduro blasts 'devil' Obama,” Online, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014474354, accessed 7/11/13)
CARACAS — Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro
took a swipe at Barack Obama on Saturday, calling him the
"grand chief of devils" after the US president declined to recognize his contested re-election.
"Coming out of Central America, Obama let loose with a bunch of impertinent remarks, insolent stuff... He is
giving an order, and his blessing, for the fascist rightwing to attack Venezuela's
democracy," Maduro alleged in an address. But "we are here defending our institutions, peace,
democracy, the people of Venezuela... and we can sit down with anyone, even the grand
chief of devils: Obama," Maduro said. The socialist's harsh attack recalled diatribes from his predecessor the late Hugo
Chavez aimed at former US president George W. Bush, whom he also called a devil, among other insults.
US-Venezuela relations remain tense and pose little hope for change
Andrew O’Reily 4/17/2013 (Writer/Producer @ Fox News Latino)
[“U.S.-Venezuelan Relations Remain Tense Under Maduro, Experts Claim” Fox News Latino at
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/04/17/us-venezuelan-relations-remain-tense-undermaduro-experts-claim/#ixzz2XxQvT4pK accessed July 3, 2013, AV]
While the ultimate impact of the Venezuelan presidential election remains to be seen, what's for sure is
that relations between the United States and the administration of President-elect Nicolás Maduro
will continue to be as tense as under the late Hugo Chávez, experts said. After voting on Sunday in a
Caracas slum, Maduro said that while he would like to reestablish relations with the U.S. “in terms of
equality and respect,” Washington will always try to undermine his rule. These words followed a
steady rhetoric on the campaign trail of Maduro accusing the U.S. of conspiring against him and causing
disruptions in Venezuela to unseat his rule, including working with opposition labor unions and causing
electric power blackouts. Experts argue that given Maduro’s anti-American sentiments leading up to
the election, as well as the controversy surrounding his victory and the polarization in Venezuela, there
is little hope for a change in relations between the countries.
Venezuela doesn’t like America
Press TV 5/9
Press TV, May 9, 2013, “US committing grave mistake on Venezuela, Maduro says”,
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/12/303087/us-making-grave-mistake-on-venezuela/, accessed July 2, 2013,
BD
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro says the United States has made a ‘grave mistake’ in refusing to
acknowledge his victory in the recent presidential election.¶ The statement came on Saturday after US
President Barack Obama recently rejected to say whether Washington recognized Maduro as the new
president of Venezuela. ¶ “I believe (the United States) is committing a grave mistake, one more in its policy towards Latin America,”
Maduro stated.¶ “It is making a tremendous mistake because Venezuela plays a leadership role in Latin America and the world,” the Venezuelan
president said. ¶ Maduro defeated opposition leader Henrique Capriles on April 14 by receiving 50.7 percent of the vote against 49.1 percent.
However, Capriles has claimed vote irregularities. ¶ In addition, Maduro said Obama was “convinced” by his advisors to
refuse to recognize the election results. “They promised him that I would be ousted in 24 or 48 hours, or that
there would be a violent crisis in the country.” ¶ Also, in reference to the election and the deadly protests that
followed, Maduro called Obama the “grand chief of devils” on May 3 and said the US president had given
“his blessing for the fascist right wing to attack Venezuela’s democracy.” ¶ Venezuela and the United States
have not exchanged ambassadors since 2010.
A2: Imperialism
Maduro encourages Latin Americans to rise up against imperialism in Latin
America
America XXI 13 [“Latin America: Evo Morales and Nicolas Maduro defend the region’s union,” Links: international journal of
socialist removal, Online, http://links.org.au/node/3386, accessed 7/11/13]
June 11, 2013 – Links international Journal of Socialist Renewal – On May 25, Washington’s advance across the region by means of the Pacific
Alliance met a counterattack in Bolivia. Bolivia’s
President Evo Morales and Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro
relaunched the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA), signed
bilateral agreements in 14 strategic fields and denounced the new imperialist offensive
against the region. As a response to the formal invitation extended to Ecuador to join the Pacific Alliance, the Bolivian
president called an ALBA meeting of governments and social movements in Guayaquil to “liberate the
countries that are still subject to the empire” and “defend the anti-imperialist
governments” of Latin America and the Caribbean. Nicolás Maduro did not mince his words
when giving this warning on behalf of the ALBA governments after the second Joint Integration Meeting between Bolivia
and Venezuela on May 25: “We raise a voice of warning for the peoples of Latin America because
imperialism is coming with a new offensive to impose his economic colonialist project
through the FTAA [Free Trade Area of the Americas].” It was the consequence of the advance of the Pacific
Alliance, a bloc comprised by four US-allied governments: Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Peru, which seeks to reinstate free trade in the region
and held its 7th summit in Cali, Colombia, one day earlier. “They
want to promise old chains by wearing new
masks”, denounced the Venezuelan president in a clear reference to the bloc, which was launched in 2012. After the long working meeting,
which resulted in new agreements in 14 strategic fields between Bolivia and Venezuela, Maduro participated in a mass political rally at the José
Casto Méndez coliseum organised by Bolivian social movements, workers and peasants in support of Venezuela. There, he warned that “US
imperialism did the numbers” after the death of Chávez and believe that “this is the end of the
independence revolution of the 21st century.” Therefore, the United States is trying now to “impose the FTAA and a
process of economic and social regression” in Latin America. “Is it true that this is the end of the revolution in Latin America? Is it true that our
people want neoliberalism again?”, asked Maduro. He
called on the people to raise up again the flags of the
fight against neoliberalism. “Now it is beginning”, he said referring to the continent’s struggle. “Either we follow the path of the
Homeland, the people’s power and liberating socialism, or neoliberalism is back. But it will return with the deadly face of fascism because it
would come to wipe out the
A2: Maduro Needs Political Capital
After close election Maduro will need to use political capital to solve critical
Venezuelan issues, and to gain support from opposed Venezuelans
Nagel 4/15 (Juan Nagel is a writer for FP) Foreign Policy, 4/15/2013. [“The shocker in Caracas”
Online@http://transitions.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/15/the_shocker_in_caracas SM]
Maduro, has just barely managed to ride a wave of emotion triggered by
the death of the late ex-president Hugo Chávez to claim victory as his successor. On Sunday, Maduro
beat opposition leader Henrique Capriles by a little over one percentage point (roughly 200,000 votes),
Venezuela's vice president, Nicolás
according to the official tally. Maduro now faces two problems: First, his margin of victory was much smaller than what recent polls
were suggesting, and second, Capriles is not accepting the results. ¶ Following Hugo Chávez's death, his popularity soared and
hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans marched in grief. When elections were called barely a month ago, emotion for Chávez
helped Maduro hold a comfortable double-digit lead in the polls. But a series of mishaps, together with a strong showing from
Capriles, made the difference evaporate to within the margin of error. The
way the numbers were moving over the
past week suggests that the declared winner would have lost the election if it had been held a few
days later.¶ Late turnout appeared to make the difference for Maduro. It was clear from the start that all of the resources of the
state would be used to get him elected. Maduro named Rafael Ramírez, the president of the state oil company and the man with the
fattest checkbook in the nation, as "Head of Mobilization." The government spent lavishly in getting its voters to the polls to make
sure they voted for Maduro. But despite these advantages, only a slim majority of voters appear to have done just that. Both parties
now head into a controversial audit procedure. The candidates have already said they want all the boxes opened. Venezuela's
electronic voting system produces a paper trail, but only half of the boxes are opened on election day. The votes are counted and
compared to automatic vote tallies. Particular attention will be paid to rural voting centers, where Maduro may have made up a
sizeable chunk of his difference. Votes abroad, which should number about 70,000 in favor of Capriles, will also need to be
counted.¶ If confirmed, Maduro will try to finish Chávez's term, which lasts until 2019. In the short term, he will
have to
contend with serious economic problems, declining oil production, crumbling infrastructure, and a
soaring crime wave that has made Venezuela one of the most dangerous places on earth. He will also
face questions about his legitimacy, both from his own camp and the opposition.¶ How exactly Maduro will
tackle these issues is a mystery. The campaign gave voters little insightinto his approach to governance. Maduro used his
campaign to cast himself as Chávez's heir -- and that was basically it. More importantly, he hasn't even begun governing and his
popularity is already dropping. It appears that the more voters see of Maduro, the less they like him. This is a serious problem for a
government in need of drastic reform.¶ In order to boost lagging oil production, the state oil company will have to invest billions of
dollars. This may require going to international capital markets and borrowing at credit-card interest rates (Venezuela's current
lending rates are among the highest in Latin America). It also means that Venezuela´s foreign partners will have to stop being the
government's punching bags. They will demand tax breaks and other benefits in order to make investment profitable. ¶ Key among
these investments will be repairing the Amuay refining complex, the largest in the world, which practically burned to the ground a
few months ago. The accident forced Venezuela to import gasoline and other refined products at pricey market rates in order to
maintain its insane policy of giving away gasoline for free -- a costly, regressive subsidy that Maduro will have to consider
reforming.¶ Venezuela also
faces a soaring fiscal deficit, caused in part by the myriad of populist promises both Maduro
foreign
currency determines in large part how much income the government receives. Yet even after
devaluing the currency twice, the fiscal deficit is still large, and tax hikes and/or spending cuts will be
required.¶ The inherent tension in Venezuela's economic situation is that a government that believes in socialism uses promises
and Chávez made in order to win two elections in a row. As the sole exporter in the country, the price at which it sells
of capitalist consumption to win elections. Maduro will soon learn that it is hard to preach communism and austerity when you've
been giving away apartments, dishwashers, and cell phones in order to get people to like you. ¶ As for Capriles, his narrow loss
cements his leadership of the opposition. As he leads his forces into an uncertain recount process, he will continue shedding light on
Venezuela's grossly unfair electoral system. He
will need to use his considerable political capital to steer
opposition Venezuelans through the turbulent times ahead. Judging by the early reaction to his speech, the
opposition -- officially, half of the country -- seems to be coalescing around him.
Maduro doesn’t have much political capital
Alic 13
Jen Alic (writer for CNBC), 4/17/2013, CNBC, “The 'Chavismo' Hasn't Left Venezuela Just Yet”,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100646588, accessed 7/13/2013, BD
Nicolas Maduro—the late Hugo Chavez's choice for successor—has narrowly won the presidential election in
Venezuela, oil and gas investors can expect a perpetuation of the status quo.¶ In Sunday's vote, Maduro won with a very narrow 50.7 percent
and a vow to continue with Chavez's "revolution," which has seen the oil industry nationalized and the state-run PDVSA energy company funding
social programs while voraciously courting China and Russia.¶ The narrow vote will not be without its challenges. Opposition rival
candidate Henrique Capriles has refused to recognize the results and is demanding a recount, though
the electoral commission is standing firm on Maduro's victory.¶ Regardless, foreign oil and gas companies can expect more of the same in
Now that
Venezuela.¶ For Maduro's part, he inherits a nightmare situation that will see him stuck between using PDVSA to fund expensive social programs that cost it $44 billion last year alone, or
cutting social spending or allowing a rise in the price of fuel that could spark regime-threatening unrest.¶ (Related Article From OilPrice: A Look at a Post-Chavez Venezuela)¶ If Maduro feels
compelled to reduce fuel subsidies, it could lead to riots as cheap fuel—which cannot be sustained—is one of the most crucial social benefits for Venezuelans, who pay around 6 cents per
. Maduro has inherited a "sinking ship" and does not appear to have the political capital to
make any short-term changes in Venezuela's energy policy, Sam Logan, CEO of risk analysis firm Southern Pulse, told Oilprice.com.¶ "The main energy issue for
gallon for gasoline ¶
Venezuela is that oil production is struggling, down from a peak of about 3.2 million barrels per day in 1998 to less than 2.8 million bpd now," Logan said. "One would hope that fixing
infrastructure, completing refinery repairs and construction, and investing in exploration and new technology would be priorities, but Maduro will not have funds to invest unless he makes
controversial cuts to social programs." Logan does not believe that Maduro will attempt to cut fuel subsidies any time soon.¶ A top priority for Maduro will be boosting refining capacity, the
risk analysis firm says. Toward this end, Maduro may be willing to negotiate if a partner steps forward to build a new refinery, which is a goal Chavez failed to realize.¶ "If PDVSA fails to
increase production, PDVSA President Rafael Ramirez may be replaced this year," said Logan. "One way for Maduro to keep his presidency afloat is to bring new proven wells online in the
Orinoco Belt; but that will require major investment. PDVSA may need more than a minority-partner-with-a-service-contract at those fields if they want to start pumping soon."¶ (Related
Article From OilPrice: Tell-Tale Signs of Hostile Environment for Investors)¶ In the meantime, China's foothold in Venezuela remains on solid ground. China already gets 600,000 bpd from
Venezuela in return for $42 billion in loans. Maduro is not likely to rock this boat with Beijing. According to Southern Pulse, Maduro will likely seek new loans from China, but they will depend
on the terms and stability in Venezuela.¶ If that doesn't work, Maduro will have to look elsewhere—first to Russia and then perhaps to U.S. Chevron or Spanish Repsol, the latter two having
only limited operations in the country.¶ Overall, we should expect that Maduro will pursue all-out "Chavismo."¶ "As president, Maduro will govern as he thinks Chavez himself would have
ruled. However, Maduro probably will not begin pandering to the most radical elements of his party, PSUV, because he has little to gain from that. Maduro is not blind to the myriad problems
facing the next president such as blackouts, food shortages and rampant criminal violence," Logan said.¶ (Related Article From OilPrice: Maduro May Open Oil Doors, But For Who?)¶ While it's
And with time citizens
who loved Chavez will blame Maduro for their struggles," said Logan. "If Maduro survives that long,
the next election in 2018 will involve a much deeper conversation about the direction of the country."
status quo for now for the oil and gas industry, it's clearly bad news for Maduro.¶ "Despite Chavez's immense popularity, his memory will fade.
***Aff
A2: Relations
Only opportunity to get US/Venezuelan relations back on track is through
engagement
Sullivan 13 (Specialist in Latin American Affairs) [Mark P., “Hugo Chávez’s Death: Implications for
Venezuela and U.S. Relations,” Congressional Research Center, Online, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42989.pdf, accessed 7/11/13)
there could be an opportunity for U.S.-Venezuelan relations to
get back on track. An important aspect of this could be restoring ambassadors in order to
augment engagement on critical bilateral issues, not only on anti-drug, terrorism, and
democracy concerns, but on trade, investment issues, and other commercial matters.
In the aftermath of the presidential election,
US-Venezuela Relations will increase
MALLETT-OUTTRIM 13
RYAN MALLETT-OUTTRIM (writer for Venezuelanalysis) June 6, 2013, Venezuelanalysis, “Venezuela-U.S.
Relations May Improve, Following Meeting of Foreign Ministers”,
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/9670, accessed July 2, 2013, BD
Merida, June 6th 2013 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan foreign minister Elias Jaua and United States Secretary of State John Kerry
pledged to improve bilateral relations during a meeting on Wednesday, following the release of a U.S.
citizen detained in Venezuela.¶ Jaua described the meeting as “proactive”, and stated that the discussion with Kerry “marks the beginning of a
good respectful relationship”.¶ “We agreed today — both of us, Venezuela and the United States — that we would
like to see our countries find a new way forward, establish a more constructive and positive
relationship and find the ways to do that,” Kerry said following the meeting, according to the
Associated Press.¶ Kerry stated that during the 40-minute discussion in Antigua, Guatemala, the two representatives agreed to work towards establishing
“continuing dialogue at a high-level between the State Department and the foreign ministry”, and expressed hope that ambassadors could be exchanged “quickly”.¶
In an interview with Telesur following the talks, Jaua stated that the Venezuelan government is
pursuing improved bilateral ties with the U.S., “based on the premise of mutual respect, noninterference in internal affairs and the proper treatment of disagreements”.¶ “If this is respected then
we can move forward in relations with U.S.,” Jaua added.¶ The talks took place as an aside during the 43rd General Assembly of
the Organisation of American States (O.A.S.); it was the first high profile meeting between the two governments since 2009. Currently, neither country hosts
ambassadors from the other in their capitals. ¶ This year's meeting of the 35 member states of the O.A.S. was focused on regional counter-narcotics efforts.¶ Last
month, an O.A.S.-commissioned report was released, which recommends member states discuss cannabis legalisation, a proposition that Kerry opposed in his
address to the assembly.¶ U.S. Yet to Recognise 14 April Election Results ¶ Although Kerry made no references to U.S. relations with Venezuela during his address,
he did state that some nations in the region are not sufficiently monitoring human rights and democratic values. ¶ However,
during a U.S. Senate
committee hearing 18 April, Kerry proposed an increase in U.S. State Department funding for
“political efforts to protect democratic space” in Venezuela in 2014, and called for more U.S.
involvement in Latin American affairs; referring to the continent as “our backyard”.¶ The State Department is also
yet to recognise Maduro's victory in Venezuela's presidential elections on 14 April. On Monday, during a visit to Washington, opposition legislator María Corina
Machado urged the U.S. Congress to reject the results of the presidential election. Speaking to the Washington-based foreign policy think tank, the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, she described Maduro's victory as a “death threat” for the O.A.S. ¶
A2: Legitimacy/Political Capital
Maduro resists challenges to his legitimacy—proves he was the right choice for
President
Evans 13 (Venezuelan political commentator) [Nicmer, “One Month since 14 April, Nicolas has Advanced,” Venezuela Analysis,
month since
14 April [the date of Venezuela’s presidential election, which Nicolas Maduro won by a narrow margin],Nicolas has
managed to advance. It’s not been easy, yet not only has he resisted [challenges to his legitimacy],
but he has begun a process of setting the political agenda that has managed to subordinate
the opposition due to the latter’s repeated clumsy mistakes. However we can’t become over-confident, and
there’s a lot we must critically self-correct. Let’s reconstruct a little of this long first month. On 14 April itself, Nicolas Maduro
committed the error of admitting the possibility of a recount of 100% of the votes, instead of
Online, http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/9406, accessed 7/13/13]
At one
calling on the CNE to pronounce itself and respectfully awaiting the result of the opposition’s legitimate right to challenge the election result.
However the
opposition didn’t wait, but convoked supporters in an inopportune and ambiguous
speech, in Capriles’s words, to drain their “rage” with pot-banging. This was assumed by
opposition extremists as a call for violence and as a result caused eleven deaths and dozens
of wounded, losing [the opposition] the quantitative political capital gained on 14 April. President
Maduro’s decision to stop Capriles’ planned march toward the centre of Caracas was the first action of Nicolas’ government that demonstrated
the “balls” of the new president to warn against the plan to copy 11 April [in reference to the short lived coup against the Chavez government on
11 April 2002]. Capriles responded to this decision by backing down, which evidenced that there was only one
objective [behind the march], blocked by Maduro, and upon not achieving it, it was better to call the march off. The second error of the Maduro
government until now has been in the National Assembly. Diosdado Cabello [the pro-government president of the National Assembly], by
banning opposition deputies’ right to speak [for their refusal to recognise President Maduro], for whatever the reason, allowed the conditions for
opposition deputies to set up the parliamentary Harlem Shake in the following session, using the game of provocation and victimizing themselves
in a scene clearly seeking the image of violence. While we had a politically mature pueblo, who despite eleven deaths incited by Capriles didn’t
spill onto the streets in thirst of vengeance, we had some parliamentarians who took the bait of the clowns: something to analyse. However,
President Maduro understood that following the opposition’s political agenda would be to
put himself beneath them, and he undertook a series of actions that have allowed him to
reposition his legitimacy and capacity to govern. The “street government” has allowed him to gather together and
make present issues of governance over issues over political theatre (the important thing here is that the methodology is actually effective,
although for now it has achieved the objective); and actions taken on the international level, from PetroCaribe to the tour of Mercosur countries,
have allowed Maduro’s abilities to be demonstrated in the development of practical politics. Meanwhile
the opposition
complicates itself, launching a parallel international tour that generated widespread
rejection. Yet perhaps more determining has been President Obama’s pronouncement, assuming the political leadership of the opposition by
not recognising the legitimacy of President Nicolas Maduro’s government in an action totally isolated from the international context, making the
alignment of the Obama government and the Capriles leadership evident. To finish, what’s sinking the opposition is the deep division being
created between the Capriles camp and the rest of the MUD [the opposition Democratic Unity coalition], who see the refusal to recognise the
Electoral Power and the results of 14 April as suicide when we are at the doors of municipal elections where opposition aspirations have grown as
a result of 14 April. Meanwhile, inside the revolutionary process the hope of a franker and more horizontal dialogue between the diverse parts of
the Great Patriotic Pole [the pro-government coalition of parties and social movements] is without doubt the great step that is expected. This is in
order to guarantee Chavez’s legacy, based on the desire for a planned renovation of the leadership and decision making processes of Chavismo,
and because of that that we must go for a “Coup at the Helm”[1] to avoid any attempt at a coup d’état.
A2: Recount
A Recount in Venezuela is literally impossible- electoral system automated, no way to
have a recount, and Venezuela’s constitution outlaws it
Romo, Shoichet and Newton 13 (Rafael Romo. Catherine E. Shoichet and Paula Newton are writers for CNN) CNN
4/18/2013 [“Manual recount not possible in Venezuela, chief justice says”
Onli9ne@http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/world/americas/venezuela-elections SM]
A manual recount of votes isn't possible in Venezuela, the head of the country's Supreme Court said
Wednesday, suggesting there is no legal basis for the opposition's push for a ballot-by-ballot audit of
the narrow presidential election results.¶ In nationally televised remarks, Venezuelan Chief Justice Luisa
Estella Morales said Venezuela's 1999 constitution eliminated manual recounts in favor of a "system
audit." "In Venezuela the electoral system is completely automated. Therefore, a manual count does
not exist. Anyone who thought that could really happen has been deceived," she said. "The majority of
those who are asking for a manual count know it and are clear about it. Elections are not audited
ballot by ballot but through the system."
Venezuelan Constitution says recount not possible
Caribbean News Now 13
Caribbean News Now, 4/18/2013, “Manual recount of votes not possible, says Venezuela's chief
justice”, http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/topstory-Manual-recount-of-votes-not-possible,-saysVenezuela's-chief-justice-15431.html, accessed 7/13/2013, BD
CARACAS, Venezuela -- A manual recount of votes in Sunday’s presidential election in Venezuela is not
possible, the country's chief justice said on Wednesday.¶ "In Venezuela the electoral system is
completely automated. Therefore, a manual count does not exist. Anyone who thought that could
really happen has been deceived," Chief Justice Luisa Estella Morales said. "The majority of those who are asking for a
manual count know it and are clear about it. Elections are not audited ballot by ballot but through the
system."¶ Venezuela's 1999 constitution eliminated manual recounts in favour of a "system audit", Morales said on national television, suggesting that there
is no legal basis for the opposition's demand for a ballot-by-ballot audit of the narrow presidential
election results.¶ President-elect Nicolas Maduro is scheduled to be sworn in on Friday. Election authorities proclaimed him president-elect on Monday
despite his challenger Henrique Capriles’ demand for a recount. ¶ Maduro secured 50.8% of votes in Sunday's election, while Capriles won 49%, Venezuela's National
Electoral Council said.¶ Venezuela's state-run AVN news agency said at least eight people had been killed in post-election violence across the country. AVN also
reported that authorities had arrested 135 people in connection with political violence.
Maduro Bad
Maduro bad for economy
Will Holub-Moorman 13
Will Holub-Moorman (writer for PolicyMic), March 2013, PolicyMic, “Nicolas Maduro is Setting Himself
Up to Fail in Venezuela”, http://www.policymic.com/articles/30574/nicolas-maduro-is-setting-himselfup-to-fail-in-venezuela, accessed 7/11/2013, BD
On Monday, March 18, Reuters reported that current interim President of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro holds a 14-point
lead in the polls over challenger Henrique Capriles in Venezuela’s upcoming April 14 presidential
election. In order to capitalize on his predecessor and mentor Hugo Chávez’s immense popularity,
Maduro has aggressively sought to represent himself as not only Chávez’s successor, but as a carbon
copy of Chávez. For example, Maduro has taken to wearing Chávez’s trademark nationalist jumpsuit, and
has proclaimed, at different times, "I am Chávez" and "I am the son of Chávez."¶ However, Maduro may
come to regret how tightly this symbolic rhetoric will tie him to the looming economic consequences
of Chávez’s policies. By casting himself as a clone of Chávez instead of a discrete political player,
Maduro is setting himself up to bear the responsibility for Venezuela’s oncoming economic downturn
and sluggish recovery, and is also limiting his ability to respond to them effectively.¶ Venezuela looks to be on the brink of
difficult economic times. Chávez’s decision to allocate the lion’s share of Venezuela’s oil revenue
toward social programs and welfare did much to reduce the country’s poverty and inequality.
However, it also led to limited investment in oil and manufacturing industries — and what investment
did occur was mostly wasted through corruption and inefficiencies, as Reuters reported in 2012. The economic
effects of these policies are starting to show. A BBC report earlier this month noted that Venezuela has experienced
the lowest GDP per capita growth in Latin America over the past decade, with the World Bank predicting a mere 1.8%
growth rate for the Venezuelan economy in 2013. Furthermore, Venezuela’s 20.9% inflation rate is one of the world’s highest, second only to Argentina’s in Latin
America.¶ By
maintaining some distance from Chávez throughout the campaign, Maduro could have
avoided taking the all of the political blame for Venezuela’s upcoming economic struggles. Simply
being the candidate from Chávez’s party would likely have been enough to win Maduro the
presidency comfortably. In explicitly aligning himself with all aspects of Chávez, Maduro is relinquishing any sort of political defense when the tide
inevitably turns against the economic policies of chavismo — and however hard he tries, Maduro will never possess Chávez’s heroism and political infallibility in the
eyes of the Venezuelan electorate.¶ Maduro’s rhetoric will also constrain his ability to respond to the aforementioned economic issues. He can increase investment
in industry, as his predecessor should have done, but he can hardly cut social programs to pay for it — after his words during the campaign, it would effectively be
political suicide for Maduro to fiddle with Chávez’s main political initiative. Maduro
will find himself with a choice between
continuing Chávez’s shortsighted economic policies and adding to Venezuela’s rapidly ballooning
budget deficit, which was at 17.5% of GDP in 2012.¶ Transitioning away from charismatic, entrenched leaders tends to be a messy process (see the cases of
Juan Perón in Argentina and Getúlio Vargas in Brazil), but Maduro’s attempt to avoid the transition altogether is politically shortsighted and could cost him down
the road. Although it will not happen in 2013, it would not be a surprise to see a President Henrique Capriles six years in the future.