Hugo Chavez, who prides himself for being a master of the politics of distraction is at it again. Since the Summit of the Americas in Argentina, Chavez has been emboldened. Anti-Free Trade rioters in the Argentine capital turned the summit into a farce. Chavez, a vocal critic of free trade and all of its proponents (including the United States), took advantage of the situation to decry free trade as a scheme perpetrated by America and George Bush.

Of the 34 countries participating in the summit, 29 were in favor of setting up a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), but Chavez’s Venezuela led a chorus of opposition that also included an equally vocal Argentina and a more pragmatic Brazil. During the conference Chavez was openly hostile to those whose views differed from his (the typical response of a demagogue). Such hostility was evident in Chavez’s relationship with Mexico’s Vincente Fox. Chavez called Fox a “puppy of the empire” because of his support for a free trade zone. Chavez, in typically socialist fashion argued that any free trade agreement would only benefit US companies and decried Fox for surrendering to the United States.

Chavez, however, wasn’t the only one to criticize Fox, Argentina’s President Nestor Kirchner was also critical after Fox complained that Nestor, as host did nothing to bring about consensus among the summit participants. Mexico as one of the principal NAFTA partners can attest to the fact that free trade is most certainly beneficial to all parties involved. The suggestion that only US companies will benefit further demonstrates Chavez’s tactic of distorting and distracting in order to advance his own position. Contrary to Chavez’s position, in some cases American companies will be at a disadvantage in a free trade arrangement as Latin America has a comparative advantage in the production of certain goods and services. Certain goods and services are easier and cheaper to produce in Latin America, by contrast certain products require greater technical skill or are capital intensive and in such cases the US may hold a comparative advantage. Chavez, however, is a socialist and has no interest in free trade, his interest lies in maintaining the state’s stranglehold on power. To suggest that Chavez is interested in enhancing his people’s prosperity or fostering a greater sense of self-sufficiency among the nation’s poor is a misnomer. Chavez’s track record demonstrates his commitment only to his own political power at the expense of Venezuela’s citizens.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aegcxeSfBsBA&refer=latin_america