US REACTIONS TO BRAZILIAN AND VENEZUELAN OIL NATIONALISATION SEEN FROM THE THEORY OF IMPERIALISM - DIVA PORTAL
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY
Department of Economic History and International Relations
Master's Thesis in Economic History with specialization in Global Political Economy
Spring Term 2021
Student: Victor Emery Trindade
Supervisor: Dag Retsö
US reactions to Brazilian and Venezuelan oil
nationalisation seen from the theory of Imperialism
Keywords: Imperialism; Geopolitics; Oil; Nationalization; Latin America
Abstract
This thesis presents a qualitative comparison of Brazil and Venezuela during their oil
nationalization process vis à vis the interests and ideological view of the US., including the
triggering factors and variables involved in the US response. It tests the theory of
Imperialism, coming from two different perspectives, intending to explain the US reaction in
different periods of the two oil companies nationalisation processes: in Brazil in 1953 and
Venezuela (starting in 1976 and consolidating in 1999). The thesis also aims to study if the
then-existing nationalist ideologies might have played a role in the direct or indirect US
interventions and how the international-political reality fits into this issue. As mentioned, the
theory to deal with this comparative study is the so-called Imperialist coming from North
American and Latin American perspectives. The application and testing of the theory indicate
that the US had an "offensive" ideological response concerning interventions in Brazil and
Venezuela, especially in Venezuela. Likewise, notwithstanding fitting approaches to
interpreting the data, the theory of imperialism does not thoroughly explain how ideological
choices play a fundamental role in oil geopolitics and nationalisation in the investigated oil-
rich Latin American countries. As the thesis shows, the perspective of the nationalisation
through the selected Latin American authors differs from that of the North American ones.
For the latter selected authors, the role of geopolitics and ideologies were more determinants.
Through the lenses of this theory and interpreting the relevant data, this study expects to
contribute to the knowledge of how oil-nationalisation, nationalist ideologies, and geopolitics
in Latin America can influence one another.
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents ........................................................................................2
List of graphs and tables ...............................................................................3
List of abbreviations .....................................................................................3
1. Introduction .......................................................................................4
1.1 Research Aim and Research Question .........................................................7
2. Theoretical background ............................................................................ 10
2.1 Introduction and research propositions ..................................................... 10
2.2 Latin American perspective ...................................................................13
2.3 North American perspective ..................................................................19
2.4 Discussion and disposition ..................................................................23
23. Methodology and Methods .........................................................................24
3.1 Qualitative Content Analysis .................................................................24
3.1.2 Data/Material .............................................................................. 27
3.2 Clarifications on the chosen measuring systems ..........................................28
3.3 Critique of the Methods and material .......................................................30
4. Results ................................................................................................31
4.2 Brazilian Case: contextualization ............................................................32
4.2.1 North American perspective..............................................................36
4.2.2 Latin American perspective ..............................................................40
4.2.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................44
4.3 Venezuelan Case: Contextualization .........................................................45
4.3.1 North American perspective..............................................................48
4.3.2 Latin American perspective ..............................................................51
4.3.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................55
5. Concluding Thoughts................................................................................ 56
6. References: ..........................................................................................58
List of graphs and tables
Graphs
Graph 1: Brazil's Crude Oil: Production from 1960 to 2019.................................................................5
Graph 2: Oil Production in Venezuela in millions of barrels (mb) 1920-2010......................................6
Graph 3: Production vs. Oil Consumption in Brazil (1965 –2015) …………………………….……32
Graph 4: Energy consumption by source in Brazil from 1965 to 2019................................................33
Graph 5: U.S imports from Brazil of crude oil from 1973 until 2020 in thousands of Barrels............35
Graph 6: Energy consumption by source in Venezuela from 1965 to 2019.35………………………45
Graph 7: U.S Imports from Venezuela of crude oil 1973-2019 in thousands of barrels per da……….47
Tables
Table 1. The role of U.S in Latin America. Table showing some U.S interventions in Latin American
in different foreign policies ideologies throughout the 20th century………………..…………………19
Table 2. Theory operationalized………………………………………………….……………………24
Table 3.Using the coding scheme from QCA…………………………………………..……………..40
List of abbreviations
3IIRSA Initiative for the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of South America
Mercosur Southern Common Market
NOC National oil company
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OPEC Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
PDVSA Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A (Petroleum of Venezuela)
Petrobras Brazilian Petroleum Corporation
ANP National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels
FTAA Free Trade Area of the Americas
1. Introduction
Several authors and researchers report in empirical evidence that a state rich in oil
suffers international pressure on administrating and profiting with that specific natural
resource, especially when the government decides to nationalize it (see Ross, 2008; Mares,
2010; Cisneros-Lavaller 2006; Jeifets, V. L., & Pravdiuk, D. A, 2019; Vadivia & Lyall, 2018).
In the case of Latin America, it is by no means different. Countries of the region, such as
Brazil and Venezuela, have often dealt with this issue. Venezuela is especially an interesting
case to examine since it holds the largest oil reserve in the world.1 To discover how
Venezuela and Brazil have dealt with this international pressure when nationalising their oil
companies or changing to a more nationalist ideology, the analysis in this master's thesis
considers one widely accepted theoretical framing from one realist perspective: Theory of
Imperialism with both Latin American and North American authors such as Moniz Bandeira,
José Luis Fiori, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, among others. The primary aim is to see to
what extent can this perspective explain the two different US reactions to their oil
nationalisation and explain when US interventions (be it through direct or indirect means)
took effect in the country with the onset of nationalist ideologies. Throughout most of the
20th century, oil was a key source of competition and served as an ideological, political and
strategic national policy for nearly all countries. It is debatable, however, that oil will
continue to have equally great importance in the future. In the 21st century, the significance
of oil has declined relatively with the rise of other renewable, cleaner energy sources, such as
1 Source: Which Countries Have the World’s Largest Proven Oil Reserves? By VisualCapitalist (2021).
4hydropower and wind energy2. Despite this relative decline, Graph 1 shows the steep increase
in crude oil production in Brazil since the beginning of the 1960s. Before 1960 oil production
in Brazil was visibly small and did not have much impact. In the countries studied, the energy
use of oil per capita from 1950 to 2015 has been steadily increasing, demonstrating the still
relevance of oil to the overall development of the countries 3.
Graph 1: Brazil's Crude Oil: Production from 1960 to 2019. 4
Nonetheless, the use of oil by all countries in the 21st century is still crucial for the
economy and therefore an important factor for geopolitical considerations and overall
political and economic independence.5 According to some studies, until up to the 2040s, the
most common energy source consumption will still be petroleum and other oil liquids,
2 Source: Oil 2021: Analysis and forecast to 2026. IEA Reports
3 Source: Database from World Development Indicators. Accessed February 2021.
4 Source: CEICDATA. Accessed June 2021.
5Source: OIL AND GAS FORECAST TO 2050. Energy Transition Outlook 2017. Dnv gl energy transition
outlook – oil and gas.
5accounting for more than one third (IEO2017).6 Graph 2 shows the steep increase in oil
production in Venezuela in millions of barrels from 1920 up to 2010. The thesis demonstrates
that energy is essential for every aspect related to national sovereignty and development. The
creation of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1960 has only
confirmed its strategic asset.7 Besides, the geopolitical aspect is closely associated with the
usage and distribution of oil, and for countries in Latin America, this relation is striking.8 The
relationship between oil-rich producing countries and hegemonic interests – notably the
interests of the US in Latin America – is dynamic and recurring. The investigation of
changing relationships from friendly to nationalist and "strategic rivalry" is investigated and
studied. Then, the thesis argues that the oil sector in Latin America is characterized by state
interventions and tight state supervision in a dynamic that did not develop from liberal
orthodoxy. Also, the current thesis maintains that the common ground of the studied cases is
domestic nationalism and the opposition to foreign interference. The discourse of
sovereignty, nationalism and nationalization beyond being seen only as an ideological
concept is also a set of situated practices, constituted in and through unstable power relations
and dependent on the overall international environment.
Graph 2: Oil Production in Venezuela in millions of barrels (mb) 1920 – 2010.9
6 International Energy Outlook 2017. "Although liquid fuels—mostly petroleum-based—remain the largest
energy source throughout the IEO2017 projections, the liquids share of world marketed energy consumption is
projected to fall slightly, from 33% in 2015 to 31% in 2040. As oil prices rise, energy consumers are expected to
turn to more energy-efficient technologies and switch away from liquid fuels where possible" (EIA projects 28%
increase in world energy use by 2040 (EIA, 2017).
7 Source: OPEC Plus: An Oil World Sovereignty in Making. The geopolitics (2020).
8Source: THE GEOPOLITICS OF OIL AND GAS: THE ROLE OF LATIN AMERICA. FGV and Konrad
Adenauer Stiftung. February 2016.
9 Source: Bello et al, (2011). Venezuela´s Growth Experience.
6To better explore the previous issues and events in the referred countries, the research,
encompassing the primary variables from the theory of imperialism, discusses central authors
on general geopolitics of energy, ideologies and oil issues. Although geopolitics 10 related to
energy in general and oil has already been investigated and accepted within the field of
Global Political Economy, a comparison of Latin American countries with the introduced
theory has not been the sole focus of research yet. In particular, comparative studies between
Brazil and Venezuela on political ideologies and geopolitics conflicts do not appear in
investigations in an in-depth way. The influence of the US in the world of energy and oil is
known, but comparative studies from different perspectives of political ideologies of selected
Latin American countries vis à vis a hegemon is much less studied. There might not be a
complete research anomaly, but more thorough research on the topic is needed for further
understanding and advancing the knowledge.
1.1 Research Aim and Research Question
10 There are a few definitions of what geopolitics is, and one fitting definition is by Robert Kaplan: Geopolitics
constitutes the study of the outside environment faced by every state when determining its own strategy: that
environment being the presence of other states also struggling for survival and advantage. In short, geopolitics is
the influence of geography upon human division (Kaplan, R: 2012: 48).
7The purpose is to test how the theory of imperialism, coming from two perspectives,
could explain the US reaction in different periods of the two oil companies nationalisation
processes in Brazil in 1953 and Venezuela in 1999 (started in 1976). The role of nationalist
policies plays a seminal part in the analysis because it is one of the main variables in the
research. Vargas nationalist policies diverged from those of the 1999 Venezuelan government,
but they both influenced US reactions. The thesis also seeks to understand how Venezuela
and Brazil managed to create and nationalise despite US interests, how they dealt with US oil
policies, and competing political ideologies and alliances inside and outside the asymmetrical
political system. However, there is no consensus on the role of ideologies and the
nationalisation processes in Latin America. According to Monaldi (2020), ideology is a poor
predictor for the rise of resource nationalist policies in Latin America. Conversely, a
combination of ideology and institutions (inclusiveness) affects nationalism in different
countries during structurally induced cycles (Monaldi, 2020). As we will see, the thesis
studies a broader examination of the dynamics and implications of asymmetry in
international relations, often defined in terms of disparities in material capabilities and
resources availability (Flores et al., 2020).
I have chosen the theoretical framework of realism because many past analyses of the
geopolitics of oil, nationalization and ideologies fall within the lenses of these "realists11 "
approaches. Even though explaining the difference between a realist versus a utopian
approach is not the focus of this research thesis, this paragraph explains why I chose to
answer my research question with a theory and authors considered realists and not utopians.
Realists admit nation-states as the leading actors in international relations and affairs. Plus,
the ideas of rationality, anarchy and power structure dominate the analysis. The lens of
realism is a good starting point for the research and to explore the data in the empirical
11 "Realism, also known as political realism, is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and
conflictual side. It is usually contrasted with idealism or liberalism, which tends to emphasize cooperation.
Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own
security, act in pursuit of their national interests, and struggle for power" (Korab-Karpowicz et al., 2018).
8section because it arranges adequately the factors and measures systems in which I apply
these same factors.
Conversely, utopian ideas, propose an alternative view of society. According to Paul
Goodman (2010), an idea is utopian when it proposes an alternative to the status quo. Utopian
thinking is convenient when addressing power accumulation because it helps change the
locus of the problem, which could not be solved in the usual terms. Examples of utopian
thinking are equity and cooperation instead of competition, inclusion, strengthening of
countervailing power such as social movements, among others. These conceptions are
applicable in addressing systematic power accumulation, for they show alternatives methods
in how society could organize itself. The Resource Wars and Imperialism do not question
these beliefs of society thoroughly. Hence, they are not considered to be utopians.
According to some realist authors, such as Edward Carr, the creation of international
institutions hides gross interests based on utopian ideas - dear to the public opinion, such as
the search for peace - to maintain the privileged position of power and wealth of hegemonic
powers, such as the US. Further, Carr harshly condemned the liberal theory - to which it
refers as utopian -, because it considers that there is an alleged harmony of interests between
the states when the economic system would be based on divergences, given that each nation
seeks to increase its relative economic position (Reis, 2020).
Utopian approaches, with their respective authors, are not capable of fully mobilizing
the factors of the thesis since most of them do not consider necessary states as the principal
actors in IR. Furthemore, utopian authors fail to adequately conceptualise the interplay
among ideologies, political alliances and nationalization processes. Koch and Perreault
affirm, that the existence of natural resources can be viewed as inherently political and as
both a material and an ideological force, in which resource struggles are never only (or even
primarily) about resources themselves, but instead encompass an array of social and political
concerns including political and ideological ones (Koch & Perreault; 2019, 617). Therefore,
the purpose and goals of the study are the following:
91. To what extent can the theory of Imperialism explain two different reactions of
the USA to oil nationalization processes in Brazil (1953) and Venezuela
(1976-1999)?
As I later explain in the methodology section, what this research aims to do is to use a
combination of specific authors and two perspectives (both from Latin America and the US),
applying later the data and the factors to help understand the relevance of the theory of
imperialism as a research lens. The thesis likewise addresses variables such as ideologies, the
international system and the international reality during their oil nationalization. In the
methodology section, I explain that the central methodology used is qualitative content
analysis (QCA) because it is suitable for materials requiring some degree of interpretation.
The following section is a discussion of the theory used in the thesis. I explore Moniz
Bandeira, José Luis Fiori and Miguel Salas, emphasising the geopolitics of energy, ideology,
imports of oil, analysis of speeches during the creation of the oil company, among others. The
section finishes with Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti's perspectives, providing an
enriching angle to study the problem.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Introduction and research propositions
In simple terms, “imperialism” might be defined as a system involving a hierarchy of
states in which dominance is exercised by extending the stronger state’s relatively greater
economic and political power against the weaker state (Feldman, 2020: 23). In the economic
aspect, imperialism is related to extracting resources from the weaker state to benefit the
stronger state (Ibid, 2020). This theory has several subcomponents, and, as I later explain, I
10concentrate on the economic perspective, but I use other components, such as resource wars.
Imperialism is at the precise foundation, historically and conceptually, of the discipline of IR,
for most of the earlier texts reflect a shared preoccupation with imperialism (Long et al.,
2006). Even though this theory can be better understood in broader terms, the structure of
imperialism has to be run from the Northwestern corner of the world, rooted in a triangle with
the US at one corner (Galtung, 1980). This triangle has a centre of gravity by which it has
been moving in a relative sense of the proportionate distribution of control over decisions
(Ibid, 1980). A vital component of this theory (or world view) is the assumption that the
disharmony in the countries in the periphery (Brazil and Venezuela, for example) is larger
than the disharmony in the centre (Ibid, 1980). Hence, as it becomes clearer, the idea of a
system constituted of countries in the centre, and periphery dominates in the analysis,
whereby the motivation (of the US in that matter) would be to control the periphery. In this
system, the defining end is domination on the part of some few, whether a conscious strategy
or the unplanned result of many contingent interactions among system units (nations,
corporate entities of any sort, human individuals) (Onuf, 2017).
I decided to test this theory because such theory should be evaluated according to its
potential as a reservoir of hypothesis implications against the present reality and as a
reservoir of policy implications against potential reality (goals, values) (Galtung, 1971).
Thus, this theory fits the overall methodological goals, for it can potentially explain US
reactions to oil nationalization in Brazil and Venezuela, despite some years apart.
Johan Galtung, a scholar from the University of Oslo on his paper A Structural Theory
of Imperialism (1971), defined the theory as follows:
This theory takes as its point of departure two of the most
glaring facts about this world: the tremendous inequality, within and
between nations, in almost all aspects of human living conditions,
including the power to decide over those living conditions; and the
resistance of this inequality to change. The world consists of Center
and Periphery nations; each nation, in turn, has its centres and
periphery (Galtung, 1971).
11For Galtung, the theory of imperialism must be understood in a more general
structural relationship between two collectives. Hence, the theory of imperialism (or
imperialism system as such) is a perspective that relates some of the parts to each other in a
relation of harmony of interest, and other parts in relations of disharmony of interest, or
conflict of interest (Galtung, 1971). The theory of imperialism has two defined seminal
mechanisms. The first one is of a pattern that the dominating nation enriches itself more than
the dominated one, being possible to see this pattern in economic relations among developed
and developing countries. The second key mechanism is where the subjugated nations in the
periphery are kept apart, with little communication and trade among themselves (Galtung,
1971: 117). These two mechanisms are more easily seen in economic imperialism, but it can
occur the spill-over effect, manifesting a political, military, communication and cultural
imperialism (Galtung, 1971). As later Nicholas Onuf, an American scholar that developed
Galtung’s theory wrote, this relationship of dominance can occur in more ways and take place
in different mechanisms, such as:
1. Domination takes place by means, or use, of
force—threatening the use of force often suffices, but
only if the threat is periodically carried out.
2. Domination takes place by use of rules—
including legal rules.
3. Domination takes place through speech—as
when assign value to people or institutions and give
reasons for doing so.
4. Domination takes place through intimidation
and incitement—through the manipulation of
emotions (Onuf, 2017: 9)
Most past research and studies of geopolitics and oil within Global Political Economy
use accepted and well-known theories to explain the role of competition and interests for oil.
Accordingly, abundant energy resources and international political alliances can be synonyms
if there is an alignment of worldviews, ideologies and power politics. There are, nevertheless,
alternatives theories and would be more "utopians" , backed by authors such as Geroge
Monbiot or Seymour Melman, for example. As previously mentioned, since the two latter
12authors encourage a redesign of society and an alternative vision, the thesis focuses uniquely
on the "mainstream realist" theories because it considers more acceptable the observance of
case studies, in addition to empirical data.
One dependent variable is the nationalist ideological choice when the nationalization
process of the oil companies in Brazil and Venezuela occurred (despite the natural difference
in nationalist scale and differences in the two countries and periods), vis à vis US direct or
indirect responses. As it is further explained in the methodology section, to answer the
research question – which is, as a reminder: “To what extent can the theory of Imperialism
explain two different reactions of the USA to oil nationalization processes in Brazil in 1953
and Venezuela in 1976-1999)? " –, the chosen independent variables to address the research
question are from the authors and theory. The intention is to create a deductively rooted set of
the above-mentioned theory from both Latin American and North American perspectives that
are later empirically explored.
I start with Moniz Bandeira, and to some extent, José Luis Fiori (among other Latin
American authors) studying the theory of Imperialism from a Latin American perspective.
They thoroughly research the relationship between the US and Latin American countries
(especially Brazil and Venezuela) regarding oil geopolitics and nationalist ideologies.
Furthermore, their framework is useful to analyse political parties, geopolitical development,
oil companies, international alliances, among other geopolitical concerns. Thus, I focus
primarily on institutions, contrasting ideologies and organizations, changes of political parties
and systems in power, and analysis of trade relations after and before the nationalization.
2.2 Latin American perspective
This section explains and clarifies how selected LA authors are engaged to answer the
research question through an imperialist perspective. I explain which factors from their
theoretical understanding help answer the research question.
13Both Luiz Moniz Bandeira and José Luis Fiori extensively discuss the interconnection
between natural energy resources, such as oil and gas, ideologies and the overall geopolitics
in Latin America vis à vis the US. According to Moniz Bandeira, the main objective of the
Great Powers (such as the US) concerning the states of the periphery (such as Brazil and, to a
certain extent, Venezuela) is to ensure that their political, military and economic development
does not affect their local, regional and global interests (Bandeira, 2014: 44). Hence, the
creation of national oil companies of oil-rich nations in the periphery, in his view, can pose a
national threat (for the security of the US). For him, American ideological and economic
strategies in South America are intertwined and mutually reinforcing (Ibid, 2014). As I later
discuss, throughout most of the 20th century – until Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999 –
Venezuela had peaceful cooperation with the US, for it had a subordination status. Bandeira
affirms that the great powers try to convince the population and co-opt the (local) elites for a
project of an international community in which the states on the periphery (including Brazil)
are content with a subordinate position and in which the privileges enjoyed by commercial
interests, financial and foreign investment in these peripheral states are maintained (Ibid,
2014: 45).
For Bandeira, the US strategy for the Americas developed, in several phases, the
permanent objective, clearly defined and pursued, of establishing and consolidating its
hegemony in the continent (Ibid, 2014). The US ideological stance towards Latin America
throughout the last century can be divided into three main phases. One of the most important
phases was the exclusion of European political and economic influence in Central America
and the Caribbean, essential areas to guarantee the inviolability of the US and the security of
the economic integration of its continental territory (Ibid, 2014: 49). Relating to this idea, the
same book by Bandeira Brazil, Argentina and the United States: Conflict and Integration in
South America: From the Triple Alliance to Mercosur, 1870-2001 states that the reduction of
Brazilian external dependence – such as the strengthening of nationalist ideologies via the
creation of national oil companies – would affect the influence of US political, military,
14economic and ideological influence in the region and, consequently, its ability to act on a
global level (Ibid, 2014).
Due to the strong wave of nationalization in Mexico during the 1920s and 1930s, the
Standard Oil of New Jersey and other North American oil companies concentrated their
interests in South America, especially in Venezuela, and later during the 1960s in Brazil. The
US, above all, had been concerned since 1925 with the depletion of its oil, and the
Washington government had guided US companies towards appropriating reserves in all parts
of the world, especially in Latin America (Ibid, 2014: 443). After the II World War, the
political and ideological conflict of the period moved to the interior of each country in Latin
America, which partially explains the strong ideological division during the creation of the
Brazilian oil company in 1953, culminating, eventually, with the suicide of the Brazilian
president in 1954. In addition, the Brazilian military dictatorship, which started in 1964, was
guided and oriented by the US. After breaking diplomatic relations with Cuba, it started to
support the redraft of the concept of sovereignty, which would no longer be based on the
geographical limits and borders of the States, but on the political and ideological character of
the regimes (Ibid, 2014: 965).
Concerning Venezuela, with Chávez’s tendency towards left-wing nationalism, he
created yet another obstacle to negotiations for establishing the Free Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA). He placed the United States, of which it was the main oil supplier, facing
the problem of respecting the popular will, maintaining consistency with the policy of
promoting democracy, undertaken in the 1990s (Ibid, 2014: 1418-1419). With the delicate
economic and security situation at the beginning of the 21st century in Venezuela, Bandeira
states that the Bush administration tried to take advantage of the growing chaos in Venezuela
to unite opposition forces and provide them with planning and intelligence resources to turn
the strike of workers in the oil industry into a movement to overthrow Chávez from the
presidency (Ibid, 2014: 1534). Even more notorious is that the Venezuela petroleum company
PDVSA was responsible for around 80% of the country’s exports and almost 15% of US oil
imports. This percentage is higher than that of Saudi Arabia. For this reason, the role of
15Venezuela, with the world largest oil and gas reserves, has become crucial to US energy
security (Ibid, 2014).
According to Bandeira’s theoretical view, the US government usually denials all
foreign intervention in Latin America and tries to appear as defending democratic values. The
Bush administration convincingly denied the responsibility and complicity of the US with the
coup d'état, a norm by which the US governments often guided their intervention policies in
other Latin American countries (Ibid, 2014: 1539). In parallel to this, Bandeira likewise states
that the foreign policy of the US, vis-à-vis Latin America, was never, in reality, consistent
with American democratic principles, which have always been a marginal element for
rhetoric. According to this theoretical view, nationalist ideologies, through the nationalization
or creation of oil companies, do poses a threat to US security and its role in the region. The
election of Chavez in 1999 and other South American presidents nicknamed “populists” by
conservative ideologues does not mean that the continent has tended even further to the left.
It reflects the enormous erosion of the influence of the US in the region, the increasing
decline of its dominance, the tensions and uncertainties related to the process of economic
globalization, which the governments of Washington tried to promote after the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the Socialist Bloc (Bandeira, 2008: 32).
The Brazilian political scientist José Luis Fiori, having lived and studied in several
Latin American countries, also studies the interplay between ideologies, oil and the overall
geopolitics of Latin American countries concerning the US, departing from a Latin American
perspective. He affirmed that a new "imperialist race" is underway (he wrote that a bit before
the Shale Oil Revolution) among the great powers which are fighting for their energy and
food security. According to this perspective, historically, what made petrol and other liquids
the cornerstone of the word geopolitics, including the US role in Latin America, was (and still
is) their military relevance, especially after World War II. Petroleum was present in almost all
international conflicts, in which nationalism and nationalisation played an important role,
namely the strategic control of the main production sites, distribution and petroleum reserves
(Fiori: 2004). Especially concerning the US, he states that oil was, is and will continue to be
16an important item in the US national security agenda, in which, from 1985 onwards, a new
system of ordering the international oil market started to be based on its financialization, in
an environment marked by the resumption of American hegemony (Ibid, 2004: 315).
As I later explain, and Fiori also states, Venezuela played a seminal role during the II
World War for the US because it had secured its supply during the conflict (Ibid, 2004).
Further, the overall oil nationalizations, such as the one in Brazil and later in Venezuela,
made the last of the three economic pillars of the post-war ordering system disappear: the
stability of concession contracts that guaranteed companies (including the American ones) the
power to fix quantities and prices (Ibid, 2004). Oil is not the cause of all conflicts in the
international system. But Fiori believes that there is no doubt that the great centralization of
power that is taking place within the interstate system is also transforming the permanent
struggle for "energy security" of the national states into a war between the great powers for
the control of the new energy reserves that have been discovered in these last years (Fiori,
2019). The nationalist ideology expressed through the oil nationalization plays a seminal role
in the reactions of the US towards the oil-rich Latin American countries.
The second Vargas' government was characterised by pragmatic nationalism because
his government sought to provide a technical approach to the nationalisation and
monopolisation project, avoiding further politicization (De Almeida, 2013). Also, the
nationalism in his government is often characterised as "nacional-desenvolvimentismo
populista" or "populist national developmentalism", which defends the resumption of a
national development project backed by populism. It is within this framework that Vargas
sought to implement a nationalist bargain, by supporting the US in the political-strategic plan
of the Cold War, in exchange for aid to Brazilian economic development (Vizentini, 1994).
Thus, this second government can be understood to be pragmatic for it had to act actively in
negotiations with the Brazilian National Congress (and with parties at that time with
opposing ideological views concerning the nationalization – for almost two years (since
December 1951) – which eventually became Law No. 2004 of 3 December October 1953. As
Vizentini asserts and I later comment in the contextualisation section, the overthrow of the
17Vargas government demonstrated that the nationalist bargain had become an uncomfortable
policy for the international status quo hegemonized by the United States (Vizentini, 1994).
The creation of Petrobrás, due to the importance of the controversies it engenders,
would contain indications of leverage to heavy industrialization and national affirmation
(Fiori and Lessa; 1991). The format given to Petrobras (monopoly from the time of its
creation until 1997) responds more to the traditional nationalist vision of the indispensability
of national control of foreign natural resources as an essential requirement of sovereignty.
Fiori and Lessa see in this episode more the crowning of a nationalist project — in the sense
previously given to the theme — than the fervour for industrialization under the command of
national capital (Ibid, 1997: 187). Yet, Vargas also had a more prudence stance with Petrobrás
creation. Even concerning the control of natural resources, the Vargas government was less
nationalist than the one advocated for a long time by the Tenants, practised by Varga's first
government and defended in the 40s and 50s (Ibid, 1997: 194). Fiori argues, thus, in this
context of the political crisis in 1954-1955 and the political reading of economic data, there
are no clear articulations or clear interests (Ibid, 1997). After World War II and even after the
end of the Cold War, foreign policy in Brazil was fickle and fluctuated over time, changing its
goals and strategies, according to the moment, the government and the dominant ideology
(Fiori, 2013).
The Venezuelan historian Miguel Tinker Salas affirmed that the election of Hugo
Chávez in 1998 promised the completion of the Venezuelan nationalization process, which
had started back in 1976. Despite its oil nationalization in 1976, this law remained filled with
loopholes allowing foreign companies to continue to operate in the country through service
contracts or in advisory roles (Salas, 2015: 148). According to Salas, differently as before,
Chávez adopted a model of participatory democracy to empower sectors that had been
historically marginalized. Nonetheless, nationalization confronted strong resistance, including
a failed coup in 2002 and a subsequent lockout in 2002 and 2003. The government gained
control of the oil industry in 2004, starting a series of influential social programs funded
largely by redirecting oil profits (Salas, 2017: 419).
18Silas likewise stated that starting in 1999 the Venezuelan government had pursued
new foreign policy initiatives, advanced the idea of a multipolar world, assumed a greater
role on the international stage and promoted Latin and South American hemispheric
integration (as a policy to promote South-South relations). These positions clashed with long-
held assumptions about the nature of Venezuela’s relations with the world (such as the one
with the US). Yet, this clash created a contrast for the Venezuelan oil economy that required
good relations with the US (Salas, 2015: 141). Since Chávez came into power, the US
perceived Venezuela’s social programs and foreign policy initiatives as a “destabilizing
force” and proposed to "vaccinate” Latin America from Caracas to stop the spread of the
purported “contagion” (Ibid, 2015). Hence, Chávez Bolivarian ideology contrasted with the
US long-lasting foreign influences in the region.
US strategy towards petroleum right after WW II was and continue to be one of
hegemony and domination due to its high economic, political and ideological values, and
remains a leading focus of global energy geopolitics. For this and other reasons, researching
the role of the Brazilian and Venezuelan nationalist ideologies through nationalization
remains an alluring and puzzling issue to research. The period of this type of ideology in
Latin American countries around 1930 to 1980 contrasts with the neoliberal period and with
the replacement by a common program of monetary stabilization policy and deregulation and
privatization of the region's national economies from the 1980s until the end of the 1990s.
Hence, the contrasting Venezuelan and Brazilian nationalist policies and the consequent US
response endure a chief issue to research.
2.3 North American perspective
Noam Chomsky investigates the part that hegemonic powers possess in the world,
including their international relations. In other words, one of his research is concerned with
the USA’s influence on third (mainly developing) nations and how the USA has used both
19direct and indirect means to destabilize countries to its benefit. As he affirms, Washington’s
primary concern is Venezuela, the leading oil producer in the Western hemisphere. The
largest gas reserves in South America are in Bolivia, which now follows much the same path
as Venezuela’s. Both countries pose a problem for Washington in other respects (Chomsky,
2007). Seen through the lenses of Chomsky, it is argued that the creation of Petrobrás (the
Brazilian oil company) in the 1950s was one of the most ideological disputes surrounding the
oil problem. This dispute was translated around the ideologies of Americanism versus state
technical groups. In Venezuela, on the other hand, it is argued that the ideologies brought
forward by Chavez had a confrontation with US ideologies and interests. The international
context during the 21st century is also different.
Chomsky affirms that the world is too varied and complex to have a definite answer to
the question of who rules it. Nevertheless, there are certain identifiable prominent actors,
such as the U.S., Russia, or China. Since the end of the II World War, the U.S raised by far to
a leading position. It sets the terms for most global problems, ranging from concerns such as
Israel-Palestine, Iran, Latin America, the “war on terror,” international economic
organization, rights and justice, to ultimate issues of survival of civilization like nuclear war
and environmental destruction (Chomsky, 2014: 5). Differently from the argument of Parenti,
as the next section explores, Chomsky believes the main concern for the U.S is national
independence, and not necessarily opposing left-wing ideologies, as he says:
No (the primary concern is not to destroy left-wing governments), the primary concern is to
prevent independence, regardless of the ideology. Remember, we’re the global power, so we
have to make sure that all the various parts of the world continue serving their assigned
functions in our global system. (…) The nationalism we oppose doesn’t need to be left-wing
—we’re just as much opposed to right-wing nationalism. So, despite what you always hear,
U.S. interventionism has nothing to do with resisting the spread of “Communism,” it’s
independence we’ve always been opposed to everywhere (Chomsky, 2002: 149).
Thus, national independence through the analysis of Chomsky is a critical factor in
investigating the expropriation of oil in Brazil and Venezuela. Political alliances and
ideologies also demonstrate the possibilities of nationalizing oil companies by their
respective governments. As he argues in a later paper, the new mission (of U.S military
interventions in Latin America) is to combat “radical populism”– the term that is regularly
20used for independent nationalism that does not obey orders (Chomsky, 2007). As the next
section shows, Chomsky’s ideas help explore the political alliances during the nationalization
processes of the two Latin American states during the 20th century.
Michael Parenti writes within the imperialism theory since he analyses mainly US
relations with third countries. Michael Parenti, differently from Chomsky, argues that the US
enjoys attacking left-wing regimes. In other words, according to him, the critical point is not
that a country is a democracy or oil-rich, but that it has a left-leaning government.
Nevertheless, for the thesis, we can rearrange his argument affirming that the similarities
among the two Latin American countries are that they have all practised nationalist
governments policies and are not necessarily left-wing. Table 1 below shows some of the US
(direct and indirect) interferences in Latin America throughout the 20th century, divided into
three central foreign policy or ideologies: Big Stick Ideology (some authors say it is a
corollary of the Monroe Doctrine of 18212), Good Neighbour Polic13, and the return of the
Monroe Doctrine, with a new name as Truman Doctrine.14
Table 1: The role of U.S in Latin America. Table showing US interferences in Latin American
according to foreign policies ideologies throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. 15
12 irst conceived as a statement in opposition to European intrusions in the Americas, it became under President
Theodore Roosevelt a justification for U.S. intervention. To cultivate Latin American trade and goodwill during
the Great Depression and the Second World War, Franklin Roosevelt’s administration accepted the principle of
non-intervention. Later with the onset of the Cold War, perceived international imperatives led to a series of new
interventions in countries such as Guatemala, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Chile. Though typically
couched in idealistic rhetoric emphasizing Pan-American commitments to solidarity and democracy, the various
versions of the Monroe Doctrine consistently served U.S. policy makers as a means for advancing what they
understood as national strategic and economic interests (Gilderhus, 2006: 5).
13 The central feature (of the Good Neighbour Policy) committed the United States to the principle of non-
intervention, affirming that no nation has the right to intervene in the domestic affairs of another for any reason.
Another called for Latin American cooperation in efforts to uphold peace, maintain security, and expand
commerce (Ibid, 2006: 13).
14 Some authors say the later ideological foreign policy with steadfast control of geographic-ideological areas
starts in the 1950s. During the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the era of the Good Neighbor formally
came to an end when Cold War imperatives came into conflict with the principle of non-intervention (Ibid,
2006:14).
15 Table made by the author with the help of Parenti's arguments and the author's own research on the topic.
21Theodore Roosevelt’s Good Neighbour policy – U.S. foreign policy after
foreign policy: Big stick 1930 to 1948 and during the Cold War
ideology – 1903 to 1929 (Truman Doctrine) – 1947
to present days
Panama (1903) None Brazil (1964)
Mexico (1914-1917) Bolivia (1971)
Haiti (1915) Argentina (1976)
Dominican Republic (1916) Costa Rica (1948)
Cuba (1906-1909) Dominican Republic (1961)
Nicaragua (1912) Venezuela (2002/
Honduras (1900-1920) 2013-2020)
Guatemala (1954)
Paraguay (1954)
Uruguay (1973)
Cuba (1961)
Guyana (1961–64)
Chile (1973)
Nicaragua (1981–90)
From the table above, a correlation between US national foreign ideologies/doctrines
and foreign interventions in Latin America is apparent. The next step is to investigate the
political alliances and ideologies in Brazil and Venezuela when they proceeded with the
nationalization and if they had any effect on the nationalization. Other authors affirm that the
1929 economic crash might have also been influential in fostering a distinct ideological
foreign policy that attenuated Latin American interventions between 1930 and 1948. Others
affirm that the interlude of the “Good Neighbour Policy” was the continuation of the “Big
Stick” Ideology in Latin America by alternative means. Parenti argues that the dominant
paradigm is the prevailing ideology or mode of thought that explains how and why society
functions as it does (Parenti, 2011). Specifically, on Venezuela, Parenti affirms that because
of using the wealth – natural resources reserves – of the nation to serve the working populace
instead of the favoured few (as well as being a government that represents an entirely
contrasting mode of social organization), Venezuela’s president, or any other leader with such
22an egalitarian agenda, is immediately listed in the “enemy” column by the ever-vigilant
empire builders (Parenti, 2011: 2016). In the theory and empirical part, I further elucidate his
theory’s dependent variables, discrete measures, and factors. Thus I intended to use the one
theory (Imperialism) to test it with the selected authors in the chosen cases.
2.4 Discussion and disposition
The previous chapter on selected theory tried to show that the US reaction towards the
Brazilian creation of its national oil company and the solid Venezuelan push towards anti-
Americanism ideology, starting with Chávez, can be studied and tested singular perspectives.
As already stated, I deploy a realist approach to the understanding of the research problem.
The thesis proposes to use a combination of perspectives in order to test and understand
them. The second key point is that the thesis encompasses both a North American and Latin
American perspective when studying the proposed research question. I believe that by
isolating the authors, the explanatory variables are enhanced and enriched.
As a quick recap and outlook of what comes later, the background theory section is
first debated with realist selected authors. Afterwards, before writing the discussion and the
empirical part, I explain the main methods used in the following section. After this, I discuss
the results with the data inspected. The aim is, through investigating multiple forms of
information, to measure contrasting perspectives of the theory. The methodological ambition
of this research is to use a combination of dependent variables and authors to apprehend
further the interplay of nationalizations and ideologies in the two selected Latin American
countries in the 20th century. The period of the analysis stretches from the 1950s until the
beginning of the 21st century.
Nevertheless, I concentrate on specific time frames within this overall period in Brazil
and Venezuela. To allow a comparative study, I research the two countries in specific
timeframes. Therefore, I use both an anachronic and diachronic comparison, researching
distinct objects in specific time frames. After initially debating the research question, the
23theoretical framework, authors, and theory to answer it, I develop and explain the contrasting
geopolitical and economic realities of Brazil and Venezuela in the empirical part. After
looking into different articles, the central research gap was a thorough comparative analysis
among Brazil and Venezuela regarding oil and relations with hegemonic powers. A further
gap is that the authors' analysis in the present empirical part – such as Moniz Bandeira, Noam
Chomsky and Michael Parenti, among others – does not often appear in previous research.
Besides, in these former cases, the focus on political ideologies and alliances mainly occurred
indirectly..
3. Methodology and Methods
This section of the thesis clarifies the research method, theory, and operationalised
factors, including data collection. Possible limitations and criticisms of the methods and
theory used are also forwarded. In other words, this section aims to demonstrate what I did,
why I did it, and how I arranged the thesis.
3.1 Qualitative Content Analysis
First of all, I chose qualitative methods because qualitative research contributes to
understanding the human condition (and my research is geopolitical analysis) in different
contexts and of a perceived situation (Bengtsson 2015: 8), which is precisely the design of
this study. Also, all qualitative research deals with interpretation, which can vary in depth and
level of abstraction, depending on the method of analysis and the researcher’s ability to
distance him (Ibid, 2015). As it is later explained, my self-reflection is an essential part of
qualitative research, whatever chosen qualitative method. I considered my “pre-
understanding”, both in the planning process and during the analytical process, to minimize
any bias of my influence (Ibid, 2015). The leading research method is qualitative content
analysis (QCA) because I must engage in some degree of interpretation to arrive at the
24meaning of the data (summarise and describe critical aspects of my material), apart from
being systematic, flexible, and data reducing. The success of this method depends
significantly on the coding process, and the basic coding process in content analysis is to
organize large quantities of text into much fewer content categories. This text data might be
in verbal, print, or electronic form. They might have been obtained from narrative responses,
open-ended survey questions, interviews, focus groups, observations, or print media such as
articles, books, or manuals (Shannon et al., 2005: 1278).
As QCA can acquire various research methods, one that I use is by studying many
quotes and speech analysis because it is a research technique for making replicable and valid
inferences from texts (or from verbal, visual, or written data) that describe and quantify
specific phenomena (Ibid, 2015). Hence, as a researcher, I tried to “stay true” to the text.
Since I am studying the US reaction of two selected Latin American countries during two
different time periods, QCA fits into my research designs and aims because QCA comes into
its own when we are dealing with meaning that is less obvious and the overall context of the
issue studied is needed. With QCA, my research question specifies the angle from which I
can examine the data. Apart from being applicable to answer casual mechanisms and, mainly,
my research question, when we are engaged in qualitative research, QCA is also suitable for
the research because it can be applied to a wide range of materials (Schreiner 2012: 2). It is
also reflexive, in a way that the reflexivity of the researcher is acknowledged (Ibid, 2012:
28), and I consider how, as a researcher, I co-create my data. Hence, the end goal of QCA is
to go beyond individual understanding and interpretation (Ibid, 2012). Adding up to that, as
Salim Nefes in his paper "Using Content Analysis to Study Political Texts: Notes on Turkish
Parliamentary Debates" affirms, QCA affords advantages of generalization and triangulation
because the former is the method’s greater ability to draw evidence from different contexts by
adding up more analyses than single-method studies. Triangulation, on the other hand, using
different sources to test the validity of results, stimulates researcher creativity and enables the
studies to be more accurate in their analyses (Nefes, 2020: 3).
25I use QCA by evaluating the data from discourse content analysis from more than one
database and applying the measurements of the theory in the two cases during the oil
nationalisation. Thus, QCA is more about summarising what is in the data and less about
looking at data in new ways or creating theory. The focus of QCA is on how the data and
theory relate to each other (Ibid, 2012: 41). As table 2 below shows, the methods test out a
theory from contrasting perspectives by using their factors and measuring system in the
empirical reality of the chosen Latin American countries. As it becomes clear, the
methodology ambition is not to discuss 16 or the possibility of discarding alternative
explanations, but only to mention that I am naturally aware of them. The research tries to
minimise these issues by combining the theory's perspectives and authors coming from
different perspectives. As stated, the methodology ambition is to test selected theoretical
lenses and use QCA through data analysis. As later seen in the empirical part, I deploy the
utilisation of many written quotes through speeches about the nationalisation processes by
crucial people. As qualitative methods are expressed in words (and not in statistical models),
in my case, content analysis is suitable to test the imperialism theory by studying speeches
and other approaches. Hence, QCA can be defined as a research method for the subjective
interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of
coding and identifying themes or patterns (Shannon et al., 2005: 1278).
Table 2: Theory operationalized. 17
Authors Theory Main Factors Measuring Systems
16"Verificanionism" or confirmation bias connotes the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are
partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in hand (Feldman, 2020: 4).
17 Source: own elaboration.
26You can also read
