|
- published: 04 May 2013
- views: 66540
- author: whitehouse
Area | 21,069,501 km2 (8,134,980 sq mi) |
---|---|
Population | 572,039,894 |
Pop. density | 27 /km2 (70 /sq mi) |
Demonym | Latin American, American |
Countries | 19 |
Dependencies | 1 |
Languages | Spanish, Portuguese, Quechua, Mayan languages, Guaraní, French, Aymara, Nahuatl, Italian and others. |
Time Zones | UTC-2 to UTC-8 |
Largest cities | [1] 1. Mexico City 2. São Paulo 3. Buenos Aires 4. Rio de Janeiro 5. Lima 6. Bogotá 7. Santiago 8. Belo Horizonte 9. Guadalajara 10. Caracas |
Latin America (Spanish: América Latina or Latinoamérica; Portuguese: América Latina; French: Amérique latine) is a region of the Americas where Romance languages (i.e., those derived from Latin) – particularly Spanish and Portuguese, and variably French – are primarily spoken.[2][3] Latin America has an area of approximately 21,069,500 km² (7,880,000 sq mi), almost 3.9% of the Earth's surface or 14.1% of its land surface area. As of 2010, its population was estimated at more than 590 million[4] and its combined GDP at 5.16 trillion United States dollars (6.27 trillion at PPP).[5] The Latin American expected economic growth rate is at about 5.7% for 2010 and 4% in 2011.[6] According to Phelan (1968, p. 296), the term "Latin America" was baptized in 1861 in La revue des races Latines, a magazine 'dedicated to the cause of Pan-Latinism'.
Latin America can be subdivided into several subregions based on geography, politics, demographics and culture. The basic geographical subregions are North America, Central America, the Caribbean and South America;[7] the latter contains further politico-geographical subdivisions such as the Southern Cone and the Andean states. It may be subdivided on linguistic grounds into Hispanic America and Portuguese America.
The idea that a part of the Americas has a linguistic affinity with the Romance cultures as a whole can be traced back to the 1830s, in the writing of the French Saint-Simonian Michel Chevalier, who postulated that this part of the Americas was inhabited by people of a "Latin race", and that it could, therefore, ally itself with "Latin Europe" in a struggle with "Teutonic Europe", "Anglo-Saxon America" and "Slavic Europe".[8] The idea was later taken up by Latin American intellectuals and political leaders of the mid- and late-nineteenth century, who no longer looked to Spain or Portugal as cultural models, but rather to France.[9] The term was first used in Paris in an 1856 conference by the Chilean politician Francisco Bilbao[10] and the same year by the Colombian writer José María Torres Caicedo in his poem "Two Americas.[11] The term Latin America was supported by the French Empire of Napoleon III during the French invasion of Mexico, as a way to include France among countries with influence in America and to exclude Anglophone countries, and played a role in his campaign to imply cultural kinship of the region with France, transform France into a cultural and political leader of the area, and install Maximilian of Habsburg as emperor of the Second Mexican Empire.[12] This term was also baptized in 1861 by French scholars in La revue des races Latines, a magazine dedicated to the Pan-Latinism movement.[13]
In contemporary usage:
The distinction between Latin America and Anglo-America is a convention based on the predominant languages in the Americas by which Romance-language and English-speaking cultures are distinguished. Neither area is culturally or linguistically homogeneous; in substantial portions of Latin America (e.g., highland Peru, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Paraguay), American Indian cultures and, to a lesser extent, Amerindian languages, are predominant, and in other areas, the influence of African cultures is strong (e.g., the Caribbean basin—including parts of Colombia and Venezuela)—and the coastal areas of Ecuador and Brazil.[citation needed]
The Americas were thought to have been first inhabited by people crossing the Bering Land Bridge, now known as the Bering strait, from northeast Asia into Alaska well over 10,000 years ago. The earliest known settlement, however, was identified at Monte Verde, near Puerto Montt in Southern Chile. Its occupation dates to some 14,000 years ago and there is some disputed evidence of even earlier occupation. Over the course of millennia, people spread to all parts of the continents. By the first millennium AD/CE, South America's vast rainforests, mountains, plains and coasts were the home of tens of millions of people. The earliest settlements in the Americas are of the Las Vegas Culture[21] from about 8000 BC and 4600 BC, a sedentary group from the coast of Ecuador, the forefathers of the more known Valdivia culture, of the same era. Some groups formed more permanent settlements such as the Chibchas (or "Muiscas" or "Muyscas") and the Tairona groups. These groups are in the circum Caribbean region. The Chibchas of Colombia, the Quechuas and Aymaras of Bolivia and Perú were the three indigenous groups that settled most permanently.
The region was home to many indigenous peoples and advanced civilizations, including the Aztecs, Toltecs, Caribs, Tupi, Maya, and Inca. The golden age of the Maya began about 250, with the last two great civilizations, the Aztecs and Incas, emerging into prominence later on in the early fourteenth century and mid-fifteenth centuries, respectively. The Aztec empire was ultimately the most powerful civilization known throughout the Americas, until its downfall in part by the Spanish invasion.
With the arrival of the Europeans following Christopher Columbus' voyages, the indigenous elites, such as the Incas and Aztecs, lost power to the heavy European invasion. Hernándo Cortés seized the Aztec elite's power with the help of local groups who did not favor the Aztec elite, and Francisco Pizarro eliminated the Incan rule in Western South America. The European powers of Spain and Portugal colonized the region, which along with the rest of the uncolonized world, was divided into areas of Spanish and Portuguese control by the line of demarcation in 1494, which gave Spain all areas to the west, and Portugal all areas to the east (the Portuguese lands in South America subsequently becoming Brazil).
By the end of the sixteenth century Spain and Portugal had been joined by others, including France, in occupying large areas of North, Central and South America, ultimately extending from Alaska to the southern tips of the Patagonia. European culture, customs and government were introduced, with the Roman Catholic Church becoming the major economic and political power to overrule the traditional ways of the region, eventually becoming the only official religion of the Americas during this period.
Epidemics of diseases brought by the Europeans, such as smallpox and measles, wiped out a large portion of the indigenous population. Historians cannot determine the number of natives who died due to European diseases, but some put the figures as high as 85% and as low as 25%. Due to the lack of written records, specific numbers are hard to verify. Many of the survivors were forced to work in European plantations and mines. Intermixing between the indigenous peoples and the European colonists was very common, and, by the end of the colonial period, people of mixed ancestry (mestizos) formed majorities in several colonies.
Haiti among the Latin American nations, was the first to gain independence, in 1804. This followed from a violent slave revolt led by Toussaint L'ouverture on the French colony of Saint-Domingue. The victors abolished slavery. Haitian independence helped inspire independence movements in Spanish America.
By the end of the eighteenth century, Spanish and Portuguese power waned on the global scene as other European powers took their place, notably Britain and France. Resentment grew among the majority of the population in Latin America over the restrictions imposed by the Spanish government, as well as the dominance of native Spaniards (Iberian-born Peninsulares) in the major social and political institutions. Napoleon's invasion of Spain in 1808 marked a turning point, compelling Criollo elites to form juntas that advocated independence. Also, the newly independent Haiti, the second oldest nation in the New World after the United States and the oldest independent nation in Latin America, further fueled the independence movement by inspiring the leaders of the movement, such as Simón Bolívar of Venezuela, José de San Martín of Argentina and Bernardo O'Higgins of Chile, and by providing them with considerable munitions and troops.
Fighting soon broke out between juntas and the Spanish colonial authorities, with initial victories for the advocates of independence. Eventually these early movements were crushed by the royalist troops by 1812, including those of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla in Mexico and Francisco de Miranda in Venezuela. Under the leadership of a new generation of leaders, such as Simón Bolívar "The Liberator", José de San Martín of Argentina, Bernardo O'Higgins of Chile, and other Libertadores in South America, the independence movement regained strength, and by 1825, all Spanish America, except for Puerto Rico and Cuba, had gained independence from Spain. Brazil achieved independence with a constitutional monarchy established in 1822. In the same year in Mexico, a military officer, Agustín de Iturbide, led a coalition of conservatives and liberals who created a constitutional monarchy, with Iturbide as emperor. This First Mexican Empire was short-lived, and was followed by the creation of a republic in 1823.
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. |
Latin America’s participation in World War II was lead by the country of Brazil. After World War I, in which Brazil was an ally of the United States, Great Britain, and France, the country realized it needed a more capable army but didn’t have the technology to create it. In 1919 the French Military Mission was established by the French Commission in Brazil. Their main goal was to contain the inner rebellions in Brazil. They tried to assist the army by bringing them up to the European military standard but constant civil missions did not prepare them for World War II.
Brazil President, Getulio Vargas, wanted to industrialize Brazil allowing it to be more competitive with other countries. He reached out to Germany, Italy, France, and the United States to act as trade allies. Many Italian and German people immigrated to Brazil many years before World War II began thus creating a Nazi influence. The immigrants held high positions in government and the armed forces. It was recently found that 9,000 war criminals escaped to South America, including Croatians, Ukrainians, Russians and other western Europeans who aided the Nazi murder machine. Most, perhaps as many as 5,000, went to Argentina; between 1,500 and 2,000 are thought to have made it to Brazil; around 500 to 1,000 to Chile; and the rest to Paraguay and Uruguay.[22] It was not a secret that Vargas had an admiration for Hitler’s Nazi Germany and its Führer. He even let German Luftwaffe build secret air forces around Brazil, but he knew that he could never favor the Nazis because of their racism towards the large black population in Brazil. This alliance with Germany lead to be Brazil’s second best trade alliance behind the United States.
Brazil continued to try to remain neutral to the United States and Germany because it was trying to make sure it could continue to be a place of interest for both opposing countries. Brazil attended continental meetings in Buenos Aires, Argentina (1936), Lima Peru (1938), and Havana, Cuba (1940) that obligated them to agree to defend any part of the Americas if they were to be attacked. Eventually Brazil decided to stop trading with Germany once Germany started attacking offshore trading ships resulting in Germany declaring a blockade against the Americas in the Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore, Germany also ensured that they would be attacking the Americas soon.
Once the German submarines attacked unarmed Brazilian trading ships, President Vargas met with United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt to discuss how they could retaliate. On January 22, 1942, Brazil officially ended all relations with Germany, Japan, and Italy becoming a part of the Allies.
The Brazilian Expeditionary Force was sent to Naples, Italy to fight for democracy. Brazil was the only Latin American country to send troops to Europe. Initially, Brazil wanted to only provide resources and shelter for the war to have a chance of gaining a high postwar status but ended up sending 25,000-men to fight.[23]
After World War II, the United States and Latin America continued to have a close relationship. For example, USAID created family planning programs in Latin America combining the NGOs already in place, providing the women in largely Catholic areas access to contraception. [24]
There was Nazi influence in certain parts of the country, but Jewish migration from Europe during the war continued. Only a small population of people recognized or knew about the Holocaust.[25] Furthermore, there were numerous military bases built by the U.S, but also by the Germans, during the war. Even now there are still remaining bombs from the war, which needed to be destroyed. [26]
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2011) |
The Great Depression caused Latin America to grow at a slow rate, separating it from leading industrial democracies. The two world wars and U.S. Depression also made Latin American countries favor internal economic development, leading Latin America to adopt the policy of import substitution industrialization. [27] Countries also renewed emphasis on exports. Brazil began selling automobiles to other countries, and some Latin American countries set up plants to assemble imported parts, letting other countries take advantage of Latin America’s low labor costs. Columbia began to export flowers and cocaine, becoming the world’s second leading flower exporter and leading supplier of cocaine. [28] Economic integration was called for, to attain economies that could compete with the economies of the U.S or Europe. Starting in the 1960’s with the Latin American Free Trade Association and Central American Common Market, Latin American countries worked toward economic integration. [29]
Large countries like Argentina called for reforms to lessen the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, which has been a long problem in Latin America that retards economic growth. [30]
Advances in public health caused an explosion of population growth, making it difficult to provide social services. Education expanded, and social security systems introduced, but benefits usually went to the middle class, not the poor. As a result, disparity of wealth increased. Increasing inflation and other factors caused countries to be unwilling to fund social development programs to help the poor.
Bureaucratic authoritarianism was practiced in Brazil after 1964, in Argentina, and in Chile under Augusto Pinochet, in a response to harsh economic conditions. It rested on the conviction that no democracy could take the harsh measures to curb inflation, reassure investors, and quicken economic growth quickly and effectively. Though inflation fell sharply, industrial production dropped with the decline of official protection. [31]
After World War II and the beginning of a Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, U.S. diplomats became interested in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and frequently waged proxy wars against the Soviet Union in these countries. The U.S. sought to stop the spread of communism. Latin Americans generally resented the U.S. superiority over them. Latin America also complained of the U.S. support to locals in overthrowing nationalist governments, and intervention through the CIA. Still, Latin America respected the U.S. during this time, and Latin American countries generally sided with the U.S., even though they complained of being neglected by the U.S.’s concern with communism in Europe and Asia, not Latin America. In 1947, the U.S. Congress passed the National Security Act, which created the National Security Council in response to America’s growing obsession with anti-communism. [32]
In 1954, when Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala accepted the support of communists and attacked holdings of the United Fruit Company, the U.S. decided to assist Guatemalan counterrevolutionaries in overthrowing Arbenz. These interventionist tactics featured use of the CIA rather than the military, which would be used in Latin America for the majority of the Cold War in events like the overthrow of Salvador Allende. Latin America was more concerned with issues of economic development, while the United States focused on fighting communism, even though the presence of communism was small in Latin America. [33]
By 1959, Cuba was afflicted with slow economic growth and a corrupt dictatorship under Batista, and Fidel Castro ousted Batista that year and set up the first communist state in the hemisphere. The U.S. imposed a trade embargo on Cuba, and combined with Castro’s expropriation of private enterprises, this was detrimental to the Cuban economy. [34] Around Cuba, rural guerrilla conflict and urban terrorism increased, inspired by the Cuban example. The United States put down these rebellions by supporting Latin American countries in their counter guerrilla operations through the Alliance for Progress launched by President John F. Kennedy.This thrust appeared to be successful. A Marxist, Salvador Allende, became president of Chile in 1970, but was overthrown three years later. Despite riots and political instability, most Latin American countries besides Cuba adopted democracies.
Encouraged by the Guatemala success, Kennedy, in 1960, decided to launch an attack on Cuba. The Bay of Pigs invasion was an abortive invasion of Cuba in 1961, financed by the U.S. through the CIA, to overthrow Castro. The incident proved to be very embarrassing for the new Kennedy administration. [35]
President John F. Kennedy initiated the Alliance for Progress in 1961, to establish economic cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America.The Alliance would provide $20 billion for reform in Latin America, and counterinsurgency measures. Instead, the reform failed because of the simplistic theory that guided it and the lack of experienced American experts who could understand Latin American customs.
The Cuban Missile crisis nearly brought the U.S. and the Soviet Union to war in October of 1962. Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev had installed several missiles in Cuba that could hit must of the Eastern United States. President Kennedy decided to place a naval blockade on Cuba to prevent further Soviet shipments of missiles. In the end, Khrushchev submitted, taking missiles away. In return, Kennedy agreed never to invade Cuba, and to withdraw nuclear-arms from Turkey. [36]
The set of specific economic policy prescriptions that were considered the "standard" reform package were promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the US Treasury Department during the 80s and 90s.
In recent years, several Latin American countries led by socialist or other left wing governments—including Argentina and Venezuela—have campaigned for (and to some degree adopted) policies contrary to the Washington Consensus set of policies. (Other Latin countries with governments of the left, including Brazil, Chile and Peru, have in practice adopted the bulk of the policies). Also critical of the policies as actually promoted by the International Monetary Fund have been some U.S. economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz and Dani Rodrik, who have challenged what are sometimes described as the "fundamentalist" policies of the International Monetary Fund and the US Treasury for what Stiglitz calls a "one size fits all" treatment of individual economies.
The term has become associated with neoliberal policies in general and drawn into the broader debate over the expanding role of the free market, constraints upon the state, and US influence on other countries' national sovereignty.
This politico-economical initiative was institutionalized in North America by the 1994 NAFTA, and elsewhere in the Americas through a series of like agreements. The comprehensive Free Trade Area of the Americas project, however, was rejected by most South American countries at the 2005 4th Summit of the Americas.
In most countries, since the 2000s left-wing political parties have risen to power. Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Lula da Silva in Brazil, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, Néstor Kirchner and his wife Cristina Fernández in Argentina, Ollanta Humala in Peru, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, are all part of this wave of left-wing politicians who also often declare themselves socialists, Latin Americanists, or anti-imperialists (often implying opposition to US policies towards the region). There are also some leaders who, although aren't exactly leftist, are closer to the centre-left in the political spectrum. Examples of this are Ricardo Lagos and Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Tabaré Vázquez and José Mujica in Uruguay, Laura Chinchilla in Costa Rica, and Mauricio Funes in El Salvador. A development of this has been the creation of the eight-member ALBA alliance, or "The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America" (Spanish: Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América). In the 2010, only three countries in Latin America had right-wing presidents. These were Sebastián Piñera in Chile, Felipe Calderon in Mexico, and Juan Manuel Santos in Colombia.
In 1982, Mexico announced that it could not meet its foreign debt payment obligations, inaugurating a debt crisis that would discredit Latin American economies throughout the decade.[37] This debt crisis would lead to neoliberal reforms that would instigate many social movements in the region. A “reversal of development” reigned over Latin America, seen through negative economic growth, declines in industrial production, and thus, falling living standards for the middle and lower classes.[38] Governments made financial security their primary policy goal over social security, enacting new neoliberal economic policies that implemented privatization of previously national industries and informalization of labor.[37] In an effort to bring more investors to these industries, these governments also embraced globalization through more open interactions with the international economy. Significantly, as democracy spread across much of Latin America, the realm of government more inclusive (a trend that proved conductive to social movements), the economic ventures remained exclusive to a few elite groups within society. Neoliberal restructuring consistently redistributed income upward while denying political responsibility to provide social welfare rights, and though development projects took place throughout the region, both inequality and poverty increased.[37] Feeling excluded from these new projects, the lower classes took ownership of their own democracy through a revitalization of social movements in Latin America.
Both urban and rural populations had serious grievances as a result of the above economic and global trends and have voiced them in mass demonstrations. Some of the largest and most violent of these have been protests against cuts in urban services, such as the Caracazo in Venezuela and the Argentinazo in Argentina.[39]
Rural movements have made diverse demands related to unequal land distribution, displacement at the hands of development projects and dams, environmental and indigenous concerns, neoliberal agricultural restructuring, and insufficient means of livelihood. These movements have benefited considerably from transnational support from conservationists and INGOs. The Movement of Rural Landless Workers (MST), is perhaps the largest contemporary Latin American social movement.[39] As indigenous populations are primarily rural, indigenous movements account for a large portion of rural social movements, including the Zapatista rebellion in Mexico, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), indigenous organizations in the Amazon region of Ecuador and Bolivia, pan-Mayan communities in Guatemala, and mobilization by the indigenous groups of Yanomami peoples in the Amazon, Kuna peoples in Panama, and Altiplano Aymara and Quechua peoples in Bolivia.[39] Other significant types of social movements include labor struggles and strikes, such as recovered factories in Argentina, as well as gender-based movements such as the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina and protests against maquila production, which is largely a women’s issue because of how it draws on women for cheap labor.[39]
These various social movements have continued today along with a broader political shift to the left. They are credited with raising social awareness across the globe of important issues affecting indigenous peoples in Latin America and through their work with NGOs and other international organizations. Moreover, they have provided tangible alternatives to the principles of neoliberalism, spurring constitutional changes and legislative policy while demonstrating the merits of active representative democracies.[40]
The 2000s commodities boom caused positive effects for many Latin American economies. Another trend is the rapidly increasing importance of the relations with China.
Historical populations | ||
---|---|---|
Year | Pop. | ±% |
1750 | 16,000,000 | — |
1800 | 24,000,000 | +50.0% |
1850 | 38,000,000 | +58.3% |
1900 | 74,000,000 | +94.7% |
1950 | 167,000,000 | +125.7% |
1999 | 511,000,000 | +206.0% |
Source: "UN report 2004 data" (PDF). |
The inhabitants of Latin America are of a variety of ancestries, ethnic groups, and races, making the region one of the most diverse in the world. The specific composition varies from country to country: many have a predominance of European-Amerindian, or Mestizo, population; in others, Amerindians are a majority; some are dominated by inhabitants of European ancestry; and some countries' populations are primarily Mulatto. Black, Asian, and Zambo(mixed Black and Amerindian) minorities are also identified regularly. Europeans/Whites are the largest single group, and along with people of part-European ancestry, they combine to make up approximately 80% of the population,[41] or even more.[42]
Spanish and Portuguese are the predominant languages of Latin America. Portuguese is spoken only in Brazil, the biggest and most populous country in the region. Spanish is the official language of most of the rest of the countries on the Latin American mainland, as well as in Cuba, Puerto Rico (where it is co-official with English), and the Dominican Republic. French is spoken in Haiti and in the French Overseas department Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, and the French Overseas territory (France) of Saint Pierre and Miquelon; it is also spoken by some Panamanians of Afro-Antillean descent. Dutch is the official language in Suriname, Aruba, and the Netherlands Antilles. (As Dutch is a Germanic language, these territories are not necessarily considered part of Latin America.)
Native American languages are widely spoken in Peru, Guatemala, Bolivia, Paraguay and, to a lesser degree, in Mexico, Panama, Ecuador, and Chile amongst other countries. In Latin American countries not named above, the population of speakers of indigenous languages is either small or non-existent.
In Peru, Quechua is an official language, alongside Spanish and any other indigenous language in the areas where they predominate. In Ecuador, while holding no official status, the closely related Quichua is a recognized language of the indigenous people under the country's constitution; however, it is only spoken by a few groups in the country's highlands. In Bolivia, Aymara, Quechua and Guaraní hold official status alongside Spanish. Guaraní, along with Spanish, is an official language of Paraguay, and is spoken by a majority of the population (who are, for the most part, bilingual), and it is co-official with Spanish in the Argentine province of Corrientes. In Nicaragua, Spanish is the official language, but on the country's Caribbean coast English and indigenous languages such as Miskito, Sumo, and Rama also hold official status. Colombia recognizes all indigenous languages spoken within its territory as official, though fewer than 1% of its population are native speakers of these languages. Nahuatl is one of the 62 native languages spoken by indigenous people in Mexico, which are officially recognized by the government as "national languages" along with Spanish.
Other European languages spoken in Latin America include: English, by some groups in Argentina, Nicaragua, Panama, and Puerto Rico, as well as in nearby countries that may or may not be considered Latin American, like Belize and Guyana; German, in southern Brazil, southern Chile, Argentina, portions of northern Venezuela, and Paraguay; Italian, in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Venezuela; and Welsh,[43][44][45][46][47][48] in southern Argentina.
In several nations, especially in the Caribbean region, creole languages are spoken. The most widely spoken creole language in Latin America and the Caribbean is Haitian Creole, the predominant language of Haiti; it is derived primarily from French and certain West African tongues with some Amerindian and Spanish influences as well. Creole languages of mainland Latin America, similarly, are derived from European languages and various African tongues.
The vast majority of Latin Americans are Christians, mostly Roman Catholics.[49] About 70% of the Latin American population consider themselves Catholic.[50] Membership in Protestant denominations is increasing, particularly in Brazil and Venezuela.
Due to economic, social and security developments that are affecting the region in recent decades, the focus is now the change from net immigration to net emigration. About 10 million Mexicans live in the United States.[51] 28.3 million Americans listed their ancestry as Mexican as of 2006.[52] According to the 2005 Colombian census or DANE, about 3,331,107 Colombians currently live abroad.[53] The number of Brazilians living overseas is estimated at about 2 million people.[54] An estimated 1.5 to two million Salvadorans reside in the United States.[55] At least 1.5 million Ecuadorians have gone abroad, mainly to the United States and Spain.[56] Approximately 1.5 million Dominicans live abroad, mostly in the United States.[57] More than 1.3 million Cubans live abroad, most of them in the United States.[58] It is estimated that over 800,000 Chileans live abroad, mainly in Costa Rica, Mexico and Sweden. Other Chilean nationals may be located in countries like Spain and Sweden.[59] An estimated 700,000 Bolivians were living in Argentina as of 2006 and another 33,000 in the United States.[60] Central Americans living abroad in 2005 were 3,314,300,[61] of which 1,128,701 were Salvadorans,[62] 685,713 were Guatemalans,[63] 683,520 were Nicaraguans,[64] 414,955 were Hondurans,[65] 215,240 were Panamanians,[66] 127,061 were Costa Ricans [67] and 59,110 were Belizeans.
For the period 2000–2005, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama, and Venezuela were the only countries with global positive migration rates, in terms of their yearly averages.[68]
Despite significant progress, education coverage remains unequal in Latin America. The region has made great progress in educational coverage; almost all children attend primary school and access to secondary education has increased considerably. Most educational systems in the region have implemented various types of administrative and institutional reforms that have enabled reach for places and communities that had no access to education services in the early 90's.
However, there are still 23 million children in the region between the ages of 4 and 17 outside of the formal education system. Estimates indicate that 30% of preschool age children (ages 4 –5) do not attend school, and for the most vulnerable populations, the poor and rural, - this calculation exceeds 40 percent. Among primary school age children (ages 6 to 12), coverage is almost universal; however there is still a need to incorporate 5 million children in the primary education system. These children live mostly in remote areas, are indigenous or Afro-descendants and live in extreme poverty.[69]
Among people between the ages of 13 and 17 years, only 80% are full time students in the education system; among them only 66% advance to secondary school. These percentages are lower among vulnerable population groups: only 75% of the poorest youth between the ages of 13 and 17 years attend school. Tertiary education has the lowest coverage, with only 70% of people between the ages of 18 and 25 years outside of the education system. Currently, more than half of low income children or living in rural areas fail to complete nine years of education.[69]
Crime and violence prevention and public security are now important issues for governments and citizens in Latin America and the Caribbean region. In 2004, violence was the main cause of death in Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, El Salvador, Mexico and Honduras.[70][71] Homicide rates in Latin America are among the highest in the world. From the early 1980s through the mid-1990s, homicide rates increased by 50 percent. The major victims of such homicides are young men, 69 percent of whom are between the ages of 15 and 19 years old. Many analysts agree that the prison crisis will not be resolved until the gap between rich and poor is addressed. They say that growing social inequality is fuelling crime in the region. But there is also no doubt that, on such an approach, Latin American countries still have a long way to go.[72] Countries with the highest homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants were: Guatemala 57.9, El Salvador 49.1, Venezuela 48, Honduras 59, Colombia 33, Belize 30.8, Brazil 25.7, Dominican Republic 23.56, Puerto Rico 18.8, and Ecuador 16.9.[citation needed] More than 500,000 people have been killed by firearms in Brazil between 1979 and 2003.[73][74] Countries with relatively low crime are Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay.[75]
According to Goldman Sachs' BRIC review of emerging economies, by 2050 the largest economies in the world will be as follows: China, United States, India, Brazil, and Mexico.[76] On a per capita basis most Latin American countries, including the largest ones (Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, and Colombia), have per capita GDPs greater than that of China in 2009. As of 2010 Latin America included five nations classified as high-income countries: Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Mexico and Panama.[citation needed]
The following table lists all the countries in Latin America indicating a valuation of the country's GDP (Gross domestic product) based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP), GDP per capita also adjusted to the (PPP), a measurement of inequality through the Gini index (the higher the index the more unequal the income distribution is), the Human Development Index (HDI), the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), and the Quality-of-life index. GDP and PPP GDP statistics come from the International Monetary Fund with data as of 2006. Gini index, the Human Poverty Index HDI-1, the Human Development Index, and the number of internet users per capita come from the UN Development Program. The number of motor vehicles per capita come from the UNData base on-line. The EPI index comes from the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Quality-of-life index from The Economist Intelligence Unit. Green cells indicate the 1st rank in each category, while yellow indicate the last rank.
Country | GDP (PPP)[77] (2012 estimates) Billions of USD |
GDP per capita (PPP)[78] (2012 estimates) USD |
Income equality[79] (2000–2010) Gini index |
Poverty Index[80] (2009) HPI-1 % |
Human Develop.[81] (2011) HDI |
Envirnm. Perform.[82] (2010) EPI |
Real GDP growth[83] (2010) % |
Emissions per capita[84] (2008) ton CO2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Argentina | 732.223 | 18,411 | 48.8 | 3.7 | 0.797 (VH) | 61.0 | 7.5 | 4.4 |
Bolivia | 51.796 | 5,084 | 57.2 | 11.6 | 0.663 (M) | 44.3 | 4.0 | 1.3 |
Brazil | 2,310.998 | 11,767 | 55.0 | 8.7 | 0.718 (H) | 63.4 | 7.5 | 1.9 |
Chile | 311.546 | 17,482 | 49.1 | 3.2 | 0.805 (VH) | 73.3 | 5.0 | 4.4 |
Colombia | 519.866 | 10,445 | 58.5 | 7.6 | 0.710 (H) | 76.8 | 4.7 | 1.4 |
Costa Rica | 56.130 | 12,332 | 48.9 | 4.6 | 0.744 (H) | 86.4 | 3.8 | 1.5 |
Cuba | 111.1[85] | 9,700[85] | N/A | 4.7 | 0.776 (H) | 78.1 | 1.4[85] | 2.7 |
Dominican Republic | 95.391 | 9,648 | 48.4 | 9.1 | 0.689 (M) | 68.4 | 5.5 | 2.0 |
Ecuador | 133.825 | 8,952 | 54.4 | 7.9 | 0.720 (H) | 69.3 | 2.9 | 1.9 |
El Salvador | 48.640 | 8,442 | 46.9 | 14.6 | 0.674 (M) | 69.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Guatemala | 72.958 | 5,071 | 53.7 | 19.7 | 0.574 (M) | 54.0 | 2.4 | 0.8 |
Haiti | 11.056 | 1,122 | 59.5 | 31.5 | 0.454 (L) | 39.5 | -8.5 | 0.2 |
Honduras | 38.537 | 4,405 | 55.3 | 13.7 | 0.625 (M) | 49.9 | 2.4 | 1.1 |
Mexico | 1,849.671 | 15,766 | 51.6 | 5.9 | 0.770 (H) | 67.3 | 5.0 | 3.8 |
Nicaragua | 17.269 | 3,370 | 52.3 | 17.0 | 0.589 (M) | 57.1 | 3.0 | 0.7 |
Panama | 43.725 | 14,398 | 54.9 | 6.7 | 0.768 (H) | 71.4 | 6.2 | 1.9 |
Paraguay | 31.469 | 5,915 | 53.2 | 10.5 | 0.665 (M) | 63.5 | 9.0 | 0.6 |
Peru | 324.276 | 10,781 | 50.5 | 10.2 | 0.725 (H) | 69.3 | 8.3 | 1.2 |
Uruguay | 54.140 | 16,242 | 47.1 | 3.0 | 0.783 (H) | 59.1 | 8.5 | 2.3 |
Venezuela | 346.973 | 12,589 | 43.4 | 6.6 | 0.735 (H) | 62.9 | -1.3 | 5.2 |
Total | 6,270.231 | 12,519 | 10.1 | 76.2 | 4 | 2.3 |
Notes: (H) High human development; (M) Medium human development; (L) Low human development
Poverty continues to be one of the region's main challenges; according to the ECLAC, Latin America is the most unequal region in the world.[86] Inequality is undermining the region's economic potential and the well-being of its population, since it increases poverty and reduces the impact of economic development on poverty reduction.[87] Inequality in Latin America has deep historical roots that have been difficult to eradicate since the differences between initial endowments and opportunitites among social groups have constrained the poorest's social mobility, thus making poverty to be transmitted from generation to generation, becoming a vicious cycle. High inequality is rooted in exclusionary institutions that have been perpetuated ever since colonial times and that have survived different political and economic regimes. Inequality has been reproduced and transmitted through generations because Latin American political systems allow a differentiated access on the influence that social groups have in the decision making process, and it responds in different ways to the least favored groups that have less political representation and capacity of pressure.[88] Recent economic liberalisation also plays a role as not everyone is equally capable of taking advantage of its benefits.[89] Differences in opportunities and endowments tend to be based on race, ethnicity, rurality and gender. Those differences have a strong impact on the distribution of income, capital and political standing.
According to a study by the World Bank,the richest decile of the population of Latin America earn[90] 48% of the total income, while the poorest 10% of the population earn only 1.6% of the income. In contrast, in developed countries, the top decile receives 29% of the total income, while the bottom decile earns 2.5%. The countries with the highest inequality in the region (as measured with the Gini index in the UN Development Report[79]) in 2007 were Haiti (59.5), Colombia (58.5), Bolivia (58.2), Honduras (55.3), Brazil (55.0), and Panama (54.9), while the countries with the lowest inequality in the region were Venezuela (43.4), Uruguay (46.4) and Costa Rica (47.2).
According to the World Bank the poorest countries in the region were (as of 2008):[91] Haiti, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Honduras. Undernourishment affects to 47% of Haitians, 27% of Dominicans and Nicaraguans, 23% of Bolivians and 22% of Hondurans.
Many countries in Latin America have responded to high levels of poverty by implementing new, or altering old, social assistance programs such as conditional cash transfers. These include Mexico's Progresa Oportunidades, Brazil's Bolsa Escola and Bolsa Familia, and Chile's Chile Solidario.[92] In general, these programs provide money to poor families under the condition that those transfers are used as an investment on their children's human capital, such as regular school attendance and basic preventive health care. The purpose of these programs is to address the inter-generational transmission of poverty and to foster social inclusion by explicitly targeting the poor, focusing on children, delivering transfers to women, and changing social accountability relationships between beneficiaries, service providers and governments.[93] These programs have helped to increase school enrollment and attendance and they also have shown improvements in children's health conditions.[94] Most of these transfer schemes are now benefiting around 110 million people in the region and are considered relatively cheap, costing around 0.5% of their GDP.[95]
The major trade blocs (or agreements) in the region are the Union of South American Nations, composed of the integrated Mercosur and Andean Community of Nations (CAN). Minor blocs or trade agreements are the G3 Free Trade Agreement, the Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). However, major reconfigurations are taking place along opposing approaches to integration and trade; Venezuela has officially withdrawn from both the CAN and G3 and it has been formally admitted into the Mercosur (pending ratification from the Paraguayan legislature). The president-elect of Ecuador has manifested his intentions of following the same path. This bloc nominally opposes any Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States, although Uruguay has manifested its intention otherwise. Chile has already signed an FTA with Canada, and along with Peru, Colombia and Mexico are the only four Latin American nations that have an FTA with the United States, the latter being a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The following table provides estimated GDP figures for the largest metropolitan areas in Latin America in 2008.[96]
Rank | Metropolitan area |
Country | GDP (PPP) Billions of USD |
Metro. pop. in 2006[97] Millions |
GDP (PPP) per capita USD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Mexico City | Mexico | 390 | 19.24 | 20,300 |
2 | São Paulo | Brazil | 388 | 18.61 | 20,800 |
3 | Buenos Aires | Argentina | 362 | 13.52 | 28,000 |
4 | Rio de Janeiro | Brazil | 201 | 11.62 | 17,300 |
5 | Santiago | Chile | 120 | 5.70 | 21,100 |
6 | Brasilia | Brazil | 110 | 3.48 | 31,600 |
7 | Lima | Peru | 109 | 8.35 | 13,100 |
8 | Caracas | Venezuela | 105 | 5.98 | 25,500 |
9 | Bogotá | Colombia | 112 | 7.80 | 15,800 |
10 | Monterrey | Mexico | 102 | 3.58 | 28,500 |
Note: The GDP data are for 2008 while the population data are for 2006. The GDP per capita figures were obtained by dividing these two sets of data, so the results may not accurately reflect the GDP per capita for 2008.
Income from tourism is key to the economy of several Latin American countries.[98] Mexico receives the largest number of international tourists, with 22.3 million visitors in 2010, followed by Argentina, with 5.2 million in 2010; Brazil, with 5.1 million; Dominican Republic, with 4.1 million;, Puerto Rico, with 3.6 million and Chile with 2.7 million.[99] Places such as Cancún, Galápagos Islands, Machu Picchu, Chichen Itza, Cartagena de Indias, Cabo San Lucas, Acapulco, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador, Margarita Island, São Paulo, Salar de Uyuni, Punta del Este, Santo Domingo, Labadee, San Juan, La Habana, Panama City, Iguazu Falls, Puerto Vallarta, Poás Volcano National Park, Punta Cana, Viña del Mar, Mexico City, Quito, Bogotá, Buenos Aires, Lima, Maceió, Florianópolis, Cuzco and Patagonia are popular among international visitors in the region.[citation needed]
Country | International tourist arrivals 2010[100] x1000 |
International tourism receipts 2010[100] Millions of USD |
Receipts per arrival (2)/(1) 2010 (USD/Tourist) |
Receipts per capita 2009[100][101] USD |
Revenues as % of exports goods and services[98] 2003 |
Tourism revenues as % GDP[98] 2003 |
% Direct & indirect employment in tourism[98] 2005 |
World Ranking Tourism Compet.[102] TTCI 2011 |
Index value TTCI[102] 2011 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Argentina | 5,288 | 4,930 | 932 | 120 | 7.4 | 1.8 | 9.1 | 60 | 4.20 |
Bolivia | 671* | 279* | 415 | 28 | 9.4 | 2.2 | 7.6 | 117 | 3.35 |
Brazil | 5,161 | 5,919 | 1,146 | 29 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 7.0 | 52 | 4.36 |
Chile | 2,766 | 1,636 | 591 | 98 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 6.8 | 57 | 4.27 |
Colombia | 2,385 | 2,083 | 873 | 47 | 6.6 | 1.4 | 5.9 | 77 | 3.94 |
Costa Rica | 2,100 | 2,111 | 1,005 | 496 | 17.5 | 8.1 | 13.3 | 44 | 4.43 |
Cuba | 2,507 | 2,080* | 829* | 181* | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Dominican Republic | 4,125 | 4,240 | 1,027 | 439 | 36.2 | 18.8 | 19.8 | 72 | 3.99 |
Ecuador | 1,047 | 781 | 745 | 53 | 6.3 | 1.5 | 7.4 | 87 | 3.79 |
El Salvador | 1,150 | 390 | 339 | 54 | 12.9 | 3.4 | 6.8 | 96 | 3.68 |
Guatemala | 1,219 | 1,378 | 1,130 | 103 | 16.0 | 2.6 | 6.0 | 86 | 3.82 |
Haiti* | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 19.4 | 3.2 | 4.7 | N/A | N/A |
Honduras | 896 | 650 | 725 | 82 | 13.5 | 5.0 | 8.5 | 88 | 3.79 |
Mexico | 22,395 | 11,872 | 530 | 106 | 5.7 | 1.6 | 14.2 | 43 | 4.43 |
Nicaragua | 1,011 | 309 | 305 | 52 | 15.5 | 3.7 | 5.6 | 100 | 3.56 |
Panama | 1,317 | 1,676 | 1,272 | 498 | 10.6 | 6.3 | 12.9 | 56 | 4.30 |
Paraguay | 465 | 217 | 466 | 31 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 6.4 | 123 | 3.26 |
Peru | 2,299 | 2,274 | 989 | 76 | 9.0 | 1.6 | 7.6 | 69 | 4.04 |
Uruguay | 2,352 | 1,496 | 636 | 428 | 14.2 | 3.6 | 10.7 | 58 | 4.24 |
Venezuela | 615* | 618 | 1,004 | 23 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 8.1 | 106 | 3.46 |
Latin American culture is a mixture of many cultural expressions worldwide. It is the product of many diverse influences:
Beyond the rich tradition of indigenous art, the development of Latin American visual art owed much to the influence of Spanish, Portuguese and French Baroque painting, which in turn often followed the trends of the Italian Masters. In general, this artistic Eurocentrism began to fade in the early twentieth century, as Latin-Americans began to acknowledge the uniqueness of their condition and started to follow their own path.
From the early twentieth century, the art of Latin America was greatly inspired by the Constructivist Movement. The Constructivist Movement was founded in Russia around 1913 by Vladimir Tatlin. The Movement quickly spread from Russia to Europe and then into Latin America. Joaquín Torres García and Manuel Rendón have been credited with bringing the Constructivist Movement into Latin America from Europe.
An important artistic movement generated in Latin America is muralism represented by Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueiros, José Clemente Orozco and Rufino Tamayo in Mexico and Santiago Martinez Delgado and Pedro Nel Gómez in Colombia. Some of the most impressive Muralista works can be found in Mexico, Colombia, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Philadelphia.
Painter Frida Kahlo, one of the most famous Mexican artists, painted about her own life and the Mexican culture in a style combining Realism, Symbolism and Surrealism. Kahlo's work commands the highest selling price of all Latin American paintings.[104]
Colombian sculptor and painter Fernando Botero is also widely known by his works which, on first examination, are noted for their exaggerated proportions and the corpulence of the human and animal figures.
Latin American film is both rich and diverse. Historically, the main centers of production have been Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and Cuba.
Latin American film flourished after sound was introduced in cinema, which added a linguistic barrier to the export of Hollywood film south of the border. The 1950s and 1960s saw a movement towards Third Cinema, led by the Argentine filmmakers Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino. More recently, a new style of directing and stories filmed has been tagged as "New Latin American Cinema."
Mexican cinema started out in the silent era from 1896–1929 and flourished in the Golden Era of the 1940s. It boasted a huge industry comparable to Hollywood at the time with stars such as María Félix, Dolores del Río, and Pedro Infante. In the 1970s, Mexico was the location for many cult horror and action movies. More recently, films such as Amores Perros (2000) and Y tu mamá también (2001) enjoyed box office and critical acclaim and propelled Alfonso Cuarón and Alejandro González Iñarritu to the front rank of Hollywood directors. Alejandro González Iñárritu directed in (2006) Babel and Alfonso Cuarón directed (Children of Men in (2006), and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in (2004)). Guillermo del Toro close friend and also a front rank Hollywood director in Hollywood and Spain, directed Pan's Labyrinth (2006) and produce El Orfanato (2007). Carlos Carrera (The Crime of Father Amaro), and screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga are also some of the most known present-day Mexican film makers. Rudo y Cursi released in December (2008) in Mexico directed by Carlos Cuarón.
Argentine cinema has also been prominenent since the first half of the 20th century and today averages over 60 full-length titles yearly. The industry suffered during the 1976–1983 military dictatorship; but re-emerged to produce the Academy Award winner The Official Story in 1985. A wave of imported U.S. films again damaged the industry in the early 1990s, though it soon recovered, thriving even during the Argentine economic crisis around 2001. Many Argentine movies produced during recent years have been internationally acclaimed, including Nueve reinas (2000), El abrazo partido (2004), El otro (2007) and the 2010 Foreign Language Academy Award winner El secreto de sus ojos.
In Brazil, the Cinema Novo movement created a particular way of making movies with critical and intellectual screenplays, a clearer photography related to the light of the outdoors in a tropical landscape, and a political message. The modern Brazilian film industry has become more profitable inside the country, and some of its productions have received prizes and recognition in Europe and the United States, with movies such as Central do Brasil (1999), Cidade de Deus (2002) and Tropa de Elite (2007).
Cuban cinema has enjoyed much official support since the Cuban revolution and important film-makers include Tomás Gutiérrez Alea.
It is also worth noting that many Latin Americans have achieved significant success within Hollywood, for instance Carmen Miranda (Portuguese-Brazilian), Salma Hayek (Mexican), and Benicio del Toro (Puerto Rican), while Mexican Americans such as Robert Rodriguez have also made their mark.
Pre-Columbian cultures were primarily oral, though the Aztecs and Mayans, for instance, produced elaborate codices. Oral accounts of mythological and religious beliefs were also sometimes recorded after the arrival of European colonizers, as was the case with the Popol Vuh. Moreover, a tradition of oral narrative survives to this day, for instance among the Quechua-speaking population of Peru and the Quiché (K'iche') of Guatemala.
From the very moment of Europe's "discovery" of the continent, early explorers and conquistadores produced written accounts and crónicas of their experience—such as Columbus's letters or Bernal Díaz del Castillo's description of the conquest of Mexico. During the colonial period, written culture was often in the hands of the church, within which context Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz wrote memorable poetry and philosophical essays. Towards the end of the 18th Century and the beginning of the 19th, a distinctive criollo literary tradition emerged, including the first novels such as Lizardi's El Periquillo Sarniento (1816).
The 19th century was a period of "foundational fictions" (in critic Doris Sommer's words), novels in the Romantic or Naturalist traditions that attempted to establish a sense of national identity, and which often focussed on the indigenous question or the dichotomy of "civilization or barbarism" (for which see, say, Domingo Sarmiento's Facundo (1845), Juan León Mera's Cumandá (1879), or Euclides da Cunha's Os Sertões (1902)). The 19th century also witnessed the realist work of Machado de Assis, who made use of surreal devices of metaphor and playful narrative construction, much admired by critic Harold Bloom.
At the turn of the 20th century, modernismo emerged, a poetic movement whose founding text was Nicaraguan poet Rubén Darío's Azul (1888). This was the first Latin American literary movement to influence literary culture outside of the region, and was also the first truly Latin American literature, in that national differences were no longer so much at issue. José Martí, for instance, though a Cuban patriot, also lived in Mexico and the U.S. and wrote for journals in Argentina and elsewhere.
However, what really put Latin American literature on the global map was no doubt the literary boom of the 1960s and 1970s, distinguished by daring and experimental novels (such as Julio Cortázar's Rayuela (1963)) that were frequently published in Spain and quickly translated into English. The Boom's defining novel was Gabriel García Márquez's Cien años de soledad (1967), which led to the association of Latin American literature with magic realism, though other important writers of the period such as the Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa and Carlos Fuentes do not fit so easily within this framework. Arguably, the Boom's culmination was Augusto Roa Bastos's monumental Yo, el supremo (1974). In the wake of the Boom, influential precursors such as Juan Rulfo, Alejo Carpentier, and above all Jorge Luis Borges were also rediscovered.
Contemporary literature in the region is vibrant and varied, ranging from the best-selling Paulo Coelho and Isabel Allende to the more avant-garde and critically acclaimed work of writers such as Diamela Eltit, Giannina Braschi, Ricardo Piglia, or Roberto Bolaño. There has also been considerable attention paid to the genre of testimonio, texts produced in collaboration with subaltern subjects such as Rigoberta Menchú. Finally, a new breed of chroniclers is represented by the more journalistic Carlos Monsiváis and Pedro Lemebel.
The region boasts six Nobel Prize winners: in addition to the two Chilean poets Gabriela Mistral (1945) and Pablo Neruda (1971), there is also the Colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez (1982), the Guatemalan novelist Miguel Ángel Asturias (1967), the Mexican poet and essayist Octavio Paz (1990), and the Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa (2010).
Latin America has produced many successful worldwide artists in terms of recorded global music sales. Among the most successful have been Gloria Estefan (Cuba) and Roberto Carlos (Brazil), both of whom have sold over 100 million records, Carlos Santana (Mexico) with over 75 million, Luis Miguel (Mexico), Shakira (Colombia) and Vicente Fernández (Mexico) with over 50 million records sold worldwide.[105]
Caribbean Hispanic music, such as merengue, bachata, salsa, and more recently reggaeton, from such countries as the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico,Trinidad, Cuba, and Panama has been strongly influenced by African rhythms and melodies. Haiti's compas is a genre of music that draws influence and is thus similar to its Caribbean Hispanic counterparts, with an element of jazz and modern sound as well.[106][107]
Another well-known Latin American musical genre includes the Argentine and Uruguayan tango, as well as the distinct nuevo tango, a fusion of tango, acoustic and electronic music popularized by bandoneón virtuoso Ástor Piazzolla. Samba, North American jazz, European classical music and choro combined to form bossa nova in Brazil, popularized by guitarrist João Gilberto and pianist Antonio Carlos Jobim.
Other influential Latin American sounds include the Antillean soca and calypso, the Honduras (Garifuna) punta, the Colombian cumbia and vallenato, the Chilean cueca, the Ecuadorian boleros, and rockoleras, the Mexican ranchera, the Nicaraguan palo de Mayo, the Peruvian marinera and tondero, the Uruguayan candombe, the French Antillean zouk (derived from Haitian compas) and the various styles of music from pre-Columbian traditions that are widespread in the Andean region.
The classical composer Heitor Villa-Lobos (1887–1959) worked on the recording of native musical traditions within his homeland of Brazil. The traditions of his homeland heavily influenced his classical works.[108] Also notable is the recent work of the Cuban Leo Brouwer and guitar work of the Venezuelan Antonio Lauro and the Paraguayan Agustín Barrios. Latin America has also produced world-class classical performers such as the Chilean pianist Claudio Arrau, Brazilian pianist Nelson Freire and the Argentine pianist and conductor Daniel Barenboim.
Arguably, the main contribution to music entered through folklore, where the true soul of the Latin American and Caribbean countries is expressed. Musicians such as Yma Súmac, Chabuca Granda, Atahualpa Yupanqui, Violeta Parra, Víctor Jara, Facundo Cabral, Mercedes Sosa, Jorge Negrete, Luiz Gonzaga, Caetano Veloso, Susana Baca, Chavela Vargas, Simon Diaz, Julio Jaramillo, Toto la Momposina as well as musical ensembles such as Inti Illimani and Los Kjarkas are magnificent examples of the heights that this soul can reach.
Latin pop, including many forms of rock, is popular in Latin America today (see Spanish language rock and roll).[109]
More recently, Reggaeton, which blends Jamaican reggae and dancehall with Latin America genres such as bomba and plena, as well as that of hip hop, is becoming more popular, in spite of the controversy surrounding its lyrics, dance steps (Perreo) and music videos. It has become very popular among populations with a "migrant culture" influence – both Latino populations in the U.S., such as southern Florida and New York City, and parts of Latin America where migration to the U.S. is common, such as Puerto Rico, Trinidad, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Mexico.[110]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Latin America |
|
Eduardo Galeano | |
---|---|
Eduardo Galeano in 2005. |
|
Born | Eduardo Germán María Hughes Galeano (1940-09-03) September 3, 1940 (age 71) Montevideo, Uruguay |
Occupation | writer, Journalist |
Nationality | Uruguayan |
Period | 20th century |
Spouse(s) | Helena Villagra |
Eduardo Hughes Galeano (born September 3, 1940) is a Uruguayan journalist, writer and novelist. His best known works are Memoria del fuego (Memory of Fire Trilogy, 1986) and Las venas abiertas de América Latina (Open Veins of Latin America, 1971) which have been translated into twenty languages and transcend orthodox genres: combining fiction, journalism, political analysis, and history. The author himself has proclaimed his obsession as a writer saying, "I'm a writer obsessed with remembering, with remembering the past of America above all and above all that of Latin America, intimate land condemned to amnesia."[1]
Contents |
Galeano was born in Montevideo, Uruguay to a middle class Catholic family of European descent (Italian, Spanish, German and British descent). Like many young Latin American boys, Galeano dreamed of becoming a football (soccer) player; this desire was reflected in some of his works, such as El Fútbol A Sol Y Sombra (Football In Sun and Shadow). In his teens, Galeano worked odd jobs — as a factory worker, a bill collector, a sign painter, a messenger, a typist, and a bank teller. At 14 years, Galeano sold his first political cartoon to the Socialist Party weekly, El Sol and married for the first time in 1959. He started his career as a journalist in the early 1960s as editor of Marcha, an influential weekly journal which had such contributors as Mario Vargas Llosa, Mario Benedetti, Manuel Maldonado Denis and Roberto Fernández Retamar. For two years he edited the daily Época and worked as editor-in-chief of the University Press. In 1962, having divorced, he remarried to Graciela Berro.
In 1973, a military coup took power in Uruguay; Galeano was imprisoned and later was forced to flee. His book Open Veins of Latin America was banned by the right-wing military government, not only in Uruguay, but also in Chile and Argentina.[2] He settled in Argentina where he founded the cultural magazine, Crisis. In 1976 he married for the third time to Helena Villagra, however in the same year the Videla regime took power in Argentina in a bloody military coup and his name was added to the lists of those condemned by the death squads. He fled again, this time to Spain, where he wrote his famous trilogy: Memoria del fuego (Memory of Fire).
At the beginning of 1985 Galeano returned to Montevideo, where he continues to live. Following the victory of Tabaré Vázquez and the Broad Front alliance in the 2004 Uruguayan elections marking the first left-wing government in Uruguayan history Galeano wrote a piece for The Progressive titled "Where the People Voted Against Fear" in which Galeano showed support for the new government and concluded that the Uruguayan populace used "common sense" and were "tired of being cheated" by the traditional Colorado and Blanco parties.[3] Following the creation of TeleSUR, a pan-Latin American television station based in Caracas, Venezuela, in 2005 Galeano along with other left-wing intellectuals such as Tariq Ali and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel joined the network's 36 member advisory committee.[4]
In 2006, Galeano signed a petition in support of the independence of Puerto Rico from the United States of America.
On February 10, 2007, Galeano underwent a successful operation to treat lung cancer.[5] During an interview with journalist Amy Goodman following Barack Obama's election as President of the United States in November 2008, Galeano said, "The White House will be Barack Obama's house in the time coming, but this White House was built by black slaves. And I’d like, I hope, that he never, never forgets this."[6] At the April 17, 2009, opening session of the 5th Summit of the Americas held in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gave a copy of Galeano's Open Veins of Latin America to U.S. President Barack Obama, who was making his first diplomatic visit to the region.[7] This made the English language edition of the book go to #2 position and the Spanish version to #11 on the Amazon.com bestseller list.
In a May 2009 interview he spoke about his past and recent works, some of which deal with the relationships between freedom and slavery, and democracies and dictatorships; "... not only the United States, also some European countries, have spread military dictatorships all over the world. And they feel as if they are able to teach democracy...". He also talked about how and why he has changed his writing style, and his recent rise in popularity.[8]
"Fleas dream of buying themselves a dog, and nobodies dream of escaping poverty: that, one magical day, good luck will suddenly rain down on them - will rain down in buckets. But good luck doesn’t rain down, yesterday, today, tomorrow or ever. Good luck doesn’t even fall in a fine drizzle, no matter how hard the nobodies summon it, even if their left hand is tickling, or if they begin the new day on their right foot, or start the new year with a change of brooms. The nobodies: nobody’s children, owners of nothing. The nobodies: the no-ones, the nobodied, running like rabbits, dying through life, screwed every which way. Who are not, but could be. Who don’t speak languages, but dialects. Who don’t have religions, but superstitions. Who don’t create art, but handicrafts. Who don’t have culture, but folklore. Who are not human beings, but human resources. Who do not have faces, but arms. Who do not have names, but numbers. Who do not appear in the history of the world, but in the crime reports of the local paper. The nobodies, who are not worth the bullet that kills them."
— Eduardo Galeano, "The Nobodies" [9]
Las venas abiertas de América Latina (Open Veins of Latin America) is arguably Galeano's best-known work. In this book, he analyzes the history of Latin America as a whole from the time period of European contact with the New World to contemporary Latin America arguing against the European and later U.S. economic exploitation and political dominance over the region. It was the first of his many books to be translated by Cedric Belfrage into English. It is a classic among scholars of Latin American history. The book gained popularity in the English-speaking world after the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gave it as a gift to the American President Barack Obama.
Memoria del fuego (Memory of Fire) is a three-volume narrative of the history of America, North and South. The characters are historical figures; generals, artists, revolutionaries, workers, conquerors and the conquered, who are portrayed in brief episodes which reflect the colonial history of the continent. It starts with pre-Columbian creation myths and ends in the 1980s. It highlights not only the colonial oppression that the continent underwent but particularly the long history of resistance, from individual acts of heroism to mass revolutionary movements.
Memoria del fuego is widely praised by reviewers. Galeano was compared to John Dos Passos and Gabriel García Márquez. Ronald Wright wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: "Great writers... dissolve old genres and found new ones. This trilogy by one of South America's most daring and accomplished authors is impossible to classify."
In New York Times Book Review Jay Parini praised as perhaps his most daring work The Book of Embraces, a collection of short, often lyrical stories presenting Galeano's views on emotion, art, politics, and values, as well as offering a scathing critique of modern capitalistic society and views on an ideal society and mindset. (The Book of Embraces was the last book Cedric Belfrage translated before he died in 1991.)
Galeano is also an avid soccer fan; in his childhood, Galeano had the dream of becoming a soccer player and this desire is the subject of some of his writings, among them Soccer in Sun and Shadow (1995), a review of the history of the game. Galeano compares it with a theater performance and with war; he criticizes its unholy alliance with global corporations but attacks leftist intellectuals who reject the game and its attraction to the broad masses for ideological reasons.
Galeano's Espejos (Mirrors) is Galeano's most expansive work since Memory of Fire. Galeano offers a broad mosaic of history told through the voices of the unseen, unheard, and forgotten. Recalling the lives of artists, writers, gods and visionaries, Galeano's makes "lore out of the mass of history and stories that make this world, and make us human." (Rick Simonson) Mirrors was published in the US in English by Nation Books in June 2009.
Galeano is a regular contributor to The Progressive and the New Internationalist, and has also been published in the Monthly Review and The Nation.
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Eduardo Galeano |
|
Persondata | |
---|---|
Name | Galeano, Eduardo |
Alternative names | |
Short description | |
Date of birth | September 3, 1940 |
Place of birth | Montevideo, |
Date of death | |
Place of death |
Mark Weisbrot is an American economist, columnist and co-director, with Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, D.C. As a commentator, he contributes to publications such as New York Times, the UK's The Guardian, and Brazil's largest newspaper, Folha de S. Paulo.
As an economist, Weisbrot has opposed privatization of the United States Social Security system and has been critical of globalization and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He has supported efforts by South American governments to create a Bank of the South, in order to make them more independent of the IMF. Weisbrot's work on Latin American countries (including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela) has attracted national and international attention, and in 2008 was cited by Brazilian Foreign Secretary Celso Amorim.[1] In early 2010 Weisbrot's work on Latvia's economic crisis attracted national and international attention.
Weisbrot has several times contributed testimony to Congressional hearings, in 2002 to a House of Representatives committee, on Argentina's 1999 - 2002 economic crisis[2] and in 2004 to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on the state of democracy in Venezuela, and on media representation of Hugo Chávez and of Chávez's Venezuela.[3]
Contents |
Weisbrot earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan.[4] In 1999, he co-founded, together with economist Dean Baker, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), "to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives".[5] Weisbrot is co-author, with Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 1999). In the book, Weisbrot and Baker argue that much of the United States Social Security debate has been based on misconceptions, that privatization would be unlikely to improve the system, and that the system in fact performs satisfactorily and does not need fixing.[6]
Commenting on international matters, Weisbrot argues that globalization, as understood by the United States government and American lending institutions, has failed to live up to its promise of making poorer countries grow rich, stating that "no nation has ever pulled itself out of poverty under the conditions that Washington currently imposes on underdeveloped countries."[7][8] He has criticized the role played by the IMF[9] and has taken an active role in developing the Bank of the South, a joint project by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela spearheaded by Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez and designed to make South America financially less dependent on the IMF and World Bank.[10][11] Weisbrot acted as a consultant to the governments concerned and has been described as the artífice intelectual, the intellectual architect, of the concept.[12][13]
Weisbrot's work on Latin American countries (including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela) has attracted national and international attention,[14][15][16][17][18][19] and in 2008 was cited by Brazilian Foreign Secretary Celso Amorim.[1] In early 2010 Weisbrot's work on Latvia's economic crisis attracted national[20][21][22] and international attention.[23][24][25]
Weisbrot is also the President of Just Foreign Policy, a non-governmental organization dedicated to reforming United States foreign policy.[26]
Weisbrot writes a column on economic and policy issues that is distributed across the United States by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.[27] His work appeared in such publications as The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times/International Herald Tribune, The Boston Globe and The Nation as well as news websites such as AlterNet,[27] the Common Dreams NewsCenter[27] and The Huffington Post.[28] Internationally, Weisbrot writes a column for the UK's The Guardian, and for Brazil's largest newspaper, Folha de S. Paulo.[27] He has appeared on national and local television and radio programs, including CBS, the PBS Newshour, CNN, the BBC, National Public Radio and Fox News.
Weisbrot's commentaries on Latin American affairs have been broadly sympathetic to many governments in South America, including Argentina,[29][30] Bolivia,[31] Brazil,[32] Ecuador,[33] and Venezuela.[19][34][35] In particular, Weisbrot has praised Latin American governments' attempts to assert stronger national control over key national resources, and to take a tougher stance in relation to foreign creditors. Weisbrot has also criticized some of these governments' policies.[36][37]
In 2009, Weisbrot, alongside Tariq Ali, wrote the screenplay for the Oliver Stone documentary South of the Border which examined the rise of the democratic leftist movement across South America.[38]
Co-authored with Dean Baker:
Persondata | |
---|---|
Name | Weisbrot, Mark |
Alternative names | |
Short description | American economist |
Date of birth | |
Place of birth | |
Date of death | |
Place of death |
Country | Russia |
---|---|
Residence | Bradenton, Florida, United States |
Born | (1987-04-19) April 19, 1987 (age 25) Nyagan, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union |
Height | 1.88 m (6 ft 2 in)[1] |
Weight | 59 kilograms (130 lb)[1] |
Turned pro | April 19, 2001 |
Plays | Right-handed (two-handed backhand) |
Career prize money | $ 19,323,417[2] |
Singles | |
Career record | 441–109 |
Career titles | 26 WTA, 4 ITF |
Highest ranking | No. 1 (August 30, 2005) |
Current ranking | No. 2 (May 28, 2012)[3] |
Grand Slam Singles results | |
Australian Open | W (2008) |
French Open | SF (2007, 2011) |
Wimbledon | W (2004) |
US Open | W (2006) |
Other tournaments | |
Championships | W (2004) |
Doubles | |
Career record | 23–17 |
Career titles | 3 WTA |
Highest ranking | 41 (January 30, 2012) |
Grand Slam Doubles results | |
Australian Open | 2R (2003, 2004) |
US Open | 2R (2003) |
Last updated on: May 28, 2012. |
Maria Yuryevna Sharapova (Russian: Мария Юрьевна Шарапова [mɐˈrʲijə ˈjurʲjɪvnə ʂɐˈrapəvə] ( listen), US: /ʃɑrəˈpoʊvə/, UK: /ʃærəˈpoʊvə/; born April 19, 1987) is a Russian professional tennis player and former world no. 1. A United States resident since 1994,[4] Sharapova has won 26 WTA singles titles, including three Grand Slam singles titles at the 2004 Wimbledon, 2006 US Open and 2008 Australian Open. She has also won the year-end WTA Tour Championships in 2004. The Women's Tennis Association has ranked Sharapova world no. 1 in singles on four separate occasions. She became the world no. 1 for the first time on August 22, 2005, and last regained the ranking for the fourth time on May 19, 2008. As of May 28, 2012, Sharapova is ranked world no. 2. She has been in six Grand Slam finals with the final record 3–3.
Sharapova made her professional breakthrough in 2004 at age 17, when she defeated two-time defending champion and top seed Serena Williams in the 2004 Wimbledon final for her first Grand Slam singles title. She entered the top 10 of the WTA Rankings with the win. Despite not winning a major in 2005, Sharapova briefly held the no. 1 ranking, and reached three Grand Slam semifinals, losing to the eventual champion each time. She won her second major at the 2006 US Open defeating then-world no. 1 Amélie Mauresmo in the semifinals and world no. 2 Justine Henin in the final.
Sharapova's 2007 season was plagued with a chronic shoulder injury and saw her ranking fall out of the top 5 for the first time in two years. She won her third Grand Slam at the 2008 Australian Open, defeating Henin in the quarterfinals and Ana Ivanović in the final. After reclaiming the no. 1 ranking in May 2008, Sharapova's shoulder problems re-surfaced, requiring surgery in October and forcing her out of the game for 10 months. Sharapova returned in May 2009 and was ranked no. 126 in the world due to her extensive lay-off. Since her comeback, Sharapova has won seven singles titles (bringing her career total to 26) and improved her ranking to no. 2 in the world.
Sharapova has been featured in a number of modeling assignments, including a feature in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. She has been featured in many advertisements, including for Nike, Prince and Canon, and is the face of several fashion houses, most notably Cole Haan. Sharapova was the most searched-for athlete on Yahoo! in 2005 and 2008.[5][6][7] Since February 2007, she has been a United Nations Development Programme Goodwill Ambassador, concerned specifically with the Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme. In June 2011, she was named one of the "30 Legends of Women's Tennis: Past, Present and Future" by Time.[8]
Contents |
Maria Sharapova's parents, Yuri and Elena, are from Gomel, Belarus. Concerned about the regional effects of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident, they left their homeland shortly before Sharapova was born.[9] When Sharapova was two, the family moved to Sochi. There her father befriended Aleksandr Kafelnikov, whose son Yevgeny would go on to win two Grand Slam singles titles and became Russia's first no. 1 world-ranked tennis player. Aleksandr gave Sharapova her first tennis racket at the age of four, whereupon she began practicing regularly with her father at a local park.[10] She took her first tennis lessons with veteran Russian coach Yuri Yutkin, who was instantly impressed when he saw her play, noting her "exceptional hand-eye coordination."[11]
At the age of seven, Sharapova attended a tennis clinic in Moscow run by Martina Navratilova, who recommended professional training at the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy in Florida, which had previously trained players such as Andre Agassi, Monica Seles, and Anna Kournikova.[10] With money tight, Yuri was forced to borrow the sum that would allow him and his daughter, neither of whom could speak English, to travel to United States, which they finally did in 1994.[11] Visa restrictions prevented Sharapova's mother from joining them for two years.[9] Arriving in Florida with savings of US$700,[11] Sharapova's father took various low-paying jobs, including dish-washing, to fund her lessons until she was old enough to be admitted to the academy. In 1995, she was signed by IMG, who agreed to pay the annual tuition fee of $35,000 for Sharapova to stay at the academy, allowing her to finally enroll at the age of 9.[10]
Sharapova first gained attention on the tennis scene in November 2000, when she won the Eddie Herr International Junior Tennis Championships in the girls' 16 division at the age of just 13.[12] She was then given a special award, the Rising Star Award, which is awarded only to players of exceptional promise.[13] She made her professional debut in 2001 on her birthday on April 19, and played her first WTA tournament at the Pacific Life Open in 2002, winning a match before losing to Monica Seles. Due to restrictions on how many professional events she could play, Sharapova went to hone her game in junior tournaments, where she reached the finals of the Australian Open and Wimbledon in 2002. She was the youngest girl ever to reach the final of the Australian Open junior championship at 14 years and 9 months.[14]
From 2003, Sharapova played a full season, and made a rapid climb into the top 50 by the end of the year.[15] She made her debuts at both the Australian Open and the French Open, but failed to win a match in either.[16] It was not until the grass season that she began to fulfill her promise, beating a top-20 player for the first time and reaching her first semifinal at the WTA level. Then, as a wildcard at Wimbledon, she defeated 11th seed Jelena Dokić to reach the fourth round, where she lost in three sets to Svetlana Kuznetsova.[16]
By the end of September, Sharapova had already captured her first WTA title at a smaller event, the Japan Open Tennis Championships, before winning her second in her final tournament of the season, the Bell Challenge. To cap off her first full season as a professional, she was awarded the WTA Newcomer of the Year honor.
Sharapova was defeated in the third round of the Australian Open by seventh seed Anastasia Myskina.[17] The highlight of the remainder of her spring hard-court season was a run to the semifinals at the Regions Morgan Keegan Championships and the Cellular South Cup, where she ultimately lost to eventual champion Vera Zvonareva.[17]
During the spring clay-court season, Sharapova entered the top 20 on the WTA world rankings as a result of reaching the third round of the Qatar Telecom German Open[17] and the Internazionali BNL d'Italia, both of which were Tier I events.[17] At the latter event, she defeated a player ranked in the top 10 for the first time with a straight-sets win over world no. 10 and 2004 French Open finalist Elena Dementieva. Later that clay-court season, she went on to make the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam for the first time at the French Open, losing there to Paola Suárez.
Sharapova won the third title of her career at the Wimbledon warm-up DFS Classic, defeating Tatiana Golovin in the final.[17] Seeded 13th and aged 17 at Wimbledon, she reached her first Grand Slam semifinal by defeating Ai Sugiyama. There, she came back from a 6–2, 3–1 deficit to defeat fifth seed and former champion Lindsay Davenport. In the final, Sharapova upset top seed and defending champion Serena Williams to win her first Grand Slam singles title, and become the third youngest woman to win the Wimbledon title, behind only Lottie Dod and Martina Hingis. Sharapova also became the second Russian woman (after Anastasia Myskina had won the year's previous major at Roland Garros) to win a Grand Slam singles title. The victory was hailed by the media as "the most stunning upset in memory",[18] with other writers commenting on her arrival as a serious challenger to the Williams' dominance at Wimbledon.[19] She entered the top 10 in the rankings for the first time as a result of the win.[17]
Following her Wimbledon win, attention and interest in Sharapova in the media greatly increased, a rise in popularity dubbed as "Maria Mania."[20] However, on court, she was struggling to achieve results, winning just three of six matches in her preparations for the US Open. At the US Open itself, she reached the third round, before being eliminated by Mary Pierce. In order to regain confidence, Sharapova played and won consecutive titles in Asia in the fall, the Hansol Korea Open Tennis Championships and the Japan Open Tennis Championships.
In October, Sharapova defeated Venus Williams en route to making the final of a Tier I event for the first time at the Zurich Open, losing in the final to Alicia Molik. She then made her debut at the year-ending WTA Tour Championships. There, she won two of her three round-robin matches (including a win over US Open champion Svetlana Kuznetsova) in order to advance to the semifinals, where she defeated Myskina. In the final, she defeated Serena Williams, 4–6, 6–2, 6–4, after trailing 4–0 in the final set.[17]
Sharapova started the year at the Australian Open, where she defeated fifth seed Svetlana Kuznetsova to reach the second Grand Slam semifinal of her career. Sharapova held match points in the third set of her semifinal match, before losing to eventual champion Serena Williams.[21] In February, Sharapova won back-to-back tournaments, the Toray Pan Pacific Open and the Qatar Total Open,[21] allowing her to reach the top 3 in the world rankings for the first time.
In the semifinals of the Tier I Pacific Life Open, Sharapova was defeated by Lindsay Davenport, 0–6, 0–6, the first time she had failed to win a game in a match.[21][22] The following fortnight, she defeated former world no. 1 players Justine Henin and Venus Williams to reach the final at the Tier I NASDAQ-100 Open, where she lost to Kim Clijsters.[21]
Sharapova made the semifinals of a clay-court tournament for the first time at the Italian Open, where she lost to Patty Schnyder.[21] Sharapova would have become world no. 1 for the first time had she won the tournament.[23] Sharapova then reached the quarterfinals of the French Open for the second consecutive year, before losing to eventual champion Henin.[21] On grass, Sharapova won her third title of the year when she successfully defended her title at the DFS Classic, defeating Jelena Janković in the final. As the defending champion at Wimbledon, Sharapova reached the semifinals without dropping a set and losing a service game just once, extending her winning streak on grass to 24 matches. However, she was then beaten by eventual champion Venus Williams.[21]
A back injury sustained by world no. 1 Davenport at Wimbledon prevented her from playing tournaments during the summer hard-court season, which meant she could not earn new ranking points to replace those that were expiring from the previous year. Sharapova, although also injured for much of this time, had far fewer points to defend, and so she became the first Russian woman to hold the world no. 1 ranking on August 22, 2005.[24] Her reign lasted only one week, however, as Davenport reclaimed the top ranking after winning the Pilot Pen Tennis tournament.[24]
As the top seed at the US Open, Sharapova lost in the semifinals to Kim Clijsters, meaning she had lost to the eventual champion in every Grand Slam of the season. However, she once again leapfrogged Davenport to take the world no. 1 ranking on September 12, 2005. She retained it for six weeks, but after playing few tournaments while injured, she again relinquished the ranking to Davenport.[24] To conclude the year, Sharapova failed to defend her title at the year-end Sony Ericsson Championships in Los Angeles, defeating Davenport in one of her round-robin matches, but ultimately losing in the semifinals to eventual champion Amélie Mauresmo.[21]
Sharapova started 2006 by losing in the semifinals of the Australian Open in three sets to Henin,[25] also losing a rematch several weeks later at the Dubai Tennis Championships, having defeated former world no. 1 Martina Hingis and world no. 3 Lindsay Davenport in earlier rounds of the tournament.[25] Sharapova claimed her first title in nine months at the Tier I tournament in Indian Wells, defeating Hingis in the semifinals and Elena Dementieva in the final.[25] The following fortnight, she reached the final in Miami before losing to Kuznetsova.[25]
Missing the entire clay-court season with injury, Sharapova returned for the French Open. There, after saving match points in defeating Mashona Washington in the first round, she was eliminated by Dinara Safina in the fourth round.[25]
On grass, Sharapova was unsuccessful in her attempt to win in Birmingham for the third consecutive year, losing in the semifinals to Jamea Jackson.[25] Despite that, she was among the title favorites at Wimbledon, where the eventual champion Mauresmo ended up beating her in the semifinals.[25]
Sharapova claimed her second title of the year at the Tier I Acura Classic, defeating Clijsters for the first time in the final.[25] As the third seed at the US Open, Sharapova defeated top seed Mauresmo for the first time in the semifinals, and then followed up by beating second seed Justine Henin[25] in order to win her second Grand Slam singles title.[25]
That autumn, Sharapova won titles in back-to-back weeks at the Zurich Open and the Generali Ladies Linz.[25] By winning all three of her round-robin matches at the WTA Tour Championships, she extended her win streak to 19 matches, before it was snapped in the semifinals by eventual champion Henin.[25] Sharapova would have finished the season as world no. 1 had she won the event. As it was, she finished ranked world no. 2, her best year-end finish yet.
Sharapova was the top seed at the Australian Open due to top-ranked Justine Henin's withdrawal. After being two points away from defeat in the first round against Camille Pin, rallying for a 6–3, 4–6, 9–7 victory, she went on to reach the final of the tournament for the first time, but was routed there by Serena Williams, 1–6, 2–6, ranked world no. 81 at the time.[26] After reaching the final, Sharapova recaptured the world no. 1 ranking.[24] She held it for seven weeks, surrendering it back to Henin after failing to defend her title at the Pacific Life Open, instead losing in the fourth round to Vera Zvonareva after struggling with a hamstring injury. The following fortnight, she defeated Venus Williams in the third round of the Sony Ericsson Open, before suffering another defeat, 1–6, 1–6, to Serena Williams.
A shoulder injury forced Sharapova to miss most of the clay-court season for the second consecutive year, resulting in her only tune-up for the French Open being the Istanbul Cup, where she lost in the semifinals to Aravane Rezaï.[26] Despite her lack of preparation, she reached the semifinals of the French Open for the first time in her career (having saved match points against Patty Schnyder in the fourth round), before losing to Ana Ivanović.[26]
On grass, Sharapova was runner-up to Jelena Janković at the DFS Classic.[26] Following that, she experienced her earliest Wimbledon loss since 2003 by losing in the fourth round to eventual champion Venus Williams.[26]
Sharapova clinched the US Open Series by defending her title at the Acura Classic, her only championship of the year, and reaching the semifinals in Los Angeles.[24] In her US Open title defense, Sharapova was upset in her third round match to 30th seed Agnieszka Radwańska,[27] making it her earliest exit at a Grand Slam singles tournament since the 2004 US Open, where she lost in the same round.[24]
Following the US Open loss, Sharapova did not play again until the Kremlin Cup in October, where she lost her opening match to Victoria Azarenka.[26] Shortly after this, she fell out of the top 5 in the world rankings for the first time since 2004. She qualified for the eight-woman year-end Sony Ericsson Championships due to a withdrawal by Venus Williams before the start of the tournament.[24] Despite having not previously won a match in two months, Sharapova topped her round-robin group at the tournament, after winning all three of her matches, defeating Svetlana Kuznetsova, Ana Ivanović, and Daniela Hantuchová. She then defeated Anna Chakvetadze in the semifinals.[26] In the final, she lost to world no. 1 Henin in a match that lasted 3 hours and 24 minutes. Sharapova reached the top five again to end the year.
===2008=== Shoulder Injury Sharapova was seeded fifth at the Australian Open,[28] but was not considered a favorite. Nevertheless, she defeated former world no. 1 Lindsay Davenport in the second round, and then world no. 1 Henin in the quarterfinals,[29] ending the latter's 32-match winning streak.[30] She proceeded to the finals by defeating Jelena Janković in the semifinals, where she defeated Ana Ivanović to win her third Grand Slam title,[31] having not dropped a set all tournament.
After the Australian Open, Sharapova extended her winning streak to 18 matches.[31] This run encompassed two wins in singles rubbers when making her debut for Russia in the Fed Cup[32] against Israel[31] and victory at the Tier I Qatar Total Open.[31] Her winning streak was ended in the semifinals of the Pacific Life Open by Kuznetsova.[31] In April, Sharapova won the Bausch & Lomb Championships, having survived her longest-ever match, at 3 hours and 26 minutes long, in the third round against Anabel Medina Garrigues.[33][34] The following week, at the Family Circle Cup, she lost in the quarterfinals to Serena Williams, her fourth consecutive loss to the American.[35]
In May, Sharapova regained the world no. 1 ranking because of Henin's sudden retirement from professional tennis and request to the WTA that her own ranking be removed immediately.[36] As the top-seeded player at the French Open[31] Sharapova was within two points[37] of being knocked out by Evgeniya Rodina in the first round, before eventually winning.[38] As a result of losing to eventual finalist Dinara Safina in the fourth round (after serving for the match),[39] she relinquished her no. 1 ranking.[40] Her dip in form continued at Wimbledon, where she lost in the second round to world no. 154 Alla Kudryavtseva.[31] This was her earliest loss ever at Wimbledon, and at any Grand Slam in almost five years.[41]
Sharapova withdrew from the Rogers Cup tournament in August due to a shoulder injury.[42][43] An MRI scan revealed that she had been suffering from a rotator cuff tear since April, forcing her out of all tournaments for the rest of the season, including the Beijing Olympics, the US Open, and the WTA Tour Championships. In spite of that, she still finished the year ranked world no. 9.[44] In October, after a failed attempt to rehabilitate the shoulder, Sharapova had surgery to repair the tear.
Sharapova did not attempt to defend her Australian Open title, as she continued to recover from surgery.[45][46] She returned to the sport in March, in the doubles tournament at the BNP Paribas Open, but she and partner Elena Vesnina lost in the first round. After this, Sharapova withdrew from further singles tournaments, resulting in her standing in the world rankings being severely affected. She dropped out of the top 100 for the first time in six years in May, the nadir being world no. 126.
Playing her first singles tournament in nearly ten months, Sharapova made the quarterfinals of the clay-court Warsaw Open in May, losing to finalist Alona Bondarenko. The following week, in the first Grand Slam appearance since her surgery, she reached the quarterfinals of the French Open, before her run was ended by Dominika Cibulková.
During the summer grass-court season, Sharapova played in Birmingham, losing in the semifinals. Sharapova then played at the 2009 Wimbledon Championships as the 24th seed. She was upset in the second round by Gisela Dulko in three sets.
Sharapova enjoyed considerable success in the summer months, reaching the quarterfinals at the Bank of the West Classic, the semifinals at the LA Women's Tennis Championships, and finishing runner-up at the Rogers Cup to Elena Dementieva. At the 2009 US Open, Sharapova was seeded 29th. She entered her way into the third round defeating Tsvetana Pironkova and Christina McHale all in straight sets. She was stunned in the third round by American teenager Melanie Oudin 3–6, 6–4, 7–5. It was the first time in Sharapova's career that she lost to a teenager at a Grand Slam event. The devastating loss made Sharapova's ranking go down to no. 32.
The final stretch of the season brought Sharapova her first title of the year in Tokyo, after opponent Jelena Janković retired after being down 2–5 to Sharapova in the final. By virtue of that result, she was the recipient of a bye at the China Open, but failed to capitalize on it, losing to Peng Shuai in the third round. She ultimately finished the season at world no. 14, having improved from no. 126 when she starting her comeback from injury.
After playing two exhibition tournaments in Asia, Sharapova officially began her season at the Australian Open, where she was upset in her first-round match against Maria Kirilenko. The loss meant that for the first time since 2003, Sharapova had lost her opening match at a Grand Slam event.[47] She then rebounded by winning a smaller American event, the Cellular South Cup, her 21st career WTA title and first of the year.[48]
At the BNP Paribas Open, Sharapova lost in the third round to Zheng Jie, aggravating a bruised bone on her right elbow in the process, which resulted in her eventual withdrawal from the Sony Ericsson Open[49] and the Family Circle Cup.[50]
Returning at the 2010 Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open, Sharapova lost in the first round to Lucie Šafářová. She continued her French Open preparation at the Internationaux de Strasbourg as a wildcard, advancing to the final, where she beat Kristina Barrois. This was her first title on red clay and 22nd overall title.[51] At the French Open, Sharapova's brief clay season culminated with a third-round loss to four-time champion Justine Henin.
Sharapova began her preparations for Wimbledon at the AEGON Classic. She advanced to the final for the fourth time, where she lost to Li Na. As the 16th seed at Wimbledon, Sharapova lost in the fourth round to world no. 1 and eventual champion Serena Williams, 6–7, 4–6, despite having three set points in the opening set.[52] The match was seen as another encouraging performance for Sharapova, with some stating their belief that she was approaching the form that would see her contending for Grand Slams once more,[53] and Sharapova herself that stating she felt that she was "in a much better spot than I was last year."[54]
During the US Open Series, Sharapova made two straight finals, losing to Victoria Azarenka at the Bank of the West Classic, and to Kim Clijsters at the Western & Southern Financial Group Women's Open. In the latter match, Sharapova held three match points while leading 5–3 on Clijsters's serve late in the second set, but could not convert them.
At the U.S. Open, Sharapova was the 14th seed. She made it to the fourth round, where she played top seed and 2009 finalist Caroline Wozniacki and lost, 3–6, 4–6.
Sharapova's last two tournaments of the season ended in disappointment. She played in the Toray Pan Pacific Open in Tokyo, where she was upset in the first round by 39-year-old former world no. 4 Kimiko Date-Krumm.[55] Her last tournament of the year was the China Open, where she lost in the second round to fellow Russian Elena Vesnina.[56] Days later, she announced the end of her 2010 season.[57] She ended the year at number 18 in the world.[58]
It was announced that Sharapova would bring in Thomas Hogstedt as a coach for the 2011 season, joining Michael Joyce.[59] On December 5, Sharapova played an exhibition match against world no. 2 Vera Zvonareva in Monterrey, Mexico. She won the match 6–1, 7–5.[60] It was also announced that Maria would start endorsing the Head YOUTEK IG Instinct Racquet range. This ended her career long use of Prince racquets.
In Sharapova's first ever official Australian Open warm-up tournament at the 2011 ASB Classic in Auckland, New Zealand, she was seeded 1st. She lost to the Hungarian veteran and eventual champion Gréta Arn 2–6, 5–7 in the quarterfinals. After the ASB Classic, Sharapova decided to take a hiatus from Joyce's coaching, despite having worked together for a number of years, including during her successful years where she became a multiple Grand Slam champion.[61]
Sharapova participated in the first Grand Slam of the season at the Australian Open, where she was the 14th seed, but lost to Andrea Petkovic, 2–6, 3–6 in the fourth round.[62]
Sharapova's next appearance was at the 2011 Fed Cup tie against France, which she lost to Virginie Razzano, 3–6, 4–6. She then withdrew from the 2011 Open GDF Suez in Paris because of viral illness.[63] She also had to pull out of the 2011 Dubai Tennis Championships and 2011 Qatar Ladies Open due to an ear infection.
Sharapova returned to the tour in March by taking part in the 2011 BNP Paribas Open, where she was seeded 16th. She defeated former world No. 1 Dinara Safina, 6–2, 6–0, in the fourth round en route to the semifinal, where she lost to world no. 1 Caroline Wozniacki, 1–6, 2–6. With this result, Sharapova returned to the top 10 for the first time since February 2009.
At the 2011 Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Sharapova upset fourth seed Samantha Stosur in the fourth round. She then defeated 26th seed Alexandra Dulgheru 3–6, 7–66, 7–65 in the quarterfinals in a match that lasted 3 hours and 28 minutes, the longest match of her career. In the semifinals, Sharapova took her Australian Open reprisal on Germany's Andrea Petkovic by defeating her 3–6, 6–0, 6–2. In the final, she was defeated by Victoria Azarenka, 1–6, 4–6, despite a late comeback in the second set.
During the clay-court season, Sharapova participated in 2011 Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open, where she lost to Dominika Cibulková 5–7, 4–6, in the third round and the 2011 Internazionali BNL d'Italia, where she was seeded seventh. She defeated top seed Caroline Wozniacki in the semifinals and sixth seed Samantha Stosur, 6–2, 6–4, in the final to take home the title, marking her biggest clay-court victory to date.[64]
At the 2011 French Open, Sharapova was seeded seventh. She defeated French wildcard Caroline Garcia in the second round, despite trailing 3–6, 1–4, before winning the last 11 games of the match. In the quarterfinals, she defeated 15th seed Andrea Petkovic, 6–0, 6–3, marking her first Grand Slam semifinal since her comeback from the career-threatening shoulder injury. She then lost to sixth seed and eventual champion Li Na, 4–6, 5–7, in the semifinals, ending her clay season with a win-loss record of 12–2.[65] This marks her most successful clay season to date.
At the 2011 Wimbledon Championships, Sharapova had not dropped a set entering the final, before losing to eighth seed Petra Kvitová in straight sets, 3–6, 4–6.[66] This marked her first final in over three years at a Grand Slam event.
Sharapova started her summer hard court season at the 2011 Bank of the West Classic in Stanford, USA. In a highly anticipated match, Sharapova lost to the eventual champion Serena Williams 1–6, 3–6, in the quarterfinals.[67] In her next event at 2011 Rogers Cup in Toronto, Canada, Sharapova lost to Galina Voskoboeva in the third round, marking her 100th career loss.[68]
Sharapova then contested at the 2011 Western & Southern Open in Cincinnati, Ohio. As the fourth seed, she received a bye into the second round. On the way to her fourth final of the year, she beat Anastasia Rodionova, 6–1, 6–3,[69] 14th seed Svetlana Kuznetsova 6–2, 6–3,[70] 10th seed Samantha Stosur, 6–3, 6–2,[71] and 2nd seed Vera Zvonareva 2–6, 6–3, 6–3.[72] In the final, she defeated fellow former world no. 1 Jelena Jankovic, 4–6, 7–6, 6–3, in 2 hours and 49 minutes, making it the longest WTA tour final of the year.[73] She subsequently moved up to world no. 4, her highest ranking since August 2008 and the highest since her comeback from her shoulder injury.[74]
Sharapova entered the US Open in fine form, where she was seeded third. She beat British up-and-comer Heather Watson, 3–6, 7–5, 6–3, and Anastasiya Yakimova, 6–1, 6–1, to reach the third round. She was then upset by Flavia Pennetta, 3–6, 6–3, 4–6. However, because of the fall of Kim Clijsters and Vera Zvonareva in the rankings, Sharapova climbed to world no. 2.[75]
Sharapova's next tournament was the 2011 Toray Pan Pacific Open in Tokyo, Japan. As second seed, she received a bye into the second round, where she beat Tamarine Tanasugarn, 6–2, 7–5. She then beat 13th seed Julia Goerges 7–6, 7–6, before retiring against Petra Kvitova in the quarterfinal, 3–4, after slipping on the baseline, suffering an ankle injury. This also forced her to withdraw from the 2011 China Open the following week. Sharapova then flew to Istanbul to prepare for the 2011 WTA Tour Championships, her first time qualifying since 2007. During the WTA Tour Championships, Sharapova withdrew during the round-robin stage after defeats against Samantha Stosur, 1–6, 5–7, and Li Na, 6–7, 4–6, due to the ankle injury she had suffered in Tokyo.
Sharapova ended the year as number 4 in the world, her first top-10 finish since 2008 and first top-5 finish since 2007.
Sharapova withdrew from the 2012 Brisbane International because of her ongoing ankle injury.[76] Her first tournament of the season was the 2012 Australian Open, where she was seeded fourth. Sharapova advanced to the fourth round conceding just five games, defeating Gisela Dulko, Jamie Hampton and the 30th seed Angelique Kerber en route. In the fourth round, Sharapova defeated the fourteenth seed, Sabine Lisicki in three sets, 3–6, 6–2, 6–3 to reach her first hardcourt Grand Slam quarterfinal in 4 years. She then defeated compatriot, Ekaterina Makarova in straight sets, 6–2, 6–3 to reach the semifinals. There she defeated the world no. 2 Petra Kvitová, 6–2, 3–6, 6–4 to reach her third Australian Open final, and her sixth grand slam singles final overall. She lost to Victoria Azarenka in the final 3–6, 0–6. As a result her ranking improved to world no. 3.
In February, Sharapova aided Russia to a 3–2 victory over Spain during the 2012 Fed Cup quarterfinal with a 6–2, 6–1 win over Silvia Soler-Espinosa.[77] She then played in Paris, where she lost in the quarterfinal to eventual champion Angelique Kerber 4–6, 4–6. As a result her ranking improved to World No. 2. At Indian Wells, Sharapova faced Gisela Dulko in the first round and won 6–2, 6–0. Sharapova defeated Simona Halep and Roberta Vinci en route to reaching the quarterfinals. After battling for over 3 hours, she defeated compatriot Maria Kirilenko 3–6 7–5 6–2, to set up a semifinal meeting with Ana Ivanovic. Sharapova won the first set 6–4 and advanced to the final after Ivanovic retired due to a hip injury. In the final she played world no. 1 Victoria Azarenka in a rematch of the Australian Open final, but lost again 2–6, 3–6.
Sharapova's next tournament was the 2012 Sony Ericsson Open, where she was seeded 2nd. She received a bye to the second round where she faced Shahar Peer and won in three sets 4–6, 6–3, 6–3. Her next opponent was Sloane Stephens. Sharapova won in straight sets 6–4, 6–2. In the fourth round she won in straight sets, 6–4, 7–6 against countrywoman Ekaterina Makarova and advanced to the quarterfinals where she faced Li Na, whom she beat 6–3, 6–0. Her semifinal opponent was fellow former world no. 1 Caroline Wozniacki. After an inconsistent first set, Sharapova won the match 4–6, 6–2, 6–4. In the final, Maria lost in straight sets to 5th seeded Agnieszka Radwanska 7–5, 6–4. This was her third loss of the year in finals out of four tournaments played so far. Sharapova's next tournament was the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix in Stuttgart, where she was seeded second. She had a bye in the first round, and advanced to the third round after Alize Cornet retired in the second set. In the quarterfinal, she defeated No. 5 Samantha Stosur 6–75, 7–65, 7–5 after saving a match point in the second set, and advanced to the final with a 6–4, 7–63 win over No. 3 Petra Kvitova. She won her first title of the year in Stuttgart after defeating world number one Victoria Azarenka 6–1, 6–4. In doing so, Sharapova defeated three current Grand Slam title holders to win the tournament. It was also her first win against Azarenka in five finals, and the third of such this season.
Sharapova's next tournament was a premier mandatory event, the 2012 Mutua Madrid Open. She eased through the first round in straight sets against Irina-Camelia Begu 6–0, 6–3. In the next round she faced Klara Zakopalova and also won in straight sets with 6–4, 6–3. In the third round Sharapova's opponent Lucie Safarova was unable to compete and with drew from the tournament, earning Sharapova a walkover into the quarter finals. She was then beaten by eventual champion Serena Williams in straight sets 6–1, 6–3.
As the defending champion and number two seed at the Italian Open, Sharapova had a bye in the first round. She battled through the first round against 20 year-old Christina McHale and prevailed 7–5, 7–5. She then faced thirteenth seed Ana Ivanovic and won 7–64, 6–3 in 1 hour 47 minutes to advance to the quarterfinals. Sharapova then defeated former world no. 1 Venus Williams 6–4, 6–3, meaning that Sharapova has reached the quarterfinals or better in all nine tournaments she has played this year. In the semifinals, Sharapova avenged her defeat to Angelique Kerber in Paris earlier in the year by beating her 6–3, 6–4 to advance to the final for the second year in a row. In the final, Maria saved match point for a 2 hour 52 minute, 4–6, 6–4, 7–6(5) win over Li Na for her 26th career title.[78] This marked the fourth time Sharapova had successfully defended a title.
Sharapova's currently in action at the French Open, where she is seeded 2nd. She moved through to the second round by defeating Alexandra Cadantu 6-0, 6-0 in 48 minutes. She defeated Ayumi Morita 6-1, 6-1 to reach the third round, where she will face Peng Shuai.
Sharapova has lived in the United States since moving there at the age of seven, but retains her Russian citizenship, and is therefore eligible to play in the Fed Cup for Russia.[79] However, the behavior of Sharapova's father during her matches on the WTA Tour, combined with a perceived lack of commitment by her to the Fed Cup, has made her selection for the Russian Fed Cup team cause controversy in the past.
After Sharapova had beaten fellow Russian Anastasia Myskina at the 2004 WTA Tour Championships, Myskina criticized Sharapova's father, saying: "He was just yelling and screaming instructions to her and I thought he just might jump right on the court at one point in the match." At the Fed Cup semi-finals two weeks later, Myskina stated she would stop playing for Russia if Sharapova joined the Russian team the following season: "If she joins our team next season you won't see me there for sure. His behaviour is totally incorrect, simply rude. I don't want to be around people like him." Larisa Neiland, assistant to Russia Fed Cup captain Shamil Tarpishchev, added: "Her father's behaviour (at the WTA Tour Championships) was simply outrageous. I just don't see how he could work with the rest of us." However Tarpishchev himself played down the problem, insisting: "I feel that things will calm down soon and we'll have Myskina, Sharapova, Kuznetsova and everyone else playing for Russia."[80]
At the end of 2005, Sharapova stated she was now keen to make her Fed Cup debut[81] and was set to play against Belgium in April 2006, but withdrew.[82] She later withdrew from ties against Spain in April 2007[83] and against the United States in July 2007 because of injuries.[84] The latter withdrawal led to Russia's captain saying she would be "ineligible for selection" for the Fed Cup final in September.[85] However, Sharapova attended the final, cheering from the sidelines and acting as a "hitting partner" in practices, resulting in some of her Russian teammates implying that she was attending only to enable her to play at the 2008 Beijing Olympics (rules state that players must have "shown commitment" to Fed Cup in order to play). Svetlana Kuznetsova said, "She said she wanted to be our practice partner but if you can't play how then can you practice?"[86]
Sharapova finally made her Fed Cup debut in February 2008, in Russia's quarterfinal tie against Israel.[32] She won both her singles rubbers, against Tzipora Obziler and Shahar Pe'er, helping Russia to a 4–1 victory.[87] For the semifinals, she was given permission to skip the tie, with Tarpishchev announcing that she will be on the team for the final.[88] However, the date of the final coincided with the lay-off from her shoulder injury, and thus she did not play.[89]
In the 2011 first round tie, Maria played Virginie Razzano of France and lost. Maria was supposed to play Alize Cornet, but Sharapova was suffering from a viral illness. So teammate, Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova played instead of Sharapova where she would go to help Russia come back from their 0–2 deficit by beating Alize Cornet 3–6 6–3 6–2 and secure the win for Russia against France 3–2. Maria continued to participate in 2012 and helped Russia to a 3–2 win against Spain in the first round tie. Sharapova defeated Silver Soler Espinosa in the first rubber, but was unable o play her second rubber due to illness.
Sharapova is an aggressive baseliner, with power, depth, and angles on her forehand and backhand.[90] She is one of the few players on the WTA who uses the reverse forehand a lot. Instead of using a traditional volley or overhead smash, she often prefers to hit a powerful "swinging" volley when approaching the net or attacking lobs.[91] Sharapova is thought to have good speed around the court, especially considering her height.[90] At the beginning of 2008, some observers noted that Sharapova had developed her game, showing improved movement and footwork and the addition of a drop shot and sliced backhand to her repertoire of shots.[92][93] Despite her powerful game, Sharapova's greatest asset is considered to be her mental toughness and competitive spirit, with Nick Bollettieri stating that she is "tough as nails". Hall-of-famer John McEnroe said of Sharapova, "she's one of the best competitors in the history of the sport."[94] Sharapova is known for on-court "grunting", which reached a recorded 101 decibels during a match at Wimbledon in 2005.[95] During her second round match in Birmingham in 2003, Sharapova was asked to tone down the level of her grunt after opponent Nathalie Dechy complained to the umpire, with Sharapova's response saying that her grunting was "a natural instinct."[96] Monica Seles suggested that grunting is involuntary and a part of tennis.[97] When questioned by the media about her grunting, Sharapova urged the media to "just watch the match."[98] Her defensive game has been worked on by her new coach, and this has reflected in her results, making consecutive semi-finals at premier mandatory events on the tour.
Early in her career Sharapova's first and second serves were regarded as powerful,[90] and she was believed to possess one of the best deliveries on the Tour.[99] Since the beginning of 2007, however, problems with her shoulder have reduced the effectiveness of her serve.[99] The shoulder injury not only resulted in her inconsistent first serves, but also her hitting high numbers of double faults.[100] Two-time US Open singles champion Tracy Austin believes that Sharapova often loses confidence in the rest of her game when she experiences problems with her serve and consequently produces more unforced errors and generally plays more tentatively,[101] while tennis writer Joel Drucker remarked that her serve was the "catalyst for her entire game", and that her struggles with it left her "unmasked."[99]
In her return from layoff in 2008 to 2009, she used an abbreviated motion, which was somewhat less powerful, and though producing aces also gave a very high number of double faults. After her early loss at the 2009 US Open, Sharapova returned to a more elongated motion, similar to her pre-surgery serve. She has since been able to produce speeds greater than before, including a 121 mph serve hit at the Birmingham tournament in 2010 – the fastest serve of her career.[102]
However since her shoulder operation Sharapova has been unable to control her serve. This has led to numerous faults, as she can't feel how much power she is generating.[103] The new action led to an elbow injury, but under Thomas Hogstedt it has improved but can still be erratic.[104]
Because she predicates her game on power, Sharapova's preferred surfaces are the fast-playing hard and grass courts, as evident through her 24 victories on hard court and grass court. This is most notable when she won the 2004 Wimbledon, 2006 U.S. Open and 2008 Australian Open crowns, where she had her career breakthrough and played her peak tennis level, respectively.
Sharapova, however, is not as well-suited to the slower clay courts as she is on hard and grass courts. Sharapova has admitted that she is not as comfortable with her movement on clay compared with other court surfaces and once described herself as like a "cow on ice" after a match on clay,[105] due to her inability to slide. Despite this, she has shown improvement on this surface with respect to experience, as evident with her first WTA red clay title at the 2010 Internationaux de Strasbourg, 7 years since playing on the WTA circuit. Less than a year later, she won her biggest red clay title at the Tier I 2011 Internazionali BNL d'Italia. Sharapova is still showing rapid improvement on clay courts as evident by winning the 2012 Porsche Tennis Grand Prix in Stuttgart and then a month later being able to successfully defend her 2011 title in Rome, by winning the 2012 Internazionali BNL d'Italia, these results are making Sharapova an obvious favourite for the 2012 French Open.
Sharapova is also known for her phenomenally accurate and powerful groundstrokes. She has a powerful forehand which tends to set up points and create successful winners. Sharapova occasionally utilizes a reverse follow-through on her forehand, similar to that of Lindsay Davenport and Rafael Nadal, which allows her to hit the ball later than normal and add top-spin, while it can also lead to timing issues resulting in errors. The backhand, although not as dominant in setting points up, is her more reliable shot with many tennis analysts[who?] considering this to be her best asset, and one of tennis' great shots. Her net play is good when on the attack, often she will choose to drive the volley instead of slice volleys, but this is not seen as a strength—this seems to be continually worked on.
Sharapova has lived in the United States since moving there at the age of seven. She has a residence in Manhattan Beach, California and in Netanya, Israel.[106][107] Sharapova is engaged to Slovenian professional basketball player Sasha Vujačić, who plays for the Anadolu Efes S.K. in Istanbul, Turkey.[108][109] The two have been dating since 2009.[110] In 2011, Sharapova was named in Forbes Celebrity 100. This lists her as one of the top 100 most powerful celebrities of the year.[111] Sharapova has made varying remarks on how long she intends to maintain her tennis career. Following the retirement of 25-year-old Justine Henin in 2008, Sharapova said, "If I was 25 and I'd won so many Grand Slams, I'd quit too."[112] In an interview after the 2008 Australian Open, she balked at the idea of playing for another ten years, saying that she hoped to have a "nice husband and a few kids" by then.[113] However in an interview before her 2012 Australian Open semifinal, Sharapova changed her stance, claiming she intended to continue playing tennis for as long as she enjoyed playing the game. Sharapova stated "I'm sure when I was 17 years old and someone said, you'll be playing for another eight years, it would be like, you're not going to see me at a press conference at 25 years old. But years go on. I missed a year in my career—I didn't play that year. I've said this, just before the tournament, a few weeks before, I woke up and I was just so happy to be going back on the court. I felt so fresh, full of energy, just with a really good perspective. Times change, obviously. I see myself playing this sport for many more years because it's something that gives me the most pleasure in my life. I think it helps when you know you're good at something, and you can always improve it. It obviously helps with the encouragement."[114]
At the 2004 US Open, Sharapova, along with several other Russian female tennis players, wore a black ribbon in observance of the tragedy after the Beslan school hostage crisis, which took place only days before.[115] In 2005, she donated around US$50,000 to those affected by the crisis.[24] On February 14, 2007, Sharapova was appointed a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and donated US$210,000 to UNDP Chernobyl-recovery projects. She stated at the time that she was planning to travel back to the area after Wimbledon in 2008,[116] though it didn't happen as she had to travel back to the US because of shoulder injury.[117] She fulfilled the trip in late June – early July 2010. Sharapova has helped to promote the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.[118] In addition, with Angela Haynes, Maria Kirilenko, Nicole Vaidišová, Rennae Stubbs, Governor Jeb Bush and Jennifer Capriati, Sharapova participated in an exhibition in Tampa in December 2004, raising money for the Florida Hurricane Relief Fund.[119] In July 2008, Sharapova sent a message on DVD to the memorial service of Emily Bailes, who had performed the coin toss ahead of the 2004 Wimbledon final that Sharapova had gone on to win.[120]
Sharapova's tennis success and appearance have enabled her to secure commercial endorsements that greatly exceed the value of her tournament winnings.[121][122] In March 2006, Forbes magazine listed her as the highest-paid female athlete in the world, with annual earnings of over US $18 million,[123] the majority of which was from endorsements and sponsorships. She has topped that list every year since, even after her 2007 shoulder injury.[124][125][126] In April 2005, People named her one of the 50 most beautiful celebrities in the world.[127] In 2006, Maxim ranked Sharapova the hottest athlete in the world for the fourth consecutive year. She posed in a six-page bikini photoshoot spread in the 2006 Valentine's Day issue of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, alongside 25 supermodels.[128] In a poll run by Britain's FHM magazine, she was voted the seventh most eligible bachelorette,[129] based on both "wealth and looks."
Immediately after her win at the 2004 Wimbledon Championship, mobile phone company Motorola signed Sharapova to endorse their mobile phone line.[130] Additionally, she appeared in commercials for Land Rover and Canon, as well as approved of namesake items by watch brand Tag Heuer and jeweller Tiffany.[130] Tiffany also provides Sharapova with earrings from the "Tiffany for Maria Sharapova" collection at the four major events, that are also retailed globally.[131] She also starred in an award winning campaign for the sports clothing brand Nike, "Pretty", in the summer of 2006. She signed a sponsorship deal in January 2007 with Gatorade and Tropicana.[132] In 2007, Sharapova was featured in a number of Canon USA's commercials for the PowerShot.[133] Sharapova has also been depicted in many tennis-related video games. Some of the titles include the Top Spin series, Virtua Tennis series, and Grand Slam Tennis series. During the layoff due to her shoulder surgery, sensing the fleeting nature of a professional athlete's career, Sharapova decided to focus on developing her name as a brand, beginning with meeting with her sponsors more extensively to further her brand.[130] In January 2010, it was announced that Sharapova had renewed her contract with Nike, signing an 8 year deal for $70 million. This is the most lucrative deal ever for a sportswoman, dwarfing the previous record, which was Venus Williams' $43 million deal with Reebok.[134]
Following in the footsteps of tennis players who started clothing lines such as Fred Perry and René Lacoste, Sharapova launched her own tennis apparel line, the "Nike Maria Sharapova Collection", in 2010. The collection includes dresses that she designed for all the major tournaments, in collaboration with Nike and Cole Haan.[135] She had previously found that the outfits given to her by Nike did not suit her frame and were worn by too many other players.[130] She comes up with design ideas and sketches in a process that begins 18 months before the event[135] and receives royalties from the sale of the collection, of which the corresponding dresses are coordinated to be available simultaneously with the corresponding major tournament.[130] The collection is worn by other WTA players, including Sofia Arvidsson, Kai-Chen Chang, Andrea Hlavackova, Madison Keys, Anastasia Pivovarova as well as junior players such as Indy De Vroome.[135] Sharapova had earlier collaborated with Nike on the "little black dress" that she wore for her night matches at the 2006 US Open.[130] The dress featured a round crystal studded collar and was inspired by Audrey Hepburn[130] The dress was well publicized and received but was not mass produced.[130][135][136] Additionally, she designs shoes and handbags for Cole Haan, for which her signature ballerina flats are one of the biggest sellers of the entire brand.[130]
Sharapova used the Prince Triple Threat Hornet for part of 2003 and then used several different Prince racquets until the US Open. She gave the racquet she used in the 2004 Wimbledon final to Regis Philbin when taping Live with Regis and Kelly. Sharapova began using the Prince Shark OS at that tournament and had a major part in the production of the Shark racquet.[citation needed] She then switched to the Prince O3 White racquet in January 2006. She switched to the Prince O3 Speedport Black in July 2008.[137][138] After being with Prince for ten years,[139] Sharapova began endorsing Head racquets in 2011 and uses the Head YOUTEK IG Instinct.[140][141]
Outcome | Year | Championship | Surface | Opponent | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Winner | 2004 | Wimbledon | Grass | Serena Williams | 6–1, 6–4 |
Winner | 2006 | US Open | Hard | Justine Henin | 6–4, 6–4 |
Runner-up | 2007 | Australian Open | Hard | Serena Williams | 1–6, 2–6 |
Winner | 2008 | Australian Open | Hard | Ana Ivanović | 7–5, 6–3 |
Runner-up | 2011 | Wimbledon | Grass | Petra Kvitová | 3–6, 4–6 |
Runner-up | 2012 | Australian Open | Hard | Victoria Azarenka | 3–6, 0–6 |
Tournament | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | SR | W–L | Win % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grand Slam Tournaments | |||||||||||||||
Australian Open | A | A | 1R | 3R | SF | SF | F | W | A | 1R | 4R | F | 1 / 8 | 34–8 | 81% |
French Open | A | A | 1R | QF | QF | 4R | SF | 4R | QF | 3R | SF | 0 / 9 | 30–9 | 77% | |
Wimbledon | A | A | 4R | W | SF | SF | 4R | 2R | 2R | 4R | F | 1 / 9 | 34–8 | 81% | |
US Open | A | A | 2R | 3R | SF | W | 3R | A | 3R | 4R | 3R | 1 / 8 | 24–7 | 77% | |
Win–Loss | 0–0 | 0–0 | 4–4 | 15–3 | 19–4 | 20–3 | 16–4 | 11–2 | 7–3 | 8–4 | 16–4 | 6–1 | 3 / 34 | 122–32 | 79% |
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Maria Sharapova |
|
|
|
Persondata | |
---|---|
Name | Sharapova, Maria Yuryevna |
Alternative names | Шара́пова; Мари́я Ю́рьевна |
Short description | Russian tennis player |
Date of birth | April 19, 1987 |
Place of birth | Nyagan', Siberia, Russia |
Date of death | |
Place of death |
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2011) |
Hugo Chávez | |
---|---|
President of Venezuela | |
Incumbent | |
Assumed office 2 February 1999 |
|
Vice President | Isaías Rodríguez Adina Bastidas Diosdado Cabello José Vicente Rangel Jorge Rodríguez Ramón Carrizales Elias Jaua |
Preceded by | Rafael Caldera |
Personal details | |
Born | Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (1954-07-28) 28 July 1954 (age 57) Sabaneta, Venezuela |
Nationality | Venezuelan |
Political party | United Socialist Party (2008–present) |
Other political affiliations |
Fifth Republic Movement (1997–2008) |
Spouse(s) | Nancy Colmenares (Div.) Marisabel Rodríguez (Div.) |
Relations | Adán Chávez, Aníbal José Chávez Frías (brothers) |
Occupation | Military officer (to 1992) and politician |
Religion | Roman Catholicism |
Signature | |
Military service | |
Allegiance | Venezuela |
Service/branch | Army |
Years of service | 1971–1992 |
Rank | Lieutenant Colonel |
Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈuɣo rafaˈel ˈtʃaβes ˈfɾi.as]; born 28 July 1954) is the current President of Venezuela, having held that position since 1999. He was formerly the leader of the Fifth Republic Movement political party from its foundation in 1997 until 2007, when he became the leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). Following his own political ideology of Bolivarianism and "Socialism for the 21st Century", he has focused on implementing socialist reforms in the country as a part of a social project known as the Bolivarian Revolution, which has seen the implementation of a new constitution, participatory democratic councils and the nationalisation of several key industries.
Born into a working class family in Sabaneta, Barinas, Chávez became a career military officer, and after becoming dissatisfied with the Venezuelan political system, he founded the secretive Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement-200 (MBR-200) in the early 1980s to work towards overthrowing it. Chávez led the MBR-200 in an unsuccessful coup d'état against the Democratic Action government of President Carlos Andrés Pérez government in 1992, for which he was imprisoned. Getting out of prison after two years, he founded a social democratic political party, the Fifth Republic Movement, and was elected president of Venezuela in 1998. He subsequently introduced a new constitution which increased rights for marginalised groups and altered the structure of Venezuelan government, and was re-elected in 2000. During his second presidential term, he introduced a system of Bolivarian Missions, Communal Councils and worker-managed cooperatives, as well as a program of land reform, whilst also nationalising various key industries.
Chavez describes his policies as basically anti-imperialist[1] and he is a vocal critic of neoliberalism and capitalism more generally, Chávez has been a prominent adversary of the United States' foreign policy.[2] Allying himself strongly with the Communist governments of Fidel and then Raúl Castro in Cuba, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, his presidency is seen as a part of the socialist "pink tide" sweeping Latin America. He has supported Latin American and Caribbean cooperation and was instrumental in setting up the pan-regional Union of South American Nations, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, the Bank of the South, and the regional television network TeleSur. Chavez is a highly controversial and divisive figure both at home and abroad.
Contents |
Hugo Chávez was born on 28 July 1954 in his paternal grandmother Rosa Inéz Chávez's home, a modest three-room house located in the rural village Sabaneta, Barinas State. The Chávez family were of Amerindian, Afro-Venezuelan, and Spanish descent.[3] His parents, Hugo de los Reyes Chávez and Elena Frías de Chávez, were working-lower middle class schoolteachers who lived in the small village of Los Rastrojos. Hugo was born the second of seven children, including their eldest, Adán Chávez.[4][5] The couple lived in poverty, leading them to send Hugo and Adán to live with their grandmother Rosa,[6] whom Hugo would later describe as being "a pure human being... pure love, pure kindness."[7] She was a devout Roman Catholic, and Hugo was an altar boy at a local church.[8] Hugo described his childhood as "poor...very happy", and experienced "humility, poverty, pain, sometimes not having anything to eat", and "the injustices of this world."[9]
Attending the Julián Pino Elementary School, Chávez's hobbies included drawing, painting, baseball and history. He was particularly interested in the 19th-century federalist general Ezequiel Zamora, in whose army his own great-great-grandfather had served.[10][11] In the mid-1960s, Hugo, his brother and their grandmother moved to the city of Barinas so that the boys could attend what was then the only high school in the rural state, the Daniel O'Leary High School.[12]
Aged seventeen, Chávez decided to study at the Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences in Caracas. At the Academy, he was a member of the first class that was following a restructured curriculum known as the Andrés Bello Plan. This plan had been instituted by a group of progressive, nationalistic military officers who believed that change was needed within the military. This new curriculum encouraged students to learn not only military routines and tactics but also a wide variety of other topics, and to do so civilian professors were brought in from other universities to give lectures to the military cadets.[13][14][15] Living in Caracas, he saw more of the endemic poverty faced by working class Venezuelans, something that echoed the poverty he had experienced growing up, and he has maintained that this experience only made him further committed to achieving social justice.[16][17] He also began to get involved in local activities outside of the military school, playing both baseball and softball with the Criollitos de Venezuela team, progressing with them to the Venezuelan National Baseball Championships. Other hobbies that he undertook at the time included writing numerous poems, stories and theatrical pieces, painting[18] and researching the life and political thought of 19th-century South American revolutionary Simón Bolívar.[19] He also became interested in the Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara (1928–1967) after reading his memoir The Diary of Che Guevara, although also read books by a wide variety of other figures, from Karl Marx to Hannibal and Napoleon Bonaparte.[20]
In 1974 he was selected to be a representative in the commemorations for the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Ayacucho in Peru, the conflict in which Simon Bolívar's lieutenant, Antonio José de Sucre, defeated royalist forces during the Peruvian War of Independence. It was in Peru that Chávez heard the leftist president, General Juan Velasco Alvarado (1910–1977), speak, and inspired by Velasco's ideas that the military should act in the interests of the working classes when the ruling classes were perceived as corrupt,[21] he "drank up the books [Velasco had written], even memorising some speeches almost completely."[22] Befriending the son of Panamanian President Omar Torrijos (1929–1981), another leftist military general, Chávez subsequently visited Panama, where he met with Torrijos, and was impressed with his land reform program that was designed to benefit the peasants. Being heavily influenced by both Torrijos and Velasco, he saw the potential for military generals to seize control of a government when the civilian authorities were perceived as only serving the interests of the wealthy elites.[21][23] In contrast to military presidents like Torrijos and Velasco however, Chávez became highly critical of Augusto Pinochet, the right-wing general who had recently seized control in Chile with the aid of the American CIA.[24] Chávez would later relate that "With Torrijos, I became a Torrijist. With Velasco I became a Velasquist. And with Pinochet, I became an anti-Pinochetist."[25] In 1975, Chávez graduated from the military academy, being rated one of the top graduates of the year (eight out of seventy five).[26][27][28]
I think that from the time I left the academy I was oriented toward a revolutionary movement... The Hugo Chávez who entered there was a kid from the hills, a Ilanero with aspirations of playing professional baseball. Four years later, a second-lieutenant came out who had taken the revolutionary path. Someone who didn’t have obligations to anyone, who didn't belong to any movement, who was not enrolled in any party, but who knew very well where I was headed.
Following his graduation, Chávez was stationed as a communications officer at a counterinsurgency unit in Barinas,[30] although the Marxist-Leninist insurgency which the army was sent to combat had already been eradicated from that state, leaving the unit with much spare time. Chávez himself played in a local baseball team, wrote a column for the local newspaper, organized bingo games and judged at beauty pageants.[31] At one point he found a stash of Marxist literature that was in an abandoned car riddled with bullet holes. Apparently having belonged to insurgents many years before, he went on to read these books, which included titles by such theoreticians as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, but his favourite was a work entitled The Times of Ezequiel Zamora, written about the 19th-century federalist general whom Chávez had admired as a child.[32] These books further convinced Chávez of the need for a leftist government in Venezuela, later remarking that "By the time I was 21 or 22, I made myself a man of the left."[33]
In 1977, Chávez's unit was transferred to Anzoátegui, where they were involved in battling the Red Flag Party, a Marxist-Hoxhaist insurgency group.[34] After intervening to prevent the beating of an alleged insurgent by other soldiers,[35] Chávez began to have his doubts about the army and their methods in using torture.[33] At the same time, he was becoming increasingly critical of the corruption in both the army and in the civilian government, coming to believe that despite the wealth being produced by the country's oil reserves, Venezuela's poor masses were not receiving their share, something he felt to be inherently un-democratic. In doing so, he began to sympathise with the Red Flag Party and their cause, if not their violent methods.[36]
In 1977, he founded a revolutionary movement within the armed forces, in the hope that he could one day introduce a leftist government to Venezuela: the Venezuelan People's Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación del Pueblo de Venezuela, or ELPV), was a secretive cell within the military that consisted of him and a handful of his fellow soldiers. Although they knew that they wanted a middle way between the right wing policies of the government and the far left position of the Red Flag, they did not have any plans of action for the time being.[35][37][38] Nevertheless, hoping to gain an alliance with civilian leftist groups in Venezuela, Chávez then set about clandestinely meeting various prominent Marxists, including Alfredo Maneiro (the founder of the Radical Cause) and Douglas Bravo, despite having numerous political differences with them.[39][40] At this time, Chávez married a working class woman named Nancy Colmenares, with whom he would go on to have three children, Rosa Virginia (born September 1978), Maria Gabriela (born March 1980) and Hugo Rafael (born October 1983).[41]
Five years after his creation of the ELPV, Chávez went on to form a new secretive cell within the military, the Bolivarian Revolutionary Army-200 (EBR-200), later redesignated the Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement-200 (MBR-200).[13][42][43] Taking inspiration from three Venezuelans whom Chávez deeply admired, Ezequiel Zamora (1817–1860), Simón Bolívar (1783–1830) and Simón Rodríguez (1769–1854), these historical figures became known as the "three roots of the tree" of the MBR-200.[44][45] Later describing the group's foundation, Chávez would state that "the Bolivarian movement that was being born did not propose political objectives... Its goals were imminently internal. Its efforts were directed in the first place to studying the military history of Venezuela as a source of a military doctrine of our own, which up to then didn't exist."[46] However, he always hoped that the Bolivarian Movement would become politically dominant, and on his political ideas at the time, remarked that "This tree [of Bolívar, Zamora and Rodríguez] has to be a circumference, it has to accept all kinds of ideas, from the right, from the left, from the ideological ruins of those old capitalist and communist systems."[47] Indeed, Irish political analyst Barry Cannon noted that the early Bolivarian ideology was explicitly capitalist, but that it "was a doctrine in construction, a heterogeneous amalgam of thoughts and ideologies, from universal thought, capitalism, Marxism, but rejecting the neoliberal models currently being imposed in Latin America and the discredited socialist and communist models of the old Soviet Bloc."[48]
In 1981, Chávez, by now a captain, was assigned to teach at the military academy where he had formerly trained. Here he indoctrinated new students in his so-called "Bolivarian" ideals, and recruited those whom he felt would make good members of the MBR-200, as well as organizing sporting and theatrical events for the students. In his recruiting attempts he was relatively successful, for by the time they had graduated, at least thirty out of 133 cadets had joined it.[49] In 1984 he met a Venezuelan woman of German ancestry named Herma Marksman who was a recently divorced history teacher. Sharing many interests in common, she eventually got involved in Chávez's movement and the two fell in love, having an affair that would last several years.[50][51] Another figure to get involved with the movement was Francisco Arias Cárdenas, a soldier particularly interested in liberation theology.[52] Cárdenas rose to a significant position within the group, although came into ideological conflict with Chávez, who believed that they should begin direct military action in order to overthrow the government, something Cárdenas thought was reckless.[53]
However, some senior military officers became suspicious of Chávez after hearing rumours about the MBR-200. Unable to legally dismiss him without proof, they re-assigned him so that he would not be able to gain any more fresh new recruits from the academy. He was sent to take command of the remote barracks at Elorza in Apure State,[54] where he got involved in the local community by organizing social events, and contacted the local indigenous tribal peoples, the Cuiva and Yaruro. Although distrustful due to their mistreatment at the hands of the Venezuelan army in previous decades, Chávez gained their trust by joining the expeditions of an anthropologist to meet with them. His experiences with them would later lead him to introduce laws protecting the rights of indigenous tribal peoples when he gained power many years later.[55] While on holiday, he retraced on foot the route taken by his great-grandfather, the revolutionary Pedro Pérez Delgado (known as Maisanta), to understand his family history; on that trip, he met a woman who told Chávez how Maisanta had become a local hero by rescuing an abducted girl.[56] In 1988, after being promoted to the rank of major, the high ranking General Rodríguez Ochoa took a liking to Chávez and employed him to be his assistant at his office in Caracas.[57]
In 1989, Carlos Andrés Pérez (1922–2010), the candidate of the centrist Democratic Action Party, was elected President after promising to oppose the United States government's Washington Consensus and financial policies recommended by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Nevertheless, he did neither once he got into office, following instead the neoliberal economic policies supported by the United States and the IMF. He dramatically cut spending, put prominent men in governmental posts. Pérez's policies angered some of the public..[58][59][60] In an attempt to stop the widespread protests and looting that followed his social spending cuts, Pérez ordered the violent repression and massacre of protesters known as El Caracazo, which "according to official figures ... left a balance of 276 dead, numerous injured, several disappeared and heavy material losses. However, this list was invalidated by the subsequent appearance of mass graves", indicating that the official death count was inadequate.[61][62][63] Pérez had used both the DISIP political police and the army to orchestrate El Caracazo. Chávez did not participate in the repression because he was then hospitalized with chicken pox, and later condemned the event as "genocide".[64][65]
Disturbed by the Caracazo, rampant government corruption, the domination of politics by the Venezuelan oligarchy through the Punto Fijo Pact, and what he called "the dictatorship of the IMF", Chávez began preparing for a military coup d'état,[63][66] known as Operation Zamora.[67] Initially planned for December, Chávez delayed the MBR-200 coup until the early twilight hours of 4 February 1992. On that date, five army units under Chávez's command moved into urban Caracas with the mission of overwhelming key military and communications installations, including the Miraflores presidential palace, the defense ministry, La Carlota military airport and the Military Museum. Chávez's immediate goal was to intercept and take custody of Pérez, who was returning to Miraflores from an overseas trip. Despite years of planning, the coup quickly encountered trouble. At the time of the coup, Chávez had the loyalty of less than 10% of Venezuela's military forces,[68] and, because of numerous betrayals, defections, errors, and other unforeseen circumstances, Chávez and a small group of rebels found themselves hiding in the Military Museum, without any means of conveying orders to their network of spies and collaborators spread throughout Venezuela.[69] Furthermore, Chávez's allies were unable to broadcast their prerecorded tapes on the national airwaves, during which Chávez planned to issue a general call for a mass civilian uprising against the Pérez government. Finally, Chávez's forces were unable to capture Pérez, who managed to escape from them. Fourteen soldiers were killed, and fifty soldiers and some eighty civilians injured during the ensuing violence.[70][71][72]
Realising that the coup had failed, Chávez gave himself up to the government. On the condition that he called upon the remaining active coup members to cease hostilities, he was allowed to appear on national television, something that he insisted on doing in his military uniform. During this address, he invoked the name of national hero Simón Bolívar and declared to the Venezuelan people that "Comrades: unfortunately, for now, the objectives we had set for ourselves were not achieved in the capital city. That is, those of us here in Caracas did not seize power. Where you are, you have performed very well, but now is the time for a reflect. New opportunities will arise and the country has to head definitively toward a better future."[73] Many viewers noted that Chávez had remarked that he had only failed "por ahora" (for now),[13][74][75][76][77] and he was immediately catapulted into the national spotlight, with many Venezuelans, particularly those from the poorer sections of society, seeing him as a figure who had stood up against government corruption and kleptocracy.[78][79][80]
Chávez was arrested and imprisoned at the San Carlos military stockade, where he remained wracked with guilt, feeling responsible for the coup's failure.[81][82] Indeed, pro-Chávez demonstrations that took place outside of San Carlos led to him being transferred to Yare prison soon after.[83] The government meanwhile began a temporary crackdown on media supportive of Chávez and the coup.[84] A further attempted coup against the government occurred in November, which was once more defeated,[66][85] although Pérez himself was impeached a year later for malfeasance and misappropriation of funds for illegal activities.[86][87]
Whilst Chávez and the other senior members of the MBR-200 were in prison, his relationship with Herma Marksman broke up in July 1993.[88] She would subsequently become "a bitter critic of Chávez, whose supporters wondered how much of her anger was stoked by their failed romance."[89] In 1994, Rafael Caldera (1916–2009) of the centrist National Convergence Party was elected to the presidency, and soon after taking power, freed Chávez and the other imprisoned MBR-200 members as per his pre-election pledge. Caldera had however imposed upon them the condition that they would not return to the military, where they could potentially organise another coup.[90][91] After being mobbed by adoring crowds following his release, Chávez went on a 100 day tour of the country, promoting his Bolivarian cause of social revolution.[92] Now living off a small military pension as well as the donations of his supporters, he continued to financially support his three children and their mother despite divorcing Nancy Colmenares around this period. On his tours around the country, he would meet Marisabel Rodríguez, who would give birth to their daughter shortly before becoming his second wife in 1997.[93][94]
Travelling around Latin America in search of foreign support for his Bolivarian movement, he visited Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, and finally Cuba, where the Communist leader Fidel Castro (1926–) arranged to meet him. After spending several days in one another's company, Chávez and Castro became friends with the former describing the Cuban leader as being like a father to him.[95] Returning to Venezuela, Chávez failed to gain mainstream media attention for his political cause. Instead, he gained publicity from small, local-based newspapers and media outlets.[96] As a part of his condemnation of the ruling class, Chávez became critical of President Caldera, whose neoliberal economic policies had caused inflation and who had both suspended constitutional guarantees and arrested a number of Chávez's supporters.[97] According to the United Nations, by 1997 the per capita income for Venezuelan citizens had fallen to US$ 2,858 from US$ 5,192 in 1990, whilst poverty levels had increased by 17.65% since 1980 and homicide and other crime rates had more than doubled since 1986, particularly in Caracas.[98] Coupled with this drop in the standard of living, widespread dissatisfaction with the representative democratic system in Venezuela had "led to gaps emerging between rulers and ruled which favoured the emergence of a populist leader".[99]
A debate soon developed in the Bolivarian movement as to whether it should try to take power in elections or whether it should instead continue to believe that military action was the only effective way of bringing about political change. Chávez was a keen proponent of the latter view, believing that the oligarchy would never allow he and his supporters to win an election,[100] whilst Francisco Arias Cárdenas instead insisted that they take part in the representative democratic process. Cárdenas himself proved his point when, after joining the Radical Cause socialist party, he won the December 1995 election to become governor of the oil-rich Zulia State.[101] Subsequently changing his opinion on the issue, Chávez and his supporters in the Bolivarian movement decided to found their own political party, the Fifth Republic Movement (MVR—Movimiento Quinta República) in July 1997 in order to support Chávez's candidature in the Venezuelan presidential election, 1998.[70][102][103][104]
The election of a leftist president in Venezuela in 1998 foreshadowed what would, in the following seven years, become a wave of successes for left-leaning presidential candidates in Latin America... Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva in Brazil in October 2002, then Lucio Gutiérrez in Ecuador in January 2003, Néstor Kirchner in Argentina in May 2003, Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay in October 2004, Evo Morales in Bolivia in December 2005, Rafael Correa in Ecuador in November 2006, and then Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, also in November 2006. While some of these moderated [towards the centre or centre-right] significantly shortly after taking office, such as Gutiérrez and da Silva, they represent a wave of left-of-center leaders whose election came as a bit of a surprise given the... disorientation within the left around the world.
At the start of the election run-up, most polls gave Irene Sáez, then-mayor of Caracas' richest district, Chacao, the lead. Although an independent candidate, she had the backing of one of Venezuela's two primary political parties, Copei.[106] In opposition to her right wing and pro-establishment views, Chávez and his followers described their aim as "laying the foundations of a new republic" to replace the existing one, which they cast as "party-dominated"; the current constitution, they argued, was no more than the "legal-political embodiment of puntofijismo", the country's traditional two-party patronage system.[107] This revolutionary rhetoric gained Chávez and the MVR support from a number of other leftist parties, including the Patria Para Todos (Motherland for All), the Partido Comunist Venezolano (Venezeuelan Communist Party) and the Movimiento al Socialismo (Movement for Socialism), which together fashioned a political union supporting his candidacy called the Polo Patriotic (Patriotic Pole).[104][108]
Chávez's promises of widespread social and economic reforms won the trust and favor of a primarily poor and working class following. By May 1998, Chávez's support had risen to 30% in polls, and by August he was registering 39%.[109] Much of his support came from his 'strong man' populist image and charismatic appeal.[110] This rise in popularity worried Chávez's opponents, with the oligarchy-owned mainstream media proceeding to attack him with a series of allegations, which included the claim – which he dismissed as ridiculous – that he was a cannibal who ate children.[111] With his support increasing, and Sáez's decreasing, both the main two political parties, Copei and Democratic Action, put their support behind Henrique Salas Römer, a Yale University-educated economist who representated the Project Venezuela party.[112]
Chávez won the election with 56.20% of the vote. Salas Römer came second, with 39.97%, whilst the other candidates, including Irene Sáez and Alfaro Ucero, only gained tiny proportions of the vote.[87][113] Academic analysis of the election showed that Chávez's support had come primarily from the country's poor and the "disenchanted middle class", whose standard of living had decreased rapidly in the previous decade,[114] although at the same time much of the middle and upper class vote had instead gone to Salas Römer.[115] Following the announcement of his victory, Chávez gave a speech in which he declared that "The resurrection of Venezuela has begun, and nothing and no one can stop it."[113]
Chávez's presidential inauguration took place on 2 February 1999, and during the usual presidential oath he deviated from the prescribed words to proclaim that "I swear before my people that upon this moribund constitution I will drive forth the necessary democratic transformations so that the new republic will have a Magna Carta befitting these new times."[116][117] He subsequently set about appointing new figures to a number of government posts, including promoting various leftist allies to key positions; he for instance gave one of the founders of MBR, Jesús Urdaneta, the position in charge of the secret police, and made one of the 1992 coup leaders, Hernán Grüber Ódreman, governor of the Federal District of Caracas.[118] Chávez also appointed some conservative, centrist and centre-right figures to government positions as well, reappointing Caldera's economy minister Maritza Izaquirre to that same position and also appointing the businessman Roberto Mandini to be president of the state-run oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela.[119] His critics referred to this group of government officials as the "Boliburguesía" or "Bolivarian bourgeoisie",[120][121] and highlighted the fact that it "included few people with experience in public administration."[116] He also made several alterations to his presidential privileges, scrapping the presidential limousine, giving away his entire presidential wage of $1,200 a month to a scholarship fund,[122] and selling off many of the government-owned airplanes, although alternately many of his critics accused him of excessive personal expenses for himself, his family and friends.[123] The involvement of a number of his immediate family members in Venezuelan politics has also led to accusations of nepotism, something Chávez denies.[124] Meanwhile, in June 2000 he separated from his wife Marisabel, and their divorce was finalised in January 2004.[125]
Although he publicly used strong revolutionary rhetoric from the beginning of his presidency, the Chávez government's initial policies were moderate, capitalist and centre-left, having much in common with those of contemporary Latin American leftists like Brazil's president Lula da Silva.[126][127] Chávez initially believed that capitalism was still a valid economic model for Venezuela, but that it would have to be Rhenish capitalism or the Third Way that would be followed rather than the neoliberalism which had been implemented under former governments with the encouragement of the United States.[128] He followed the economic guidelines recommended by the International Monetary Fund and continued to encourage foreign corporations to invest in Venezuela,[129] even visiting the New York Stock Exchange in the United States in an attempt to convince wealthy investors to do so.[130][131] To increase his visibility abroad, Chávez spent fifty-two days of his first year as president outside of Venezuela, travelling the world meeting various national leaders, such as American President Bill Clinton, Governor of Texas George W. Bush and Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin.[132]
Whilst he was remaining fiscally conservative, he introduced measures in an attempt to alleviate the poverty of the Venezuelan working class. Chávez immediately set into motion a social welfare program called Plan Bolívar 2000, which he organised to begin on 27 February 1999, the tenth anniversary of the Caracazo massacre. Costing $113,000,000, Plan Bolívar 2000 involved 70,000 army officers going out into the streets of Venezuela where they would repair roads and hospitals, offer free medical care and vaccinations, and sell food at cheap prices.[133][134][135] Chávez himself described the Plan by saying that "Ten years ago we came to massacre the people. Now we are going to fill them with love. Go and comb the land, search out and destroy poverty and death. We are going to fill them with love instead of lead."[136] In order to explain his latest thoughts and plans to the Venezuelan people, in May he also launched his own Sunday morning radio show, Aló Presidente (Hello, President), on the state radio network, as well as a Thursday night television show, De Frente con el Presidente (Face to Face with the President). He followed this with his own newspaper, El Correo del Presidente (The President's Post), founded in July, for which he acted as editor-in-chief, but which was later shut amidst accusations of corruption in its management.[137] In his television and radio shows, he answered calls from citizens, discussed his latest policies, sung songs and told jokes, making it unique not only in Latin America but the entire world.[138]
Chávez then called for a public referendum – something virtually unknown in Venezuela at the time – which he hoped would support his plans to form a constitutional assembly, composed of representatives from across Venezuela, as well as from indigenous tribal groups, which would be able to rewrite the nation's constitution. The referendum went ahead on 25 April 1999, and was an overwhelming success for Chávez, with 88% of voters supporting the proposal.[139][140]
Following this, Chávez called for an election to take place on 25 July, in which the members of the constitutional assembly would be voted into power.[141] Of the 1,171 candidates standing for election to the assembly, over 900 of them were opponents of Chávez, but despite this, his supporters won another overwhelming electoral victory, taking 125 seats (95% of the total), including all of those belonging to indigenous tribal groups, whereas the opposition were voted into only 6 seats.[139][142][143] On 12 August 1999, the new constitutional assembly voted to give themselves the power to abolish government institutions and to dismiss officials who were perceived as being corrupt or operating only in their own interests. Whilst supporters of the move believed that it could force reforms that had been blocked by corrupt politicians and judicial authorities for years, many opponents of the Chávez regime argued that it gave Chávez and the Bolivarians too much power at the expense of their political opponents, and was therefore dictatorial.[144][145]
The elected members of the constituent assembly put together a new constitution, and a referendum on the issue of whether to adopt it was held in December 1999; the referendum saw an abstention vote of over 50%, although amongst those voting, 72% approved the new constitution's adoption.[143][146][147] The new constitution included increased protections for indigenous peoples and women, and established the rights of the public to education, housing, healthcare and food. It added new environmental protections, and increased requirements for government transparency. It increased the presidential term from five to six years, allowed people to recall presidents by referendum, and added a new presidential two-term limit. It converted the bicameral legislature, a Congress with both a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies, into a unicameral one comprising only a National Assembly.[148][149][150][151] The constitution gave greater powers to the president, not only by extending their term but also by giving them the power to legislate on citizen rights as well as the economic and financial matters that they were formerly able to do.[152] It also gave the military a role in the government by providing them with the mandated role of ensuring public order and aiding national development, something they had been expressely forbidden from doing under the former constitution.[152] As a part of the new constitution, the country, which was then officially known as the Republic of Venezuela, was renamed the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (República Bolivariana de Venezuela) at Chávez's request, thereby reflecting the government's ideology of Bolivarianism and the influence of Simón Bolívar on the nation as a whole.[142][143]
This section requires expansion with: Information on the land reform program and workers' councils. |
Under the new constitution, it was legally required that new elections be held in order to relegimatize the government and president. This presidential election in July 2000 would be a part of a greater "megaelection", the first time in the country's history that the president, governors, national and regional congressmen, mayors and councilmen would be voted for on the same day.[153][154][155] For the position of president, Chávez's closest challenger proved to be his former friend and co-conspirator in the 1992 coup, Francisco Arias Cárdenas, who since becoming governor of Zulia state had turned towards the political centre and begun to denounce Chávez as autocratic.[156] Although some of his supporters feared that he had alienated those in the middle class and the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy who had formerly supported him, Chávez was re-elected with 59.76% of the vote (the equivalent of 3,757,000 people), a larger majority than his 1998 electoral victory,[157][158] again primarily receiving his support from the poorer sectors of Venezuelan society.[159]
That year, Chávez helped to further cement his geopolitical and ideological ties with the Cuban government of Fidel Castro by signing an agreement under which Venezuela would supply Cuba with 53,000 barrels of oil per day at preferential rates, in return receiving 20,000 trained Cuban medics and educators. In the ensuing decade, this would be increased to 90,000 barrels a day (in exchange for 40,000 Cuban medics and teachers), dramatically aiding the Caribbean island's economy and standard of living after its "Special Period" of the 1990s.[160] However, Venezuela's growing alliance with Cuba came at the same time as a deteriorating relationship with the United States: in late 2001, just after the American-led invasion of Afghanistan in retaliation for the 11 September attacks against the U.S. by Islamist militants, Chávez showed pictures of Afghan children killed in a bomb attack on his television show. He commented that "They are not to blame for the terrorism of Osama Bin Laden or anyone else", and called on the American government to end "the massacre of the innocents. Terrorism cannot be fought with terrorism." The U.S. government responded negatively to the comments, which were picked up by the media worldwide.[161]
Meanwhile, the 2000 elections had led to Chávez's supporters gaining 101 out of 165 seats in the Venezuelan National Assembly, and so in November 2001 they voted to allow him to pass 49 social and economic decrees.[162][163] This move antagonized the opposition movement particularly strongly.[155]
At the start of the 21st century, Venezuela was the world's fifth largest exporter of crude oil, with oil accounting for 85.3% of the country's exports, therefore dominating the country's economy.[164][165] Previous administrations had sought to privatise this industry, with U.S. corporations having a significant level of control, but the Chávez administration wished to curb this foreign control over the country's natural resources by nationalising much of it under the state-run oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA). In 2001, the government introduced a new Hydrocarbons Law through which they sought to gain greater state control over the oil industry: they did this by raising royalty taxes on the oil companies and also by introducing the formation of "mixed companies", whereby the PdVSA could have joint control with private companies over industry. By 2006, all of the 32 operating agreements signed with private corporations during the 1990s had been converted from being primarily or solely corporate-run to being at least 51% controlled by PdVSA.[164]
During Chávez's first term in office, the opposition movement had been "strong but reasonably contained, [with] complaints centring mainly on procedural aspects of the implementation of the constitution".[155] However, the first organized protest against the Bolivarian government occurred in January 2001, when the Chávez administration tried to implement educational reforms through the proposed Resolution 259 and Decree 1.011, which would have seen the publication of textbooks with a heavy Bolivarian bias. The protest movement, which was primarily by middle class parents whose children went to privately run schools, marched to central Caracas shouting out the slogan "Don't mess with my children." Although the protesters were denounced by Chávez, who called them "selfish and individualistic," the protest was successful enough for the government to retract the proposed education reforms and instead enter into a consensus-based educational program with the opposition.[166] That year, an organization known as the Coordinadora Democrática de Acción Cívica (CD) was founded, under which the Venezuelan opposition political parties, corporate powers, most of the country's media, the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce, the Frente Institucional Militar and the Central Workers Union all united to oppose Chávez's regime.[162][167] The prominent businessman Pedro Carmona (1941–) was chosen as the CD's leader.[162] They received support from various foreign sources.
The CD and other opponents of Chávez's Bolivarian government accused it of trying to turn Venezuela from a democracy into a dictatorship by centralising power amongst its supporters in the Constituent Assembly and granting Chávez increasingly autocratic powers. Many of them pointed to Chávez's personal friendship with Cuba's Fidel Castro and the one-party socialist government in Cuba as a sign of where the Bolivarian government was taking Venezuela.[162] Others did not hold such a strong view, but still argued that Chávez was a "free-spending, authoritarian populist" whose policies were detrimental to the country.[168] For instance, Venezuelan lawyer and academic Allan R. Brewer-Carías, a prominent and vocal opponent of Chávez, made the claim that under his regime the country had "suffered a tragic setback regarding democratic standards, suffering a continuous, persistent and deliberate process of demolishing institutions and destroying democracy, which has never before been experienced in the constitutional history of the country."[169] Other academics have argued that the opposite was true, and that "the Chávez government is in fact more democratic than previous ones" because of the increased checks and balances introduced by the 1999 constitution and the introduction of workers' councils.[170]
The pro-Chávez political analyst Gregory Wilpert argued, in his study of the Bolivarian administration, that the opposition movement was dominated primarily by members of the middle and upper classes. He further argued that this wealthy elite was particularly furious at the Bolivarian government because they themselves had lost much of their dominance over Venezuelan politics with the introduction of the 1999 constitution and the relegitamization of all areas of government that it required.[171] He went on to argue that this wealthy elite subsequently used its control of the country's mass media to create an anti-Chávez campaign aimed primarily at the middle classes, stirring up the latent racism and classism that existed in Venezuelan culture.[172][173] One of the most prominent examples of this was through the popularization of the racist term ese mono ("that monkey") which began to be applied to Chávez by his opponents,[140][174][175] who would also often accuse him of being "vulgar and common".[157][174][176] Both Venezuelan and Western opposition media also characterized Chávez's supporters, who were known as the Chávistas, as being "young, poor, politically unsophisticated, antidemocratic masses" who were controlled, funded and armed by the state,[177] and they were regularly referred to as "hordes" in opposition media discourse, which also commonly referred to the Bolivarian Circles as "terror circles".[175] Such descriptions have been refuted by certain academics, such as Cristóbal Valencia Ramírez, who, after studying Chavista groups, have argued that they consist of people from many classes of society, and are educated and largely non-violent.[178] Chavista-run organizations have since claimed to have been the target of violent attacks from opposition groups: for instance, the Ezequiel Zamora National Farmers' Coordinator estimated that 50 Chavista leaders involved in the land-reform program had been assassinated during 2002 and 2003.[179]
This section requires expansion with: greater detail on the various events described, using a wider range of academic sources.. |
On 11 April 2002, mass protests took place in Caracas against the Bolivarian government, during which guns were fired, and violence ensued involving both pro- and anti-Chávez supporters, the police and the army.[180] Twenty people were killed and over 110 were wounded.[181] A group of high ranking anti-Chávez military officers, likely supported by figures in the business community, media and certain political parties, had been planning to launch a coup against Chávez and used the civil unrest as an opportunity.[182] After the plotters gained significant power, Chávez agreed to step down, and was transferred by army escort to La Orchila, and although he requested to be allowed to leave the country, he refused to officially resign from the presidency at the time. Nonetheless, the wealthy business-leader Pedro Carmona declared himself president of an interim government.[183] Carmona abolished the 1999 constitution and appointed a small governing committee to run the country.[155] Protests in support of Chávez along with insufficient support for Carmona's regime, which many felt was implementing totalitarian measures, led to Carmona's resignation and Chávez was returned to power on 14 April.[184]
Chávez's reaction to the coup attempt was to moderate his approach, implementing a new economic team that appeared to be more centrist and reinstated the old board of directors and managers of the state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), whose replacement had been one of the reasons for the coup.[185][186] At the same time, the Bolivarian government began preparing for potential future uprisings or even a US invasion by increasing the country's military capacity, purchasing 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and several helicopters from Russia, as well as a number of Super Tucano light attack planes from Brazil. Troop numbers were also increased, with Chávez announcing in 2005 the government's intention to increase the number of military reserves from 50,000 to 2,000,000.[187]
In December 2002, the Chávez presidency faced a two-month management strike at the PdVSA when he initiated management changes. As Wilpert noted, "While the opposition labelled this action a 'general strike', it was actually a combination of management lockout, administrative and professional employee strike, and general sabotage of the oil industry."[188] The Chávez government's response was to fire about 19,000 striking employees for illegally abandoning their posts, and then employing retired workers, foreign contractors and the military to do their jobs instead. This move further damaged the strength of Chávez's opposition by removing the many managers in the oil industry who had been supportive of their cause to overthrow Chávez.[188]
Following the failure of these two attempts to remove Chávez from power, the opposition finally resorted to legal means in order to try to do so. The 1999 constitution had introduced the concept of a recall referendum into Venezuelan politics, and so the opposition called for such a referendum to take place. A 2004 referendum to recall Chávez was defeated. 70% of the eligible Venezuelan population turned out to vote, with 59% of voters deciding to keep the president in power.[158][189] Unlike his original 1998 election victory, this time Chávez's electoral support came almost entirely from the poorer working classes rather than the middle classes, who "had practically abandoned Chávez" after he "had consistently moved towards the left in those five and a half years".[190] Meanwhile, some figures in the opposition movement began calling for the United States military to intervene and invade the country in order to topple Chávez.[189]
This section requires expansion with: further information on Chavez's adoption of socialism and the policies implemented in 2005 and 2006.. |
[Bolivarian] socialism would be 'based in solidarity, in fraternity, in love, in justice, in liberty, and in equality' and would mean the 'transformation of the economic model, increasing cooperativism, collective property, the submission of private property to the social interest and to the general interest', created 'from the popular bases, with the participation of the communities'. This socialism was not a dogma, however, but 'must be constructed every day'.
The various attempts at overthrowing the Bolivarian government from power had only served to further radicalize Chávez. In January 2005, he began openly proclaiming the ideology of "Socialism of the 21st Century", something that was distinct from his earlier forms of Bolivarianism, which had been social democratic in nature, merging elements of capitalism and socialism. He used this new term to contrast the democratic socialism which he wanted to promote in Latin America from the Marxist-Leninist socialism that had been spread by socialist states like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China during the 20th century, arguing that the latter had not been truly democratic, suffering from a lack of participatory democracy and an excessively authoritarian governmental structure.[48]
In May 2006, Chávez visited Europe in a private capacity, where he announced plans to supply cheap Venezuelan oil to poor working class communities in the continent. The leftist Mayor of London Ken Livingstone welcomed him, describing him as "the best news out of Latin America in many years".[191]
In the presidential election of December 2006, which saw a 74% voter turnout, Chávez was once more elected, this time with 63% of the vote, beating his closest challenger Manuel Rosales, who conceded his loss.[189] The election was certified as being free and legitimate by the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Carter Center.[192][193][194] After this victory, Chávez promised an "expansion of the revolution."[195]
On 15 December 2006, Chávez publicly announced that those leftist political parties who had continually supported him in the Patriotic Pole would unite into one single, much larger party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, PSUV).[104] In the speech which he gave announcing the PSUV's creation, Chávez declared that the old parties must "forget their own structures, party colours and slogans, because they are not the most important thing for the fatherland."[104] According to political analyst Barry Cannon, the purpose of creating the PSUV was to "forge unity amongst the disparate elements [of the Bolivarian movement], providing grassroots input into policy and leadership formation, [and] uniting the grassroots and leadership into one single body."[196] It was hoped that by doing so, it would decrease the problems of clientelism and corruption and also leave the movement less dependent on its leadership:[196] as Chávez himself declared, "In this new party, the bases will elect the leaders. This will allow real leaders to emerge."[196]
Chávez had initially proclaimed that those leftist parties which chose to not dissolve into the PSUV would have to leave the government, however, after several of those parties supporting him refused to do so, he ceased to issue such threats.[197] There was initially much grassroots enthusiasm for the creation of the PSUV, with membership having rising to 5.7 million people by 2007,[196][198] making it the largest political group in Venezuela.[199] The United Nations' International Labour Organization however expressed concern over some voters being pressured to join the party.[200]
In 2007, the Bolivarian government set up a constitutional commission in order to review the 1999 constitution and suggest potential amendments to be made to it. Led by the prominent pro-Chávez intellectual Luis Britto García, the commission came to the conclusion that the constitution could include more socially progressive clauses, such as the shortening of the working week, a constitutional recognition of Afro Venezuelans and the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.[189] It also suggested measures that would have increased many of the president's powers, for instance increasing the presidential term limit to seven years, allowing the president to run for election indefinitely and centralizing powers in the executive.[189] The government put the suggested changes to a public referendum in December 2007.[201] Abstention rate was high however, with 43.95% of registered voters not turning out, and in the end the proposed changes were rejected by 50.65% of votes.[189][202] This would prove to the first electoral loss that Chávez had faced in the thirteen electoral contests held since he took power,[189] something analysts argued was due to the top-down nature of the changes, as well as general public dissatisfaction with "the absence of internal debate on its content, as well as dissatisfaction with the running of the social programmes, increasing street crime, and with corruption within the government."[203]
In order to ensure that his Bolivarian Revolution became socially engrained in Venezuela, Chávez discussed his wish to stand for re-election when his term ran out in 2013, and spoke of ruling beyond 2030.[204] Under the 1999 constitution, he could not legally stand for re-election again, and so brought about a referendum on 15 February 2009 to abolish the two-term limit for all public offices, including the presidency.[205] Approximately 70% of the Venezuelan electorate voted, and they approved this alteration to the constitution with over 54% in favor, allowing any elected official the chance to try to run indefinitely.[204][205][206]
This section requires expansion with: further information on the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas and Chavez's recognition of FARC as a true military force. |
The Bolivarian government placed a great emphasis on providing financial and medical aid to the rest of Latin America, bolstered by the profits produced by the Venezuela oil industry: indeed, in the first eight months of 2007 alone, Venezuela spent $8.8 billion in doing so, something which was "unprecedented for a Latin American country" in terms of scale.[207] Adding to this, the Chávez administration sought greater political, economic and military alliances with those Latin American countries who had seen leftist, and in particular socialist governments elected in the early 21st century. The widespread success of left-leaning candidates at the time had led to what political analysts have described as a "pink tide" sweeping the region, although there was a great deal of diversity within this leftist trend. Those that became the closest allies of Bolivarian Venezuela were Evo Morales and his Movement for Socialism, which was elected into power in Bolivia in 2005, and Rafael Correa and his PAIS Alliance, who won the election in Ecuador in 2006.[105]
In 2007, the socialist Daniel Ortega and his Sandinista National Liberation Front were elected into government in Nicaragua, and his administration immediately entered into deals with the Venezuelan government. On Ortega's first day in power, Chávez announced plans to aid the impoverished Central American country by forgiving the $30 million it owed Venezuela, and agreed to supply them with a further gift of $10 million in aid, as well as providing them with a $20 million loan with little or no interest designed to benefit the country's poor.[208]
In 2004, Venezuela had been one of the founding states in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA).
As of 26 September 2009, Chávez, along with allies such as Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia, has set up a regional bank and development lender called Bank of the South, based in Caracas, an attempt to distance himself from financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund. Chávez first mentioned the project before winning the Presidential election in 1998.[209] Chávez maintains that unlike other global financial organizations, the Bank of the South will be managed and funded by the countries of the region with the intention of funding social and economic development without any political conditions on that funding.[210] The project is endorsed by Nobel Prize winning, former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz, who said: "One of the advantages of having a Bank of the South is that it would reflect the perspectives of those in the south," and that "It is a good thing to have competition in most markets, including the market for development lending."[211]
As the Arab Spring erupted across North Africa and the Middle East in 2011, Chávez openly criticised those leaders who had been backed by the U.S., such as Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, but at the same time championed those who had adhered to Arab socialist ideals, such as Syria's Bashar al-Assad, whom he called "a humanist and a brother" in spite of Assad's government's violent crackdown on protesters.[212] Following the outbreak of the 2011 Libyan civil war, in which forces opposed to the socialist government rose up against the regime, Chávez, who had always had good international relations with Libya – describing its ceremonial leader Muammar al-Gaddafi as "a friend of mine"[212] – offered to act as an intermediary between the government and the rebel-controlled National Transitional Council (NTC), however the latter declined the offer.[213] During the subsequent 2011 military intervention in Libya, in which western forces attacked the Libyan army in support of the NTC, Chávez criticised the "indiscriminate bombing" of the country, accusing the United States of simply trying to "lay its hands on Libya's oil".[214] Upon the killing of Muammar al-Gaddafi in October 2011, Chávez proclaimed that "We shall remember Gaddafi our whole lives as a great fighter, a revolutionary and a martyr. They assassinated him. It is another outrage."[215]
On 30 June 2011, Chávez confirmed in a televised address from Havana, Cuba, that he was recovering from a 10 June operation to remove an abscessed tumor with cancerous cells.[216] Vice President Elías Jaua declared that the President remained in "full exercise" of power and that there was no need to transfer power due to his absence from the country.[217] A 2 July report in El Periódico de Catalunya reported that, according to Venezuelan diplomatic sources, Chávez had "colon cancer that has perforated the intestinal wall and has caused an infection in the abdomen."[218] On 3 July, the Venezuelan government denied, however, that Chávez had colon cancer, and stated that the tumour had been completely removed, further stating that Chávez was heading for "complete recovery".[219] On 17 July 2011, television news reported that Chavez had returned to Cuba for further cancer treatments.[220]
Chávez gave a public appearance on his 57th birthday in which he stated that his health trouble had led him to radically reorient his life towards a "more diverse, more reflective and multi-faceted" outlook, and he went on to call on the middle classes and the private sector to get more involved in his Bolivarian Revolution, something he saw as "vital" to its success.[221] Soon after this speech, in August Chávez announced that his government would nationalise Venezuela's gold industry, taking it over from Russian-controlled company Rusoro, whilst at the same time also moving the country's gold stocks, which were largely stored in western banks, to banks in Venezuela's political allies like Russia, China and Brazil.[222]
Hugo Chávez defines his political position as Bolivarianism, an ideology developed by himself which he claims is influenced by Simón Bolívar (1783–1830), a 19th-century general who led the fight against the imperialist Spanish authorities, and who is widely revered across Latin America today. Chavez claims that his movement is inspired by Bolivar because Bolivar is widely popular, so this puts the stamp of approval of Bolivar on his political movement.Along with Bolívar, the other two primary influences upon Bolivarianism are Simón Rodríguez (1769–1854), a philosopher who was Bolívar's tutor and mentor, and Ezequiel Zamora, (1817–1860), the Venezuelan Federalist general.[223] Political analyst Gregory Wilpert, in his study of Chávez's politics, noted that "The key ingredients for Chávez's revolutionary Bolivarianism can be summarized as: an emphasis on the importance of education, the creation of civilian-military unity, Latin American integration, social justice, and national sovereignty. In many ways this is not a particularly different set of principles and ideas to those of any other Enlightenment or national liberation thinker."[224]
Although he has been a leftist ever since his days at the military academy, since becoming president Chávez's political position has progressed further left, rejecting democratic leftist ideologies like social democracy or the Third Way and instead embracing socialism. He has propagated what he calls "socialism for the 21st century", but according to Gregory Wilpert, "Chávez has not clearly defined twenty-first century socialism, other than to say that it is about establishing liberty, equality, social justice, and solidarity. He has also indicated that it is distinctly different from state socialism", as implemented by the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.[225] As a part of his socialist ideas, he has emphasised the role of so-called "participatory democracy", which he claims increases democratic participation, and is implemented through the foundation of the Venezuelan Communal Councils and Bolivarian Circles which he cites as examples of grassroots and participatory democracy.[226]
[D]emocracy is impossible in a capitalist system. Capitalism is the realm of injustice and a tyranny of the richest against the poorest. Rousseau said, 'Between the powerful and the weak all freedom is oppressed. Only the rule of law sets you free.' That's why the only way to save the world is through socialism, a democratic socialism... [Democracy is not just turning up to vote every five or four years], it's much more than that, it's a way of life, it's giving power to the people ... it is not the government of the rich over the people, which is what's happening in almost all the so-called democratic Western capitalist countries.
Chávez is well acquainted with the various traditions of Latin American socialism, espoused by such figures as Colombian politician Jorge Eliécer Gaitán,[227] former Chilean president Salvador Allende,[227] former Peruvian president Juan Velasco Alvarado,[19] former Panamanian president Omar Torrijos[23] and the Cuban revolutionaries Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.[227] Other indirect influences on Chávez's political philosophy are the writings of American linguist Noam Chomsky[228] and the Gospel teachings of Jesus Christ.[229][230]
Chávez's connection to Marxism is a complex one. In May 1996, he gave an interview with Agustín Blanco Muñoz in which he remarked that "I am not a Marxist, but I am not anti-Marxist. I am not communist, but I am not anti-communist."[231] He is, however, well versed in many Marxist texts, having read the works of many Marxist theoreticians, and has often publicly quoted them. Various international Marxists have supported his government, believing it to be a sign of proletariat revolution as predicted in Marxist theory.[232] In 2010, Hugo Chávez proclaimed support for the ideas of Marxist Leon Trotsky, saying "When I called him (former Minister of Labour, José Ramón Rivero)" Chávez explained, "he said to me: 'president I want to tell you something before someone else tells you ... I am a Trotskyist', and I said, 'well, what is the problem? I am also a Trotskyist! I follow Trotsky's line, that of permanent revolution," and then cited Karl Marx and Lenin.[233][234]
On 24 December 2005, Chávez stated that "[t]he world is for all of us, then, but it so happens that a minority, the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolívar out of here and also crucified him in their own way over there in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority has taken possession all of the wealth of the world."[235] Accusations of anti-semitism have been leveled against Chavez because of these comments.[236]
Venezuela is a major producer of oil products, which remains the keystone of the Venezuelan economy. Chávez has gained a reputation as a price hawk in OPEC, pushing for stringent enforcement of production quotas and higher target oil prices. According to Cannon, the state income from oil revenue has "increas[ed] from 51% of total income in 2000 to 56% 2006";[237] oil exports "have grown from 77% in 1997 [...] to 89% in 2006";[237] and "this dependence on oil is one of the chief problems facing the Chávez government".[237] The economist Mark Weisbrot, in an analysis of the Chávez administration, said: "The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since then, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually."[238] For the year 2009, the Venezuelan economy shrank by an average of 2.9% due to the global recession.[239] Chávez has stated that the Venezuelan economy will most likely continue shrinking throughout 2010, citing both the IMF and World Bank. Chávez sees the economic crisis as "an opportunity for socialism to spread and take root..".[240] According to Ian James, citing estimates from the Venezuelan Central Bank, the Venezuelan government "controls" the same percentage of the economy as when Chávez was elected in 1998, with "the private sector still control[ling] two-thirds of Venezuela's economy".[241]
Since Chávez was elected in 1998, over 100,000 state-owned cooperatives—which claim to represent approximately 1.5 million people—have been formed with the assistance of government start-up credit and technical training;[242] and the creation and maintenance, as of September 2010, of over 30,000 communal councils, examples of localised participatory democracy; which he intended to be integration into regional umbrella organizations known as "Communes in Construction".[243] In 2010, Chávez supported the construction of 184 communes, housing thousands of families, with $23 million in government funding. The communes produce some of their own food, and are able to make decisions by popular assembly of what to do with government funds.[244] In September 2010, Chávez announced the location of 876 million bolivars ($203 million) for community projects around the country, specifically communal councils and the newly formed communes. Chávez also criticised the bureaucracy still common in Venezuela saying, when in discussion with his Communes Minister Isis Ochoa, that "All of the projects must be carried out by the commune, not the bureaucracy." The Ministry for Communes, which oversees and funds all communal projects, was initiated in 2009.[243]
Chávez has also supported the creation of a series of Bolivarian Missions which are claimed to be aimed at providing public services to improve economic, cultural, and social conditions. A 2010 OAS report[245] indicated achievements in addressing illiteracy, healthcare and poverty,[246] and economic and social advances.[247]
Barry Cannon writes that "most areas of spending have increased".[248] "[S]pending on education as a percentage of GDP stood at 5.1% in 2006, as opposed to 3.4% in the last year of the Caldera government."[248] Spending on health "has increased from 1.6% of GDP in 2000 to 7.71% in 2006".[248] Spending on housing "receives low public support", increasing only "from 1% in GDP to 1.6% in 2006".[248] Teresa A. Meade, writes that Chávez's popularity "rests squarely on the lower classes who have benefited from these health initiatives and similar policies [...] poverty rates fell from 42 to 34 percent from 2000 to 2006, still leaving over 30 percent in this oil-rich nation below the poverty line".[249]
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) reports that the Venezuelan economy grew on average by 11.85% in the period 2004–2007.[250] According to The Washington Post, citing statistics from the United Nations, poverty in Venezuela stood at 28% in 2008,[251] down from 55.44% in 1998 before Chávez got into office.[252] Economist Mark Weisbrot found that, "During the ... economic expansion, the poverty rate [was] cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and does take into account increased access to health care or education."[238][253] Nicholas Kozloff, Chávez's biographer, stated of Chavez's economic policies: "Chavez has not overturned capitalism, he has done much to challenge the more extreme, neo-liberal model of development."[207]
In the 1980s and 1990s health and nutrition indexes in Venezuela were generally low, and social inequality in access to nutrition was high.[254] Chavez has frequently made it his stated goal to lower inequality in the access to basic nutrition, and to achieve food sovereignty for Venezuela.[255] The main strategy for making food available to all economic classes has been a controversial policy of fixing price ceilings for basic staple foods implemented in 2003.[256]
Despite these goals, however, Venezuela has been plagued by shortages of staples, including milk, meat, and coffee throughout Chavez' presidency.[257][258] An independent polling firm which regularly tracks scarcities found that powdered milk could only be found in 42% of grocery stores, and liquid milk was even more scarce.[257] Chávez has blamed "speculators and hoarders" for these scarcities.[258]
Chavez' strategy in response food shortages has consisted mainly in increasing domestic production through nationalizing large parts of the food industry. The price ceilings have increased the demand for basic foods while making it difficult for Venezuela to import goods causing increased reliance on domestic production. So according to commentators this policy may in fact have increased shortages.[257][258]
According to official statistics from the Ministry of Land and Agriculture, soybean production in Venezuela has grown by 858% to 54,420 tons over the past decade, and production of rice has risen by 84%, reaching close to 1.3 million tons yearly.[259] Chavez' presidency has also seen significant increases in milk production, as much as 50% over ten years reported by some sources.[260] Between 1998 and 2006 malnutrition related deaths fell by 50%.[238][261] In January 2012, the Executive Director of the National Institute of Nutrition (INN) Marilyn Di Luca reported that caloric intake of the Venezuelan people had increased by 130% over the past 13 years.[262]
Chavez has been strictly enforcing the price control policy, denouncing anyone who sells food products for higher prices as "speculators".[263] In January 2008, Chavez ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border to sell for higher prices than what was legal in Venezuela.[264] In February 2009, Chavez ordered the military to temporarily seize control of all the rice processing plants in the country and force them to produce at full capacity, which he claimed they had been avoiding in response to the price caps.[265] In May 2010, Chavez ordered the military to seize 120 tons of food from Empresas Polar after inconsistencies in reports from the Empresas Polar conglomerate were said to have been detected by authorities.[266]
In March 2009, the Venezuelan government set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods that were subject to price controls, including white rice, cooking oil, coffee, sugar, powdered milk, cheese, and tomato sauce, which is intended to stop food companies from evading the law. Business leaders and food producers claimed that the government was forcing them to produce this food at a loss.[267] Chávez has expropriated and redistributed 5 million acres of farmland from large landowners, saying: "The land is not private. It is the property of the state... The land is for those who work it." But, the lack of basic resources has made it difficult or impossible to make full use of the expropriated lands by its new tenants - leading to a lower overall degree of productivity in spite of a larger overall area of land under cultivation. [268]
As part of his strategy of food security Chávez has started a national chain of supermarkets, the Mercal network, which has 16,600 outlets and 85,00 employees that distribute food at highly discounted prices, and runs 6000 soup kitchens throughout the country.[269] In 2008 the amount of discounted food sold through the network was 1.25 metric tonnes[238], often sold at as much as 40% below the price ceiling set for privately own stores. Simultaneously Chavez has expropriated many private supermarkets.[269] According to Commerce Minister Richard Canan, “The average [savings] for the basic food bundle (at the Mercal Bicentennial markets) is around 30%. There are some products, for example cheese and meat, which reach a savings of 50 to 60% compared with capitalist markets.”[270] The Mercal network is criticized by some commentators as being a part of Chavez strategy to brand himself as a provider of cheap food, and the shops feature his picture prominently. However, the Mercal network is also subject to frequent scarcities of basic staples such as meat, milk and sugar - and when scarce products arrive shoppers must often wait in line.[269]
In 2010, after the government nationalized the port at Puerto Cabello, more than 120,000 tons of food sat rotting at the port.[271] In May 2010, during a shortage of beef, at least 40 butchers were detained on charges of speculation for allegedly selling meat above the regulated price, some of them were held at a military base and later strip searched by police.[272]
In the 1999 Venezuelan constitution, 116 of 300 articles were concerned with human rights; these included increased protections for indigenous peoples and women, and established the rights of the public to education, housing, healthcare, and food. It called for dramatic democratic reforms such as ability to recall politicians from office by popular referendum, increased requirements for government transparency, and numerous other requirements to increase localized, participatory democracy, in favor of centralized administration. It gave citizens the right to timely and impartial information, community access to media, and a right to participate in acts of civil disobedience.[149][150]
However, as recently as 2010, Amnesty International has criticized the Chávez administration for targeting critics following several politically motivated arrests.[273] Freedom House lists Venezuela as being "partly free" in its 2011 Freedom in the World annual report, noting a recent decline in civil liberties.[274] A 2010 Organization of American States report found concerns with freedom of expression, human rights abuses, authoritarianism, press freedom, threats to democracy,[275][276] as well as erosion of separation of powers, the economic infrastructure and ability of the president to appoint judges to federal courts.[275][276][277] OAS observors were denied access to Venezuela;[277] Chávez rejected the OAS report, pointing out that its authors did not even come to Venezuela. He said Venezuela should boycott the OAS, which he feels is dominated by the United States; a spokesperson said, "We don't recognize the commission as an impartial institution". He disclaims any power to influence the judiciary.[278] A Venezuelan official said the report distorts and takes statistics out of context, saying that "human rights violations in Venezuela have decreased".[279] Venezuela has said it will not accept an IACHR/OAS visit as long as Santiago Cantón remains its Executive Secretary, unless the IACHR apologizes for what he describes as its support of the 2002 coup.[245][280]
In 2008, Human Rights Watch released a report reviewing Chávez's human rights record over his first decade in power.[281] The report praises Chávez's 1999 amendments to the constitution which significantly expanded human rights guarantees, as well as mentioning improvements in women's rights and indigenous rights, but notes a "wide range of government policies that have undercut the human rights protections established" by the revised constitution.[281] In particular, the report accuses Chávez and his administration of engaging in discrimination on political grounds, eroding the independence of the judiciary, and of engaging in "policies that have undercut journalists' freedom of expression, workers' freedom of association, and civil society's ability to promote human rights in Venezuela."[282] The Venezuelan government retaliated for the report by expelling members of Human Rights Watch from the country.[283] Subsequently, over a hundred Latin American scholars signed a joint letter with the Council on Hemispheric Affairs criticizing the Human Rights Watch report for its alleged factual inaccuracy, exaggeration, lack of context, illogical arguments, and heavy reliance on opposition newspapers as sources, amongst other things.[284][285][286] The International Labor Organization of the United Nations expressed concern over voters being pressured to join the party.[200]
Venezuelan Judge Maria Afiuni was arrested in 2009 on charges of corruption, after she ordered the conditional release on bail of banker Eligio Cedeño, who had been held on charges of fraud and other crimes due to alleged illegal currency trading activities. Some human rights officials allege the arrest was politically motivated; Cedeño "had been in pretrial detention for nearly three years, despite a two-year limit prescribed by Venezuelan law".[287] Cedeño later fled to the U.S. to avoid prosecution. Following Afiuni's arrest, several groups, including the United Nations, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Episcopal Conference of Venezuela, Human Rights Watch, the Law Society of England and Wales, the U.S. Department of State, and the European Union Parliament accused Chávez of "creating a climate of fear" among Venezuela's legal profession.[287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294] The European Parliament called this "an attack on the independence of the judiciary by the President of a nation, who should be its first guarantor".[295] A director of Human Rights Watch said, "Once again the Chávez government has demonstrated its fundamental disregard for the principle of judicial independence."[287]
Although the freedom of the press is mentioned by two key clauses in the 1999 Constitution of Venezuela, in 2008, Human Rights Watch criticized Chávez for engaging in "often discriminatory policies that have undercut journalists' freedom of expression."[282] Freedom House lists Venezuela's press as being "Not Free" in its 2011 Map of Press Freedom, noting that "[t]he gradual erosion of press freedom in Venezuela continued in 2010."[296] Reporters Without Borders has criticized the Chávez administration for "steadily silencing its critics".[297] In the group's 2009 Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders noted that "Venezuela is now among the region’s worst press freedom offenders."[297]
The large majority of mass media in Venezuela is privately owned but subject to significant state control. For example, the Venezuelan government has required that all private television stations dedicate at least 25%[clarification needed] of their airtime to programs created by community groups, non-profits, and other independent producers. As of 2007,[dated info] private corporations controlled 80% of the cable television channels, 100% of the newspaper companies, and 706 out of 709 radio stations.[298][299]
In July 2005 Chávez inaugurated TeleSUR, a Pan-American equivalent of Al Jazeera that seeks to challenge the present domination of Latin American television news by Univision and the United States-based CNN en Español.[300] In 2006 Chávez inaugurated a state-funded movie studio called Villa del Cine (English: Cinema City).[301] According to Chávez, the goal of this indigenous film industry is to counter what he describes "the dictatorship of Hollywood", the lack of alternative media.[302]
Chávez has a Twitter account with more than 1,100,000 followers as of December 2010.[303][304] Chávez's Twitter account has been described as a way for people to bypass bureaucracy and contact the president directly. There is a team of 200 people to sort through suggestions and comments sent via Twitter. Chávez has said Twitter is "another mechanism for contact with the public, to evaluate many things and to help many people",[305] and that he sees Twitter as "a weapon that also needs to be used by the revolution".[306] In a Twitter report released in June 2010 Venezuela is third globally for the prevalence of Twitter with 19% of the population using it, nearly 2/3 of all internet users. This is behind Indonesia with 20.8% and Brazil with 20.5%.[307]
In 2010 availability of Internet service in Venezuela rose by 43%. The Venezuelan state has instituted Infocenters, community spaces equipped with computers with internet connections which are free to use. As of March 2010 there are 668 such centers, with more planned.[307]
In the days before the 11 April 2002 coup, the five main private Venezuelan TV stations gave advertising space to those calling for anti-Chávez demonstrations.[308][309] In 2006, Chávez announced that the terrestrial broadcast license for RCTV would not be renewed, due to its refusal to pay taxes and fines, and its alleged open support of the 2002 coup attempt against Chávez, and role in helping to instigate the oil strike in 2002–2003.[310] RCTV was transmitted via cable and satellite and was widely viewable in Venezuela until January 2010, when it was excluded by cable companies in response to an order of National Commission of Telecommunications.[311][312][313] The failure to renew its terrestrial broadcast license had been condemned by a multitude of international organizations, many of whom have claimed that the closure was politically motivated, and was intended to silence government critics.[314][315][316][317]
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) questioned whether, in the event a television station openly supported and collaborated with coup leaders, the station in question would not be subject to even more serious consequences in the United States or any other Western nation.[318] In a poll conducted by Datanalisis, almost 70 percent of Venezuelans polled opposed the shut-down.[319]
During the 1980s and 1990s there was a steady increase in crime in Latin America, and Colombia, El Salvador, Venezuela and Brazil all had homicide rates above the regional average.[320] The major reasons for high levels of crime in Latin America are high inequality, low incarceration rates and small police forces.[321]
During Chávez's administration, homicide rates have more than doubled, with one NGO finding the rate to have nearly quadrupled.[322][323] The NGO found that the number of homicides increased from 6,000 in 1999 to 19,000 in 2011.[324][325] Kidnappings have also become increasingly common.[326] Caracas in 2010 had the world's highest murder rate.[327] Chávez maintains that the nation is no more violent now than it was when he took office.[328] Some claim that the current administration, or president Chavez himself is to blame for the rises in crime rates. Although critical of Chavez, a recent International Crisis Group report claimed that when Chavez took office, there were factors beyond his control that led to the crime phenomenon. The study went on to say that cross border activity, mainly with Colombia, is also an important factor. It claims that international organised crime filters between the two countries and leads to higher rates of kidnapping, drug trafficking and homicides. Furthermore, supporters claim that the states with the highest murder rates are controlled by the opposition.[329]
Citizens now believe that crime is a serious problem and that police were themselves a factor in the increase in crime. Between 2000 and 2007, 6,300 police were investigated for violations of human rights. Because decentralization of police was blamed for their ineffectiveness, the 1999 constitution required the National Assembly to form a national police force; however, legislation on this became bogged down in legislative discussions. In 2006, the government established the National Commission for Police Reform (Conarepol), in which a range of civil society representatives, politicians and academics investigated law enforcement in Venezuela and made recommendations. This included setting up a national police force designed to operate with high standards of professionalism and specific training in human rights. It also included initiatives whereby communal councils can participate in police supervision, by being able to request investigations into police behaviour and file recommendations and complaints.[324]
In 2008, Chávez passed a decree designed to implement Conarepol's recommendation on the national police force, and the National Bolivarian Police (PNB),[330][331] and Experimental Security University began operations in 2009. According to the PNB, murder has been reduced by 60%, robberies by nearly 59%, and gender-based violence has diminished by 66% in the pilot areas where the PNB has been active in and around Caracas.[331] However, not all homicides due to encounters with police are reported.[332] According to the publications El Espectador and Le Monde diplomatique, rising crime in rural and urban areas is partly due to increased cross-border activity by Colombian right-wing paramilitary groups like Águilas Negras.[333]
The decree has been criticized because it was negotiated behind closed doors, and did not follow Conarepol's recommendations to deal with human rights, and because "politicization of the force could undercut the goal of professionalization".[332][334]
This section requires expansion. |
Chávez has refocused Venezuelan foreign policy on Latin American economic and social integration by enacting bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements, including his so-called "oil diplomacy".[335][336] Chávez stated that Venezuela has "a strong oil card to play on the geopolitical stage ... It is a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest country in the world, the United States."[337] Chávez has focused on a variety of multinational institutions to promote his vision of Latin American integration, including Petrocaribe, Petrosur, and TeleSUR. Bilateral trade relationships with other Latin American countries have also played a major role in his policy, with Chávez increasing arms purchases from Brazil, forming oil-for-expertise trade arrangements with Cuba, and creating unique barter arrangements that exchange Venezuelan petroleum for cash-strapped Argentina's meat and dairy products. Additionally, Chávez worked closely with other Latin American leaders following the 1997 Summit of the Americas in many areas—especially energy integration—and championed the OAS decision to adopt the Anti-Corruption Convention. Chávez also participates in the United Nations Friends groups for Haiti, and is pursuing efforts to join and engage the Mercosur trade bloc to expand the hemisphere's trade integration prospects.[338]
Chávez has been married twice. He first wed Nancy Colmenares, a woman from a poor family in Chávez's hometown of Sabaneta. Chávez and Colmenares remained married for 18 years, during which time they had three children: Rosa Virginia, María Gabriela, and Hugo Rafael, the latter of whom suffers from behavioural problems.[339] The couple separated soon after Chávez's 1992 coup attempt. During his first marriage, Chávez had an affair with historian Herma Marksman; their relationship lasted nine years.[340] Chávez's second wife was journalist Marisabel Rodríguez de Chávez, whom he divorced in 2000.[341] Through that marriage, Chávez had another daughter, Rosinés.[342] Both María and Rosa have provided Chávez with grandchildren.[339][343] Allegations have been made that Chávez is a womaniser, and has been throughout both his marriages, but these have remained unproven and are contradicted by statements provided by other figures close to him.[344]
Chávez is a Catholic. He intended at one time to become a priest. He sees his socialist policies as having roots in the teachings of Jesus Christ,[345] and he publicly used the slogan of "Christ is with the Revolution!"[346] He has had some disputes with both the Venezuelan Catholic clergy and Protestant groups like the New Tribes Mission.[347][348] Although he has traditionally kept his own faith a private matter, Chávez has over the course of his presidency become increasingly open to discussing his religious views, stating that both his faith and his interpretation of Jesus' personal life and ideology have had a profound impact on his leftist and progressive views.
The United States-based Time magazine included Hugo Chávez among their list of the world's 100 most influential people in 2005 and 2006.[349][350] In a 2006 list compiled by the British magazine New Statesman, he was voted eleventh in the list of "Heroes of our time".[351] In 2010 the magazine included Chávez in its annual The World's 50 Most Influential Figures.[352] His biographers Marcano and Tyszka believed that within only a few years of his presidency, he "had already earned his place in history as the president most loved and most despised by the Venezuelan people, the president who inspired the greatest zeal and the deepest revulsion at the same time."[353]
During his term, Chávez has been awarded the following honorary degrees:[354]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Hugo Chávez |
Wikisource has original works written by or about: |
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Hugo Chávez |
Political offices | ||
---|---|---|
Preceded by Rafael Caldera |
President of Venezuela 1999–present |
Incumbent |
Party political offices | ||
Preceded by None |
Chairman of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela 2007–present |
Incumbent |
Preceded by None |
Chairman of the Fifth Republic Movement 1997–2007–present |
Incumbent |
|
|
|
|
|
Persondata | |
---|---|
Name | Chávez, Hugo Rafael |
Alternative names | Chávez Frías, Hugo Rafael |
Short description | Venezuelan President |
Date of birth | 28 July 1954 |
Place of birth | Sabaneta, Barinas, Venezuela |
Date of death | |
Place of death |