This apparently hastily written book intends to explore Venezuelan inter-American relations and policies; how foreign policy has been formulated; the history of the evolution and function of the inter-American system; dependency; and the influence of foreign countries on Venezuelan policies.
The discussion of the Leticia and Chaco disputes is inaccurate, and gives Venezuela far greater influence in their settlement than was the case. The comparison between Gómez and Calles, who is said to have “ruled Mexico through a series of hand-picked successors whom he manipulated” (p. 97) is so erroneous as to be vertiginously abysmal. Similarly, while “Gómez and his cohorts collected a disproportionate share of the oil profits which remained in the country;” (p. 86) “controversy exists as to whether or not Gómez sold out to foreign business interests” (p. 98). These contrasting views are not clearly disentangled.
The work lacks a point of view that would give it direction. What does one make of a statement that “The government is currently funnelling $54 billion into domestic developments designed to redistribute the wealth” (p. 267). Is it million or billion? Can we be sure that the author knows? What kinds of developments? Finally, “Venezuela asserts that the bipolar world, with Russia and the United States in control, has ended, except militarily, and that the interests and voices of all nations should help shape world policies” (p. 274). That “except” is a big one and may make all the difference.
And what of “dependency,” half the major title? It is not in the index. It is in no chapter heading, or subheading. To get at it one would need: (a) to dig very carefully through the last two or three chapters; or (b) read such works as those by Pérez Alfonso, Silva Michalena, and the Steins, which, oddly enough, are in the bibliography.
All of this creates a sense of genuine unease about the book and its account of Venezuelan affairs.
