On August 22nd, prominent American conservative Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, arguing that he “is a dangerous enemy to our south controlling a huge pool of oil.”

Mr Robertson made his comments on Monday on The 700 Club, a programme broadcast by his Christian Broadcasting Network. The preacher said killing Mr Chavez would prevent Venezuela becoming a “launching pad” for extremism.

“If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Mr Robertson said in reference to a claim Mr Chavez made in June that he had evidence that the US wanted him dead.

Robertson has since apologized for his comments.

The Venezuelan government, however, took advantage of the inflammatory remarks as a platform to attack the United States.

Jose Vicente Rangel, vice-president, said that how US authorities responded would demonstrate their commitment to fighting terrorism. “It’s deeply hypocritical to talk about fighting terrorism while at the same time, within that country, there are obvious terrorist statements,” he said. […]

In Caracas, Desire Santos Amaral, a pro-Chavez politician, called Mr Robertson a “fascist” whose opinions were “part of the policies of aggression from the rightwing in the North”.

Prodded by the media, American government officials censured Robertson’s comments. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called them “inappropriate.” Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was similarly dismissive, observing that Robertson was a “private citizen” whose pronouncements hold no weight in determining state policy.

The media, however, seeking an explosive story, immediately catapulted this onto the frontpages. The Venezuelan government, having a talent for exploiting the fourth estate and propagandizing, immediately saw the potential here. By issuing a vitriolic announcement comparing the comments to terrorism, and making it seem that Robertson, always a firebrand, had directly influenced foreign relations, Venezuela leveraged the story to score political points against Washington. As the media coverage portrayed it, Robertson had materially injured American relations with Caracas. A Senator no less prominent than Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Spector complained that the remarks complicated joint-counternarcotics efforts between the two nations. And the Financial Times reported that “analysts said yesterday the incident would help to strengthen Mr Chavez’s profile in the region as a leader who provides a political alternative to US power.”

In reality, there is far less substance to this story than the prominent coverage has suggested. Robertson, though a noteworthy voice in the conservative camp, is a private citizen who has no role in determining United States foreign policy. His comments went blatantly against the White House’s legally and strategically established policy of not assassinating political leaders, and clearly were nothing more than his own opinions. The situation in South America, where a nationalistic Venezuela is launching a broad campaign against American power in order to advance its own regional interests and strength, has not been affected at all by Robertson’s statements. Venezuela still holds the same opinion of the US government, and its neighbors have not been influenced in the slightest. Chavez has consistently demonstrated his desire to be a countervailing power in the region, both rhetorically and strategically, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that this short-lived episode will “help to strengthen Mr Chavez’s profile in the region.” Such sentiments inaccurately draw conclusions from the Venezuelan government’s remarks (which were intended to score propaganda points, not change anything material), and ignore the fundamental geopolitics.