• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Matt Ferchen"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "China and the Developing World",
    "China’s Foreign Relations"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie China",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [],
  "topics": [
    "Economy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie China

China’s Misguided Hugo Chávez Love Affair

China's relationship with Venezuela may rely on the health of President Chávez, which could prove a risky strategy if China wishes to maintain a long-term, sustainable presence in that country.

Link Copied
By Matt Ferchen
Published on Nov 30, 2012

Source: Diplomat

The reelection of Hugo Chávez last month for another six-year term as president of Venezuela elicited almost universal praise from Chinese media and foreign policy analysts. Their general consensus was that his reelection was not only good for the people of Venezuela themselves, but also for economic and political ties between the two countries. However, Chinese government and business leaders who have assumed smooth relations for the foreseeable future are at risk of being unnerved because ties are only as healthy as Chávez himself. Recent reports that Chávez is back in Cuba for further cancer treatment serve to highlight that the new Chinese leadership may have therefore inherited a foreign policy time bomb from their predecessors.

China’s blithe optimism about the impact of continued Chávez dominance of Venezuelan politics sits uncomfortably with a growing anxiety about the effectiveness of the country's political risk analysis. This anxiety is directly related to the dramatic political changes in places like Libya and Burma over the last 18 months or so. Many in Chinese diplomatic and academic circles lament that the Chinese government and firms were caught off guard, and on the losing end of regime change in Libya in 2011 and by Burma’s ongoing political transformation.

Economic concerns rest on fears that billions of dollars in Chinese investments and contracts in Libya and Burma have been lost, suspended or put at risk, while diplomatic concerns are based on a perception that regime change in Libya and Burma’s ongoing domestic transformation have resulted in geostrategic gains for the West at the expense of China.

China has therefore focused on improving its risk analysis to support its strategy of expanding already booming trade and investment in Africa, Latin American and Southeast Asia. This makes China’s deepening exposure to Venezuela, amid optimistic assessments about Chávez’ reelection paving the way for continued good relations, all the more potentially traumatic if China’s position in Venezuela were to deteriorate.

On the surface, China’s growing trade and investment relations with Venezuela fit the storyline of its ties elsewhere in South America: China needs key natural resources like iron ore (Brazil), copper (Chile), and oil (Venezuela) and the result is expanding complementary trade and investment in these commodities. Unlike Brazil and Chile, however, Venezuela is threatened by ailments including the so-called oil curse, high rates of violence and kidnapping, and tense relations with neighbors both near (Colombia) and far (the United States).  Both praised and reviled as the most prominent figure of the contemporary Latin American left, Chávez is also the leader of the most polarizing and polarized country in the Americas.

Despite all of these obvious sources of risk, China has forged ahead with ever-deeper economic ties with Venezuela. In particular the China Development Bank (CDB), which has been dubbed “China’s Superbank” in a forthcoming book by Henry Sanderson and Michael Forsythe, has led China’s financing efforts in Venezuela with over U.S. $42 billion in loans-for-oil deals since 2007. The CDB’s Venezuela deals constitute the bank’s largest loan exposure anywhere outside of China and account for nearly 60 percent of the bank’s loans to Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition, and as part of the loans-for-oil deals, Chinese state-owned and private firms have signed billions of dollars more in construction, infrastructure and other contracts.

Chávez has dominated Venezuelan politics since he first came to office in 1999 and his courtship of China has served both his international ideological and economic agenda of diversifying the country away from a dependence on the United States. The Chinese government has been reticent to cooperate with Chávez on his ideological agenda, but its firms have more than compensated on the economic side with their vast build-up of financing and investment. The relationship has thus flourished as China has willingly stepped into the opening offered and guaranteed by Chávez’ personal leadership.

However, the longevity of that leadership has been called into question by Chávez’ cancer diagnosis in 2011 and by a reinvigorated Venezuelan political opposition movement. Chávez defeated the opposition in last month’s election and claims to have beaten cancer. But the state of his health is far from certain, and the opposition proved that after a long period of ineffectual leadership it is now a force to be reckoned with.

If the opposition comes to power, China will be left without its champion and guarantor of the thing China’s leaders crave most: stability. Henrique Capriles, the youthful leader of the opposition, has stated that if he were president, while not seeking to overturn the loans-for-oil deals with China, he would review their legality.

Since so little is publicly known about the deals' details the simple threat to openly publish them would give any post-Chávez leadership a great deal of leverage in the relationship with China. Moreover, in a highly polarized and oil-reliant country, China’s state-to-state, loans-for-oil deals are a potent and controversial symbol for those inside and outside of Venezuela who feel strongly one way or the other about Chávez.

While “losing” Venezuela may or may not turn out to be as traumatizing for China as its perceived losses in Libya or Burma have been, at some point China may learn that partnerships of convenience with polarizing, strong-man leaders like Chávez can also quickly and unexpectedly become highly inconvenient. In this context Venezuela may well provide a litmus test for the success or otherwise of China’s new investments in economic and political risk analysis.

This article was originally published in the Diplomat.

About the Author

Matt Ferchen

Former Nonresident Scholar, Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy

Ferchen specializes in China’s political-economic relations with emerging economies. At the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, he ran a program on China’s economic and political relations with the developing world, including Latin America.

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    How China Is Reshaping International Development

      Matt Ferchen

  • Article
    Why Unsustainable Chinese Infrastructure Deals Are a Two-Way Street

      Matt Ferchen, Anarkalee Perera

Matt Ferchen
Former Nonresident Scholar, Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy
Matt Ferchen
Economy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • China Financial Markets
    Commentary
    China Financial Markets
    Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?

    China’s rapid technological progress and its first-rate infrastructure are often cited as refuting the claim that China has been systematically overinvesting in non-productive projects for many years. In fact, as the logic of overinvestment and the many historical precedents show, the former is all-too-often consistent with the latter.

      Michael Pettis

  • Article
    India’s Press Note 3 Gamble: Opening the FDI Door to China

    On March 10, 2026, India’s Union Cabinet approved amendments to Press Note 3, a regulation that mandated government approval on all foreign direct investment (FDI) from countries sharing a land border with India. This amendment raises questions primarily about whether its stated benefits will materialize and if the risks have been adequately weighed. This piece will address the same.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Humanoid robots follow technicians to learn job skills at the data collection area of an embodied AI robot innovation center on September 14, 2025 in Shaoxing, Zhejiang Province of China.
    Paper
    The AI Labor Debate: Three Views on the Future of Work

    AI could hollow out jobs, reshape them gradually, create entirely new ones—or do all three at once. The case for starting to act now doesn’t depend on knowing which.

      • Teddy Tawil

      Teddy Tawil

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia’s Coal Industry Is Running on Borrowed Time

    Powerful lobbyists and inertia led to Russia’s coal-mining sector missing an excellent opportunity to solve its structural problems.

      Alexey Gusev

  • Shipping port at dawn from above
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The U.S. Export-Import Bank Was Built for a Different Era. Here's How to Fix It.

    Five problems—and solutions—to make it actually work as a tool of great power competition.

      • Afren Akhter

      Afreen Akhter

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.