News-Record.com

A boycott of Citgo hurts Americans, not Hugo Chavez, Houston Chronicle business columnist Loren Steffy writes.

Citgo is owned by the Venezuelan government. Anti-American leftist Chavez is president of the South American country, a member of OPEC.

Steffy explains that "Citgo doesn't own any of the stations that bear its name." Those are independent businesses that operate under a long-term contract to sell Citgo-branded gasoline.

Those business owners and their employees are the ones who lose by a boycott, Steffy argues.

All right, I can buy that.

But Steffy goes on to say:

"As for Chavez, his U.N. speech was carefully contrived political bluster. To stay in power, he needs two things: widespread support for his populist policies at home and a steady stream of petro-dollars to fund them.

"That's where the U.S. comes in. We make a convenient villain around which to stoke nationalist fervor. But the U.S. also supplies the biggest chunk of the oil revenue he needs to fund the domestic programs that form his power base. Even as Chavez denounces capitalism, he wallows in its proceeds."

That seems to support the boycott idea. If Americans don't buy Citgo gas, their money won't support Chavez's government. It doesn't matter who actually sells the gas here; they're just the middle men.

That said, I'm generally not a big proponent of boycotts unless the effect can be focused pretty directly at the intended target. There can be a lot of collateral damage inflicted by a boycott of Citgo. Besides, some of our other sources of imports, like Saudi Arabia, aren't ideal, either.

But, then, maybe the people who sell Venezuelan gasoline should look for other suppliers, like the Canadians. Their leaders almost never insult anybody.