Posted on 12/19/2002 8:20:59 AM PST by Zviadist
CARACAS (Dec. 18) "Where are they getting their money?" asks historian Samuel Moncada, as the television displays one opposition commercial after another. Moncada is chair of the history department at Central University of Venezuela in Caracas. We are sitting in one of the few restaurants that is open in the eastern, wealthier part of Caracas.
For two weeks during this country's business-led strike, the privately owned stations that dominate Venezuelan television have been running opposition "info-mercials" instead of advertisements, in addition to what is often non-stop coverage of opposition protests.
"I am sure there is money from abroad," asserts Moncada. It's a good guess: prior to the coup on April 11, the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy stepped up its funding to opposition groups, including money funneled through the International Republican Institute. The latter's funding multiplied more than sixfold, to $340,000 in 2001.
But if history is any guide, overt funding from Washington will turn out to be the tip of the iceberg. This was the case in Haiti, Nicaragua, Chile, and other countries where Washington has sought "regime change" because our leaders didn't agree with the voters' choice at the polls. (In fact, Washington is currently aiding efforts to oust President Aristide in Haiti -- for the second time). In these episodes, which extended into the 1990s, our government concealed amounts up to the hundreds of millions of dollars that paid for such things as death squads, strikes, economic destabilization, electoral campaigns and media.
All this remains to be investigated in this case. But the intentions of the U.S. government are clear. Last week the State Department ordered non-essential embassy personnel to leave the country, and warned American citizens not to travel here. But there have not been attacks on American citizens or companies here, from either side of the political divide, and this is not a particularly dangerous place for Americans to be.
In this situation, the State Department's extreme measures and warning can only be interpreted as a threat. The Bush Administration has also openly sided with the opposition, demanding early elections here. Then this week Washington changed its position to demanding a referendum on Chavez's presidency, most likely figuring that a divided opposition could easily lose to Chavez in an election, despite its overwhelming advantage in controlling the major means of communication.
The discussion in the U.S. press, dominated by Washington's views, has also taken on an Orwellian tone. Chavez is accused of using "dictatorial powers" for sending the military to recover oil tankers seized by striking captains. Bush Administration spokesman Ari Fleischer urged the Venezuelan government "to respect individual rights and fundamental freedoms."
But what would happen to people who hijacked an oil tanker from Exxon-Mobil in the United States? They would be facing a trial and a long prison sentence. Military officers who stood outside the White House and called for the overthrow of the government (and this just six months after a military coup supported by a foreign power) would end up in Guantanamo facing a secret military tribunal for terrorism.
In fact, the U.S. press would be much more fair if it held the Venezuelan government to the standards of the United States. In the U.S., government workers do not have the right to strike at all, as Ronald Reagan demonstrated when he summarily fired 12,000 air traffic controllers in 1981. But even this analogy is incomplete: the air traffic controllers were striking for better working conditions. Here, the employees of the state-owned oil company -- mostly managers and executives -- are trying to cripple the economy, which is heavily dependent on oil exports, in order to overthrow the government. In the United States, even private sector workers do not have the legal right to strike for political demands, and certainly not for the president's resignation.
In the United States, courts would issue injunctions against the strike, the treasuries of participating unions would be seized, and leaders would be arrested.
Meanwhile, outside of the wealthier areas of eastern Caracas, businesses are open and streets are crowded with shoppers. Life appears normal. This is clearly a national strike of the privileged, and most of the country has not joined it.
More than anything right now, this country needs dialogue and a ratcheting down of the tensions and hostilities between the two opposing camps, so as to avoid a civil war. But this dialogue will never happen if the United States continues to pursue a course of increasing confrontation.
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington D.C.
This country is the second largest supplier of oil to the US. What happens there affects us. It's kinda like not dealing with North Korea building nukes because that's their business. Maybe we should just butt out of the Israeli-palastinian conflict because it's none of our business. Our national interests are economic stablity, security and freedom. Where do you draw the line?
In the past, isolationism worked well. Unfortunately, technology has changed that.
Here's a clue: it's their oil. Or don't you believe in the principle of private property and ownership?
Interesting point, and just backs my assertion that Chavez, whatever his faults, has been remarkably restrained in dealing with a mob of people who expressly desire to overthrow his government. Again: what would Bush, Ashcroft, etc do if half a million came to Washington with the explicit goal of overthrowing the elected governement?
Now, would you take money from the foreign government or organisation to oppose Clinton, when he was President? Or to oppose Gore during the last presidential elections? Would you?
Weren't the Soviets interferring in East Europe after 1947, and since 1945, in fact? Wouldn't it have been nice if someone had interferred before 1942? It seems to me you just defeated your own argument while inadvertantly explaining why we need to interfer ion Venezuela.
By the way, is that you, Pat Buchanan??
Well stated!! I would like to see every supporter of our meddling to answer this question. I am sure they won't.
What on earth are you talking about? If you know anything about the history of the 20th century you would understand that I was referring to Hitler's meddling in the internal politics of East Europe before 1942 to get his allies in power and to the Soviet meddling in East European elections from 1946 to 1948, manipulating the ballot to get pro-Soviet governments in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, etc.
Do you remember the Million Man March? Though the numbers were overstated do you doubt for a minute that was the underlying and unstated goal of those leftists and useful idiots?
No. They were distasteful to my perspective, but they did not explicitly seek to overthrow the government. There is a difference between protest and coup.
Excellent point. I am sure everyone here supporting the rebels and strikers supported Bush's decision to break the dock strike, and supported Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers strike. No consistency. Only emotionalism.
Sound familiar? Isn't this what the US is founded on??
Having lived through most of it, I understand a little about 20th century history but I must confess that since your rant was basically anti-U.S. involvement in others' affairs I did not understand that you were referring to Hitler and Stalin, thinking instead that you were still referring to us. As to what seems to be your main point, that no country should interfere in the internal politics of another, I see a lot of similarity with the position of pacifists. Despots love pacifists as enemies because of their naiveté and ease of dispatch. It is impossible in today's world of rapid transport to stay out of the affairs of others because others will invariably become involved in yours. If that is through friendly relations and trade, fine. If it is through a desire to overthrow your government and destroy you then it is bad, for you.
Anticipating that you will take my statements and use them to explain to me that that is exactly the way others feel about our interfering in their affairs, I will pre-respond. Most leftists governments, probably all, who come into power illegitimately, as Chavez did regardless of outward appearances, have expansionists ambitions. Chavez's embrace of other Communists dictators reveals his ambitions. Therefore, he intends harm to true freedom loving counties and it is best to deal with him early rather than after he has entrenched himself beyond easy removal, like Saddam.
Is it right, moral, ethical, etc.? Yes, because it brings the greatest good to the most people by preventing great harm to them. We are the ones who must do it because we are the biggest, baddest kid on the block. Is that good? Yes, because we are good.
Absolutely. And we have a constitutional process to achieve this. We saw it in process during the impeachment. We didn't overthrow the Clinton administration by force. Your point is?
Why are you commenting on this thread if you have no idea how Chavez was elected to power? The elections were declared free and fair by both domestic and international monitors.
"illegitimately", "regardless of outward appearances", "expansionists ambitions"? Could you elaborate, please?
And you are? Obviously not, considering what you posted. So what makes you any better than them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.