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.
Looks like democracy isn't the answer to every problem.
Chavez's opponents have demanded an EARLY referendum in February which he has refused. Constitutionally, there WILL be a referendum only 6 months later, in August 2003. That is the very definition of self-determination and constitutional govt: allowing the people to vote, and following the constitution.
So if this is just an internal Venezualan thing, why drag the U.S. into it? We have no troops in Venezuala.
Every time some third rate socialist gets his butt into hot water, idiots all over the world start screaming that it is all the CIA's fault.
What a hoot. The CIA couldn't even keep a score of misogynist camel jockeys (who could only have made their intentions and presence more obvious by buying ad space in the New York Times) from killing thousands of people and destroying our most notable landmarks and damaging the Pentagon itself. And I am supposed to believe this same CIA is about to topple a popular (he won the vote and you keep assuring me he is what the people want) latin American president against a majority of Venezualans' wishes?
Are you guys trying to be funny, or does it just come naturally?
That's a really funny position for a Chavez supporter. They reason there is a problem there IS PRECISELY BECAUSE the property owners and middle-class are refusing to let Chavez & Co confiscate their private property without a fight
Chavez is popular among the poor (ie unproductive) segments because he is STEALING money from the productive segments
I did learn about the Monroe Doctrine in high school in Poland.
The US intervenes in political situations in Central and South America when it is in the best interests of the United States.
Well, maybe. But the official justification is usually quite different. Besides - often US interventions were harmful to the interests both of US and affected country.
I'm not in favor of democracy -- I'm in favor of a constitutional republic. There's a difference
If I walk on the street and a group of five thugs comes up to me and demands my wallet, hardly anyone would disagree that they were criminals and their actions illegitimate. But when 50 million get together and vote to steal the possessions of 10 million, then it assumes an air of legitimacy that it philosophicly does not deserve
It's amazing how few Americans understand the difference and know "which" political system we participate in. Thanks for making this statement. I correct people on a weekly basis.
Let's see, you can limit that number with the realization that 1) Not all 6 billion are within the borders of the U.S., and 2) you should only primarily look for Arab males 17-45.
On the other hand, the CIA is miraculously able to make people hate a president who gives them everything they want.
The US is already involved. No troops, just money.
So? Since shortly after 1917 the commies have been dumping truckloads of cash on every leftist twit with his hand out to cause trouble here. Every major media outlet, universities, and even grade schools are staffed with everything from socialists to stalinists.
If money made that much difference, we'd be calling Lenin an extreme right-winger by now.
Exactly. Why do people insist there should be a double standard for the brown people in the south? Do they believe those people are less capable of functioning rationally and democratically? I would prefer to hold all to the democratic standards.
Perhaps you should. If you are talking about the recent referrendum (not an "election"), then we are talking about a ballot that did not represent a democratic choice. There was only one option offered. As to how Hussein originally took power, it was indeed a coup d'etat.
And what do you do? Steal it from him? Does his stealing it (thought I would strongly disagree with this assessment) justify your stealing it from him? I don't like nationalized industry. It is crap. But if that in itself denotes dictatorship, then we'll have to overthrow the UK, Germany, Japan, France and half the rest of the world.
Are you people retarded? Show me where I have said I am a Chavez supporter. Seriously, show me. I have consistently said on these threads that I could not care less about Chavez and his policies. I do know that he was democratically elected and that the people who lost that vote are now trying to take power through other means. It is a political struggle with a legitimate government on one side and a gang in the streets on the other side. I don't know how much simpler I can make my position without resorting to drawing pictures.
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.