Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Still Intervening Against Democracy in Venezuela
Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services ^ | 18 December 2002 | Mark Weisbrot

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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: latinamericalist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-126 next last
To: A. Pole
often US interventions were harmful to the interests both of US and affected country.

Amen! And they have tended to spin off all kinds of unintended consequences -- like our support for what became the Taliban and Osama himself in the 1979 war in Afghanistan. How do the Poles like the US telling them they have to elect this or that leader? I bet the once pro-American Polish nation is now shifting. Or has already shifted. Why can't Americans understand that the rest of the world doesn't take kindly to our meddling in their internal affairs?

81 posted on 12/19/2002 12:41:40 PM PST by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
I'm not 'assuring' you that he is what the majority want, only that he was voted in by a HUGE margin in 1999. There is no denying that support for him has declined.

The reason why his support has declined is that economy soured (not just in his country, but abroad as well) and that the hopes of society were possibly unrealistic.

If Chavez is forced out of power in the interest of middle/upper class and with the US support it will create a very dangerous liability. If the hopes of general public are disapointed again, the blame will be laid on US and the wealthy what can result in the need of force to keep the order. I am not sure if we want to go there.

82 posted on 12/19/2002 12:42:50 PM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
Why isn't the 'leftist' major media in the US running stories supporting their 'leftist' buddy Chavez?

The real Chavez bashing is going on in very left-wing papers like the Guardian (UK). I wonder how coup-backers on this thread explain that...

83 posted on 12/19/2002 12:43:09 PM PST by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
"Here's a clue: it's their oil. Or don't you believe in the principle of private property and ownership?"

I don't want US ownership of any part of Venezuela. However, I do want to see freedom and the rule of law in South America. Re-establish the rule of law so things can get back to normal. Both nations benefit from the sale of their oil and Chavez ain't sellin oil.

84 posted on 12/19/2002 12:48:40 PM PST by rudypoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
Hey DenverBill,

The leftists at DU miss you terribly.

85 posted on 12/19/2002 12:58:06 PM PST by amused
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
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.

Like I said, democracy can easily be thwarted. Admit it, you only believe in self-determination and democracy when you like the result. Invalid results are possible.

86 posted on 12/19/2002 1:09:04 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
The reason why his support has declined is that economy soured

After strikes and economic disruptions undertaken by the political opposition. Before that, the economy was booming under his rule. It says much about the political opposition that they would take steps to destroy the economy and put thousands in misery just to regain through force what they lost through elections. Kind of reminds you of something the commies in Poland or Hungary would do, doesn't it? Shows how much they care about the people and how much they worship power.

87 posted on 12/19/2002 1:10:21 PM PST by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: rudypoot
However, I do want to see freedom and the rule of law in South America.

So why do you support a coup against a democratically-elected president? Simple question.

88 posted on 12/19/2002 1:11:15 PM PST by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
Admit it, you only believe in self-determination and democracy when you like the result.

No, that would be your side. As I have said until I am blue in the face on these threads, I couldn't care a rat's a$$ about Chavez or his policies. The fact of the matter is that he was elected in a free and fair elections and the people who lost are trying to regain power through non-democratic means. I don't support that.

89 posted on 12/19/2002 1:13:09 PM PST by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
Why isn't the 'leftist' major media in the US running stories supporting their 'leftist' buddy Chavez? I refer you to this thread titled 'APs One-sided Venezuala Coverage'. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/809297/posts

And all you have to offer as proof of this is your buddy's anti-American, pro-Chavez screed, which even if true is a sample of one writer from one news outlet?

90 posted on 12/19/2002 1:14:29 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

Comment #91 Removed by Moderator

To: BillinDenver
That's one way to win an argument.

Not really. Just felt like doing a little nose tweakin.

92 posted on 12/19/2002 1:19:11 PM PST by amused
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

Comment #93 Removed by Moderator

To: Zviadist
As I have said until I am blue in the face on these threads, I couldn't care a rat's a$$ about Chavez or his policies.

And I believe you. No, really. /sarcasm

The fact of the matter is that he was elected in a free and fair elections and the people who lost are trying to regain power through non-democratic means.

A referendum is non-democratic? TV commercials attempting to convince people is non-democratic?

Actually, according to you the problem is that the means are unconstitutional. But since it is Chavez's own constitution, I am not sure that is worth much.

94 posted on 12/19/2002 1:21:00 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
Did Chavez write that himself, or did you help him?
95 posted on 12/19/2002 1:27:03 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
And what do you do? Steal it from him?

Of course. Being an hegenomistic American my only interest in foreign affairs is stealing other people's oil.

Get thee back to DU!

96 posted on 12/19/2002 1:30:36 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
Amid the stress and choleric rage, it would be good to remind the opposition that Chavez is not a dictator, that free speech and a free press still exist, that the country’s secret police have not undertaken a reign of terror against the opposition, and freedom of assembly has not been unreasonably restricted. It would also be good to remind Chavez that his confrontational style may produce negative consequences, that he cannot challenge all of the country’s basic institutions without expecting a negative reaction, and the time may have come for him to listen and not speak, and offer reasonable concessions which would not violate his principles.

This bears repeating. Thanks for posting this very reasoned and balanced analysis of the situation. Look for people on this thread to attack it.

97 posted on 12/19/2002 1:31:38 PM PST by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

Comment #98 Removed by Moderator

Comment #99 Removed by Moderator

To: BillinDenver
Obviously a dislexic. Why his mommy lets him play with the computer is beyond me.
100 posted on 12/19/2002 1:36:09 PM PST by Zviadist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-126 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson