|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Larson and Juan Antonio Herrera,
Coalition to End U.S. Intervention in Venezuela
|
Editor’s Note: This article was written prior to the August 15, 2004, re-call referendum in Venezuela, which President Hugo Chavez won.
The Bush Administration has enshrined the vices of exceptionalism and arrogance in U.S. foreign policy. This has resulted in the fomenting of enemies in the Middle East and the transformation of Iraq into a breeding ground of violence and hate, the repercussions of which the U.S. will be suffering for generations to come. It now appears that the Administration is at it again in Latin America.
Doing yet greater damage to U.S. credibility and undermining further its ability to act as a positive force for democracy, the Bush Administration continues to finance the Venezuelan opposition group Sumate. Sumate orchestrated the violent 2002 coup that temporarily overthrew Venezuela’s democratically elected and overwhelmingly supported president, Hugo Chavez.
Chavez was first elected in a landslide vote in 1998, a result reconfirmed in 2000. Sumate received financial backing from the Bush Administration through the congressionally created and funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED). When the 2002 coup succeeded and Chavez was deposed, the Bush Administration became the only government in the Western Hemisphere to praise its success, calling it a “step forward for freedom.” George W. Bush went so far as to blame Chavez for his own ouster. Had Bush not been so quick to praise the coup, he would not have been embarrassed subsequently when a mass movement among Venezuela’s majority population (the “pardo”—Afro- and indigenous Venezuelans) swept Chavez back to his elected post.
Apparently, this is precisely what the Bush Administration in particular, and the U.S. government in general, fears most: a successful, democratic, and self-determining government in the Western Hemisphere created of, by, and for the people—people who happen to be of color, and who happen to oppose white colonialism. Venezuela’s sovereignty is all the more fearful to the Bush Administration because Venezuela happens to be the hemisphere’s largest producer of petroleum, which is cheap for the U.S. to acquire due to its proximity.
The Venezuelan sovereignty movement is one of the Americas’ most outstanding examples of a large, mostly peasant, class implementing political and economic strategies to strengthen their internal democratic structures and to defend their borders from political and economic invasion by more powerful states like the U.S., which crave their resources and fear their independence. By making the connection between economy, democracy, and sovereignty, the Venezuelan people have made themselves one of America’s top enemies.
Recently, a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics, held a hearing on Venezuela. The subcommittee chair, Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., called the political situation there “the single most important test of democracy in the Americas.”
In a way, Sen. Coleman is right, though perhaps not in the way he meant. The “single most important test of democracy in the Americas” is not whether Venezuela conducts proper elections and referendum. After all, the Carter Center’s Dr. Jennifer Coy testified that she was “very impressed” with the security measures and voting machines. And after hearing her dispute U.S. allegations that the Venezuelan military was confiscating voter ID cards, even anti-Chavez Sen. Bill Nelson, R-Fla., gushed that “maybe Venezuela will teach Florida something.”
The “test” doesn’t have much to do with Venezuela at all, really. The “test” has to do with whether the U.S. will exercise the respect and restraint necessary to avoid an illegal and violent intervention in a totally legitimate democratic process that goes against the economic interests of U.S. corporate management.
So far, the U.S. is failing the test. The U.S. NED has disbursed as much as $4 million illegally to Sumate, which is pursuing an electoral strategy to overthrow the Chavez government only after its first, violent effort and its second, economic effort (an elite-organized oil strike) both failed.
In addition to direct, illegal financial backing of violent opposition groups, high-ranking U.S. officials have been practicing what has come to be called “character assassination,” that is, the spreading of unfounded allegations and distortions in order to weaken American public opposition to direct intervention.
For example, Sen. Nelson accused the Venezuelan government of supporting and harboring Colombian guerrillas, of praising Iraqi insurgent attacks on U.S. soldiers, and of using oil to leverage small Caribbean countries against U.S. policies (as if they needed the push). He offered no evidence to support these claims.
Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roger Noriega, who served as aide to the late Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., alleged that the Chavez government is detaining people for political reasons. His examples include two directors of Sumate, who were indicted on charges of conspiracy and treason for accepting funding from the U.S. NED in violation of Venezuelan law, and for using these funds to overthrow the government. A quick game of “shoe on the other foot” shows the disingenuous nature of this claim. Imagine Mr. Noriega rushing to the defense of the directors of a political party in the U.S. that attempted a violent coup financed by Iraq.
A former CIA employee, Miguel Diaz, insisted that Chavez was selectively arresting and torturing opposition leaders, though he, too, provided no evidence of this. Diaz went so far as to urge the U.S. to threaten the Venezuelan election authorities with the promise that “any perception of wrongdoing will result in bloodshed.”
Fortunately, some voices have risen to defend the truth and to prevent the U.S. from committing another illegal intervention. In addition to the testimony from Dr. Coy, Human Rights Watch director José Miguel Vivianco asserted that Venezuela is a democracy. As a demonstration of this, the vitriolic and viciously anti-Chavez press has been permitted to freely express their views without persecution. He also pointed out the credibility gap the U.S. is suffering, given the revelations of Abu Ghraib and U.S. support for the 2002 coup.
These assertions were shared by Dr. Mark Weisbrot, economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He went further to highlight the damage that the Bush Administration is precipitating for the U.S. through its policy toward Venezuela, including its support for Sumate in their demands for early elections—demands that violated Venezuela’s constitution.
Weisbrot directed some harsh criticism toward Noriega, underscoring that leveled by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who claimed that Noriega has been abusing his post and power by encouraging the violation of law and by writing widely in U.S. and Latin American publications that the petitions needed to force the August 2004 referendum in Venezuela had enough signatures. Noriega threatened the Venezuelan National Election Council with retaliation if they thought otherwise.
This is surely a violation of respectful boundaries between two sovereign states. Imagine the American reaction if Iran had threatened the U.S. Supreme Court for deciding the Florida election. Noriega did not deny writing these articles, but only deflected the criticism by saying his statements were taken out of context.
Sen. Coleman was right—this is democracy’s severest test in our hemisphere. But if we would have friends for neighbors, instead of enemies, and if we would live in a neighborhood ruled by law, self-determination, democracy, and respect for sovereignty, the American people first must be clear about who is taking and who is failing democracy’s test. It is not the president of Venezuela; it is the president of the United States. We must ensure our government passes the test, which it can do only by performing the following tasks:
• Freeze U.S. funding to all Venezuelan political parties and groups.
• Fire all U.S. officials improperly interfering with, insulting, or seeking to influence Venezuela’s sovereign, democratic process, beginning with Roger Noriega.
• Cease all “character assassination” attempts.
• Call on the Venezuelan media to behave more professionally in service of Venezuelan democracy by more accurately and fairly representing the diverse array of political expression in Venezuela.
• Respond to Venezuela’s electoral process with equity. Either invite international observation of the U.S. elections, or respect the Venezuelan National Election Council’s sovereignty and right to noninterference.
• Normalize positive and collaborative relations with the democratically elected and sovereign government of Venezuela, headed by Hugo Chavez.
• Foreswear further support for or direct attempts to overthrow the Venezuelan government.
|
|
|
© 2004 Women Against Military Madness. All rights reserved.
|
 |
|
Complete September 2004 Index - click here
|
|
 |
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
