The U.S. empire's current primary "spokesman" and Nobel Peace Prize winner continues to demonstrate that "peace" does not result from the involved parties' negotiating and compromising; rather, this term refers to how much power said empire imposes on other nations who resist, if even acutely, its hegemony. The history of U.S. involvement in Venezuela suggests the latter is a colony of the former. This colonial phase changed suddenly in 1998. Events that have occurred in Venezuela since that year during which Hugo Chavez's (as a leader of the Bolivarian Revolution) Presidency began show the U.S. reserves preemptive rights over the course and content of Venezuela's future.
Chavez enacted several measures to resist Neo-liberalism and U.S. hegemony. But, two of these measures in particular illustrate how he incurred the wrath of the U.S. and replaced fellow traveler Fidel Castro as the poster boy for vestigially lethal Marxism in action in South America:
Chavez enacted several measures to resist Neo-liberalism and U.S. hegemony. But, two of these measures in particular illustrate how he incurred the wrath of the U.S. and replaced fellow traveler Fidel Castro as the poster boy for vestigially lethal Marxism in action in South America:
Just after Bush's inauguration in 2001, Chavez' congress voted in a new "Law of Hydrocarbons." Henceforth, Exxon, British Petroleum, Shell Oil and Chevron would get to keep 70% of the sales revenues from the crude they sucked out of Venezuela. Not bad, considering the price of oil was rising toward $100 a barrel. But to the oil companies, which had bitch-slapped Venezeula's prior government into giving them 84% of the sales price, a cut to 70% was "no bueno." Worse, Venezuela had been charging a joke of a royalty – just one percent – on "heavy" crude from the Orinoco Basin. Chavez told Exxon and friends they'd now have to pay 16.6%. [1]
Venezuela over the past few years has experienced disruptions to their food supply to electricity, and President Maduro has faced alleged assassination plots. Both pro and anti-Bolivar supporters will claim these events support their assessment of conditions in Venezuela. The former will state those events result from U.S. sinister agendas to destabilize Venezuela, rendering them ripe for regime change. To the contrary, the latter will state these events reveal the Bolivar movement's paranoia and incompetence. This debate can continue over whose guilty of committing such disruptive acts. But, one fact that remains undeniable is the U.S. through certain organizations seeks to undermine the Bolivar's geopolitical influence in South America, and, if this movement succeeds, will serve as an example for resisting U.S. hegemony.
The State Department has also used its funding agencies, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to channel millions of dollars annually to anti-Chavez NGOs, political parties, journalists and media organizations in Venezuela, who have been working to undermine the Chavez administration and force him from power. [2]We can peruse Wikileaks until Chavez rises from the grave, but something tells me we will not discover any U.S. diplomatic cables or memos wherein the U.S. discusses funding any groups opposing the House of Saud. I know that numerous former U.S. ambassadors have lectured to us simplistic and indignant fools that the relationship with Saudi Arabia is too complex to be understood or judged by any standards of contemporary civilization. Besides, too many important people needed to devote their time reviewing documents alerting them to the urgent "threat" Chavez posed to the region. For example,
In a secret document authored by current Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Craig Kelly, and sent by the US Embassy in Santiago in June 2007 to the Secretary of State, CIA and Southern Command of the Pentagon, along with a series of other US embassies in the region, Kelly proposed "six main areas of action for the US government (USG) to limit Chavez's influence" and "reassert US leadership in the region".What threat did Chavez actually pose? The term "threat" as invoked in the example noted above does not identify a concrete risk such as his hiring and training terrorists to kill Americans or incite a staged flash mob to highlight the focus on the excessive hegemonic mindset permeating U.S. foreign policymakers. Will he take actions harmful to Americans such as disrupting distribution of food? I believe it is safe to assume that Venezuelans are too preoccupied with maintaining both political stability and ensuring availability of food to assess the impact of the Bolivar Revolution in the U.S.
Kelly, who played a primary role as "mediator" during last year's coup d'etat in Honduras against President Manuel Zelaya, classifies President Hugo Chavez as an "enemy" in his report. "Know the enemy: We have to better understand how Chavez thinks and what he intends...To effectively counter the threat he represents, we need to know better his objectives and how he intends to pursue them. This requires better intelligence in all of our countries". Further on in the memo, Kelly confesses that President Chavez is a "formidable foe", but, he adds, "he certainly can be taken". [3]
U.S. policy toward Venezuela since 1998 has revolved around one constant: regime change. Tactics vary though they serve the same objective of ending the Bolivar diversion from neo-liberalism. For instance, during 2002 and 2003 the U.S. provided money to organizations operating in Venezuela:
You have the private US consulting group here which is called Development Alternatives Incorporated , that is fulfilling the same role that the Delphi International Group fulfilled in Nicaragua, and both the International Republican Institute (funded by the U.S. Congress...my emphasis) and the National Democratic Institute (also funded by the U.S. Congress...my emphasis) also have offices in Caracas, so you have three offices here that are handing out tens of millions of dollars, private offices that in actual fact are under the control of the US embassy and of the Department of State in Washington and of the Agency for International Development (AID). The first contract that was given to Development Alternatives was by AID, while the NED programs continued at a rate of about US$1 million per year. In the wake of the failed coup in April, 2002, the decision was taken in Washington to do the same thing they’d done in Nicaragua, which was to hire a consulting firm to act as a front for AID money which would be much larger than the NED money, and the first contract was signed on August 30th, 2002, which granted a little more than US$10 million over the next two years for political activities in Venezuela. And they opened in August, 2002 and sent five people down from Washington—five people that were named by AID. [4]These funding amounts allocated to political activities increased as their efforts to undermine Chavez had failed. Rather than the U.S. reevaluating the effectiveness and necessity of these extended networks conducting political activities in Venezuela, they increased the funding of Venezuelan opposition to Chavez:
A revealing report published in May 2010 by the FRIDE Institute, a Spanish think tank, prepared with funding from the World Movement for Democracy (a project of the National Endowment for Democracy, or NED), has disclosed that international agencies are funding the Venezuelan opposition with a whopping $40-50 million USD annually. [5]This funding increase of Venezuelan opposition against Chavez-who was democratically elected-shows an empire that believes its agenda supersedes the democratic will of Venezuelans. Our simply reviewing U.S. government documents support this observation:
The U.S. mocks democratic institutions by releasing their own documents showing their involvement in supporting opposition groups to administrations popularly elected by their citizens. Both this mockery and vast network of allocating money throughout Venezuela in this fashion shows a critical glimpse of the U.S. pathological fixation on regime change.Declassified documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding the activities of these agencies in Venezuela have revealed that their multi-million dollar funding has largely gone towards promoting anti-democratic activities, such as the April 2002 coup d’état against the Chavez government, and subsequent strikes, destabilization attempts and economic sabotage. The foreign funding has also gone to support the opposition electoral campaigns over the past eight years, including in-kind aid to train and strengthen political parties, help design elections and communications strategies and even to develop political platforms and agendas for opposition groups. This level of support goes well beyond mere donations and evidences a direct meddling in Venezuela’s domestic affairs. [6]
In addition to the U.S. mocking democracy in action in Venezuela, persons of the anti-Bolivar crowd also mock the truth by using social media as a propaganda tool :
[7]
[8]
The photos posted on someone's social media account show the supposed Venezuelan's violent crackdown on peaceful protesters. Or maybe not. What is wrong with anti-Bolivarians using a little deliberate deception on social media? After all, any misinformation resulting from few doctored photos shouldn't distract us from exploiting the empowering potential of social media. Wasn't social media an essential tool used to empower those participating in the Arab Spring? Social media and a benevolent empire polishing the final touches on the next color revolution are a match made for those living in the End of History. The example of U.S. trivializing the concept of sovereignty in Venezuela indicates this infamous and excessively declared "End" means an empire indefinitely managing and subjugating other nations' democratic institutions.
The most recent alleged coup attempt scheduled to occur on February 12, 2015 in Venezuela indicates many of the same destabilizing agents remain committed to overthrowing Bolivarism.
If true, the details of this most recent coup attempt show an elaborate scheme to overthrow Maduro. Confessions obtained have provided the Venezuelan authorities the information they need to justify arresting accomplices [9]. Venezuela's current National Assembly President Diosdado Cabello released details of this confession obtained from Air Force First Lieutenant Luis Lugo Calderon. [10]. Lieutenant allegedly disclosed that the failed coup entailed:
the existence of a video intended to be the "preamble" to the coup, "calling on the superior officers to wake up, asking for the renunciation of the President of the Republic, and saying that the lower officers were against the government."
Lugo further elaborated that the video was to be disseminated outside the country by the Miami-based journalist Patricia Poleo around the time of Carnival, when vast numbers of Venezuelans travel to the beach and other parts of the country.
The officer also substantiated allegations that coup plotters intended to use a "Super Tucano" counter-insurgency aircraft to bomb numerous ground targets such as the Miraflores Palace, teleSur, and the Ministry of Defense.
Identifying himself as the intended pilot of the military aircraft, he added that among the targets were air force bases located in highly populated cities, including the La Carlota base in the wealthy Caracas neighborhood of Chacao as well as the the Sucre base in the city of Maracay in Aragua State.
Furthermore, the Lieutenant indicated that he had been approached by an official from the British embassy with an offer of asylum in the event that the coup failed, though he did not give further details. [11]
More information is needed to determine the credibility of these allegations. The first step in determining whether the Venezuelan authorities used the most reliable methods for investigating impartially and collecting evidence. In other words, did they follow the highest ethical standards and practices established, for example, by the U.S.? "Enhanced Interrogation....?" "Torture?".........If the Venezuela authorities did not use a surveillance apparatus similar to the NSA's digital panopticon, and interrogation techniques absent of the aforementioned (i.e. waterboarding, etc), then of course we should immediately discount their stated findings. Right? Sarcasm aside now other facts about the NSA's surveillance of Venezuela project ominous signs.
The U.S. disregards the people's will who elect a government seeking a course different from the demands of U.S. hegemony. The U.S. shows one blatant example of such disregard of Venezuela by the NSA's and CIA's spying on Venezuela's state-owned oil and natural gas company Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA):
And,The U.S. National Security Agency accessed the internal communications of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela and acquired sensitive data it planned to exploit in order to spy on the company’s top officials, according to a highly classified NSA document that reveals the operation was carried out in concert with the U.S. embassy in Caracas.The March 2011 document, labeled, “top secret,” and provided by former NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden, is being reported on in an exclusive partnership between teleSUR and The Intercept. [12]
Increasing surveillance on the leadership of PDVSA, the most important company in a South American nation seen as hostile to U.S. corporate interests, was a priority for the undisclosed NSA division to which the analyst reported. “Plainly speaking,” the analyst writes, they “wanted PDVSA information at the highest possible levels of the corporation – namely, the president and members of the Board of Directors.” [13]And, more specifically:
Venezuela's sovereignty is discounted by the U.S. government when it protects the interests of corporations. Of course, the prompts my asking an obvious question: if the U.S. discounts Venezuela's sovereignty so easily, then won't the U.S. continue discounting its own citizens' civil liberties?PDVSA has long been a target of U.S. intelligence agencies and the subject of intense scrutiny from U.S. diplomats. A February 17, 2009, cable, sent from the U.S. ambassador in Caracas to Washington and obtained by WikiLeaks, shows that PDVSA employees, were probed during visa interviews about their company’s internal operations. The embassy was particularly interested in the PDVSA’s strategy concerning litigation over Venezuela’s 2007 nationalization of the Cerro Negro oil project – and billions of dollars in assets owned by U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil.“According to a PDVSA employee interviewed following his visa renewal, PDVSA is aggressively preparing its international arbitration case against ExxonMobil,” the cable notes. [14]
The capacity of surveillance technology and the obsessive political will to use it portends a dim future of both U.S. civil liberties and the effective independence of other nations like Venezuela. In the U.S. politicians making baseless charges against the Bolivarists in Venezuela has become an accepted practice. For example, Hillary Clinton recently stated in a speech that:
“To date, (the Maduro administration) has been doing all it can to rig the elections: jailing political opponents, blocking with trumped up charges, stoking political tensions.” [15]Clinton offered no evidence to support her strong accusation. She may possess reliable evidence that thus far remains concealed in a private email account. For those cynics who believe Clinton is speaking to an echo chamber of cult followers, they shouldn't waste any effort analyzing the 20 audit mechanisms that Venezuela uses to certify their elections results. These 20 mechanisms may be unreliable, but that given the importance of elections, U.S. Presidential hopefuls and public figures should cite sources that are publicly accessible supporting such claims that Venezuela's current President Maduro is indeed rigging elections. Of course Hillary Clinton's history as a public servant is a case study in transparency.
If the End of History meant indefinite U.S. hegemony, then the Bolivar movement must be silenced to render that glorious proclamation a reality. Meanwhile, paradoxically, Chavez lives beyond the grave so history continues.
1. Greg Palast. "The Assassination of Hugo Chavez." This is a video documentary. Excerpt of text included in the video viewed at Information Clearing House. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34234.htm posted March 09, 2013. viewed Feb 28, 2015.
2. Eva Golinger. "Wikileaks: Documents Confirm U.S. Plans Against Venezuela." Dec 16, 2010. Postcards from the Revolution. http://www.chavezcode.com/2010/12/wikileaks-documents-confirm-us-plans.html
3. Ibid.
4."The Nature of CIA Involvement in Venezuela. interview with Phillip, former CIA operative. Center for Research on Globalization. March 27, 2005. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-nature-of-cia-intervention-in-venezuela/463
5. Eva Golinger. "NED Report: International Agencies Fund Venezuelan Opposition with $40-$50 Million Annually." venezuelanalysis.com. June 21st 2010. http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5441
6. Ibid.
7. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya. "Rise of the Anti-Government Flash Mobs: First Ukraine, Now Venezuela." Center for Research on Globalization. Feb 20, 2014. http://www.globalresearch.ca/rise-of-the-anti-government-flash-mobs-first-ukraine-now-venezuela/5369691 photo extracted from this source.
8. Ibid.
9. Thierry Meyssan. "Obama failed his coup in Venezuela." Voltaire Network. Feb 24, 2015. http://www.voltairenet.org/article186879.html
10. Lucas Koerner. "New Evidence Links Ledezma, COPEI to Thwarted Coup." Venezuelanalysis.com News, Views, and Analysis. Feb 27, 2015. http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11238
11. Ibid.
12. Davis, Charles. "NSA Spies on Venezuela's Oil Company." Counterpunch. Nov 24, 2015. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/24/nsa-spies-on-venezuelas-oil-company-snowden-leak-reveals/
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Rohas, Boothroyd Rachael, "Hillary Clinton: Venezuela's Maduro Attempting to "Rig" Upcoming Elections. venezuelanalysis.com. Dec 01, 2015. http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11733
No comments:
Post a Comment