By: Eric Draitser
Source: Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/attacking-democracy-chavez-the-us-and-the-destabilization-of-venezuela/
Venezuela goes to the polls this Sunday in an
election many are calling a referendum on President Chavez and his policies.
Although there is surely such a dimension, the significance of the elections
goes far beyond political opinion and partisan bickering, striking at the heart
of the Venezuelan state. This is because these elections will be used as a
front for an attempt to overthrow, by brute force if necessary, the democratically
elected government and put in its place a government more amenable to US
interests.
If this sounds familiar, it should. This is
precisely the same tactic tried in 2002 in a US-instigated coup that, though it
briefly deposed Chavez, ultimately failed. Now, ten years later, the US
imperialist ruling class is prepared to try their hand at regime change in
Venezuela once more.
The Destabilization
Strategy
Sunday’s election presents the ideal opportunity
for US intelligence to instigate some kind of coup or “color” revolution in
Venezuela. However, in order to achieve this insidious goal, there are very
specific strategies, tactics, and contingencies which must be understood. In
his paper, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, former US Ambassador
to Venezuela Patrick Duddy presents a number of scenarios in which the election
becomes the centerpiece of a destabilization campaign. Perhaps the most
important of these scenarios, one which would be in keeping with the tradition
of “color” revolutions all over the world, is the outbreak of violence in the
hours after the winner is announced. Duddy writes, “most plausible scenarios
for instability and conflict in Venezuela derive from the premise that the
Chavistas will not willingly surrender power and would be willing to provoke
violence, orchestrate civil unrest, or engage in various forms of armed
resistance to avoid doing so.” Naturally, Duddy fails to explain for whom such
a scenario would be deemed “plausible”. Because of the nature of the paper and
the author, it is fair to assume that he is referring to the US intelligence
community for whom this is “plausible”. Of course, this assertion is made with
no precedent of historical evidence of Chavistas engaging in such behavior.
Rather, this is precisely the type of unrest fomented by the United States in
the service of regime change.
Any violence would have to be predicated on the
notion that the election were unfair and that Chavez has “stolen” a victory. In
fact, the US propaganda on this premise is unmistakable. In an article written
for the right-wing Heritage Foundation and propagandistically titled “The
Chavez Plan to Steal Venezuela’s Election”, Dr. Ray Walser writes that the
“stealing” of the elections will be made possible because of deception,
electoral inequality, propaganda, and violence among other factors. However, in
examining the way in which Dr. Walser presents each of these factors, one
begins to see that, in fact, what is being described is not a list of possible
tactics and scenarios, but rather, an incredibly detailed blueprint of the
pretexts that will be used to legitimize a manufactured and likely violent
response to a Chavez victory.
One of the most obvious forms of deception that
the US intelligence community is engaging in is the manipulation of polling
data. A study conducted by the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign UK shows that, no
more than two months ago, Chavez’s lead was anywhere from 15 to 27 points,
depending on the polling agency. However, despite the overwhelming amount of
statistical evidence to the contrary, the Western media and intelligence
establishment continue to propagate the outright lie that Chavez is actually
behind in the polls. Nowhere is this deception more obvious than in the fact
that Democracy Digest, a mouthpiece for the National Endowment for
Democracy, claims that Capriles Radonski holds a two point lead over the
Venezuelan president. The article quotes Luis Christiansen, a representative of
the dubious Consultores polling group, who states, “If we were to make a linear
projection for the election, it would be that Capriles will maintain an
advantage of 2.5 percent over Chávez.” This would seem a rather innocuous
assertion that might have some validity were it not for the incontrovertible
fact that more than a dozen other independent polling agencies conclude just
the opposite that, in fact, Chavez leads and that the margin is significant.
Therefore, one can easily see that a poll such as Consultores will play a major
role in manufacturing a crisis because the poll will then be held up as
evidence of clear “election fraud”.
Another aspect of this propaganda and deception
has to do with the integrity of the elections themselves. One of the most
common talking points established by the US imperialist ruling class has been
that the decision by Chavez not to allow international elections observers can
only be interpreted as an admission of government guilt in election fraud. As
Walser states in his Heritage Foundation article, “Following the 2006
presidential election, Venezuela ended serious electoral observation missions
by the OAS, the European Union, and other groups, such as the Carter Center in
the U.S…The CNE [National Electoral Council] now allows only electoral
‘companions’…which lack international credibility.” This assertion completely
ignores the obvious fact that such international NGOs and other organizations
are part of a complex network of institutions funded and controlled by the
Western imperialist ruling class. As was most clearly demonstrated in Russia
following Putin’s reelection, so-called “independent monitors” function as
provocateurs who attempt to create controversy where there is none. Moreover,
such organizations are entirely dependent on funding from the US State
Department and other powerful institutions of the ruling class, and work in the
service of US imperialism. In light of such attempted subversion as well as
similar examples throughout the world in recent years, it makes perfect sense
that Caracas would want to ensure the validity of elections outside the purview
of US hegemonic power.
Beyond the elections themselves, the US also
intends to try to use the military against Chavez. In a strategy reminiscent of
Egypt and the use of Tantawi and others to do the dirty work of ousting Mubarak,
so too does the intelligence establishment hope to bribe or otherwise influence
senior officers to turn on Chavez. This is precisely the final, and perhaps
most significant, recommendation made by former ambassador Duddy who writes
that the US should, “Leverage defense department contacts in Latin American and
Spanish armed forces to communicate to the Venezuelan military leadership that
they are obliged to uphold their constitution, respect human rights, and
protect their country’s democratic tradition.” Aside from being a gross
violation of international law by meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state,
such a recommendation demonstrates the weakness of the political opposition
which, despite being well-funded and enjoying the support of the wealthy elite,
still does not have the support to achieve a legal, electoral victory.
The recommendations of Duddy, Walser, and others
show that those forces (opposition, military, police, business elite, etc.)
that instigated the attempted coup d’etat against Chavez back in 2002, are very
much active in this renewed destabilization effort. Nowhere is this fact more
obvious than in the opposition candidate himself, Henrique Capriles Radonski.
At the time of the attempted coup, Capriles was mayor of Baruta (a municipality
in Caracas) and led what can only be described as an assault on the Cuban
embassy. His culpability in the attack is demonstrated quite clearly in the
statement issued by the Cuban embassy staff which read:
The immediate responsibility of Mr. Capriles
Radonsky and other Venezuelan state authorities was demonstrated when they
failed to act diligently in order to prevent an increase in the aggression to
which our embassy was subjected, causing serious damage and endangering the
lives of officials and their families in clear violation of national and
international law. Some also speculate, with good reason, that Capriles was
also involved in the assassination of Danilo Anderson, the prosecutor in charge
of investigating the individuals involved in, and responsible for, the 2002
coup. Given such criminality as Capriles has demonstrated, coupled with an
insatiable egomania, one would have to wonder whether this man could possibly
be anything other than a US puppet.
Capriles does have a base among the wealthy and
some of the bourgeois middle class, though it should be pointed out that the
breadth of this base is often purposely mischaracterized by the media
mouthpieces of the ruling class. However, regardless of the size, his core
supporters will be put in harm’s way due to the recent call by Capriles for
them to “stay in the streets” to “minimize fraud” at the polls. These
supporters will likely become the victims, instigators, and/or both, of
post-election violence, just as has been seen in Kenya, Thailand, and countless
other countries in recent years. This violence would then be blamed on the
Chavez government and is designed to destabilize the entire country. However,
the question remains: if not Chavistas, then who would perpetrate such
violence?
One possibility is a covert, mercenary force
that has penetrated into Venezuela by crossing the border into the country
illegally. In early August, an American was captured trying to sneak into
Venezuela. Although he has refused to divulge any information about himself or
his mission, his passport showed trips to Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other
countries. This revelation alone would indicate at least some military
involvement and, likely, Special Forces or some other covert detachment.
Moreover, his capture coincided quite closely with the mysterious refinery
explosion and fire that killed a number of innocent Venezuelans. Was this
individual part of a group of saboteurs and mercenaries sent into Venezuela in
preparation for a destabilization effort? Though concrete proof of this is
impossible to obtain given the nature of covert operations, the possibility
must be considered.
Why They Hate Chavez
The reasons why Chavez evokes such rage and
antipathy from the US ruling class are many and interrelated. First and
foremost, Chavez has demonstrated himself to be perhaps the leading
international voice of anti-imperialism and resistance to US hegemony. He has
led the transformation of much of Latin America from little more than US
markets for exploitation to independent nations capable of managing their own
affairs. This development comes in the form of the establishment of regional
cooperation organizations, the assertion of national sovereignty and control
over resources, as well as the formation of viable and independent political
blocs in the region. Additionally, Chavez leads a country that is one of the
world’s leading energy producers, giving him leverage over Western oil
companies. Finally, and perhaps most critically, Chavez represents a model for
other nations of Latin America and the rest of the world who wish to pursue an
independent, socialist path of development. This is, of course, anathema to the
goals of the financial elite of the Anglo-American establishment who wish to
reassert dominance in what had been the US sphere of influence.
One of Hugo Chavez’s great accomplishments has
been the formation of regional cooperation organizations such as the Bolivarian
Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) and the Community of Latin American and
Caribbean States (CELAC). These organizations serve as both economic
communities and political blocs, providing a viable alternative to dependence
on the United States. It is because of such regional organizations that
countries such as Ecuador and Bolivia have been able to take the initiative
against the various forms of domination, coercion, and subversion by the United
States. Moreover, this has delegitimized the hegemony of the US by allowing
Latin America to move away from US-dominated organizations such as the
Organization of American States (OAS) and Mercosur. In doing so, ALBA, CELAC,
and other such alliances become organs of national agency and independence.
Another aspect of Chavez’s influence that draws
the ire of the US imperialists is his support for large-scale economic
development in the region. Not only has Venezuela taken over from the US and
its international finance arms, the IMF and the World Bank, but it has used the
aforementioned alliances to promote independent economic development. The
recently announced plans for an Inter-Oceanic Canal through Nicaragua that
would link the Pacific and Atlantic oceans along with the proposed
Colombia-Venezuela oil pipeline, are merely two examples of the Chavez
government’s commitment to mutually beneficial economic development. These
projects, and many like them, have helped move Latin America in the direction
of cooperation and progress and away from the division and subjugation of the
20thCentury.
This form of domination at the hands of the US
Empire was nowhere more apparent than in the oil sector. For decades, foreign
oil companies had extracted untold wealth from beneath the feet of the people
of Venezuela while rampant poverty only worsened. However, with the
Hydrocarbons Law of 2001, the Chavez government effectively nationalized the
energy industry and, for the first time, exercised national sovereignty over
natural resources. This move, perhaps more than any other, earned him the
hatred of the Anglo-American ruling class. The oil industry was not the only
one to be nationalized – cement, telephone, and a number of others were also
brought under state control.
Chavez has also built warm economic and
political relations with China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, and countless other
countries that the imperialists perceive to be “enemies”. This is what is often
referred to as Chavez’s “anti-Americanism”. However, it should here be pointed
out that Chavez has stated repeatedly his positive view of Americans, saying at
a speech in New York City, “…I fell in love with the soul of the people of the
United States.” Rather, it is the ruling class of the United States, the same
ruling class that exploited and oppressed Venezuela and the rest of Latin
America for decades, which he despises. This is an important distinction which
is crucial to dispelling the distortions and lies told by the mainstream media
in the US.
Perhaps Chavez’s most important accomplishments
are socio-economic. The progress that his government has made in combating
poverty, illiteracy, racism, oppression of indigenous peoples, infant mortality
and countless other indicators of social progress, has made Venezuela into the
shining example for the rest of Latin America and the world. This is, of
course, an existential threat to the power of international finance capital, and
capitalism more generally. By expounding this sort of “21st Century
Socialism”, Chavez makes himself into the target of subversion at the hands of
the US – his social policies make him public enemy number one.
Hugo Chavez has come to symbolize everything that
the US imperialist ruling class despises: independent economic development,
independent foreign policy, and a deep commitment to social justice. He has
openly challenged, not just the US Empire, but imperialism in all its forms.
Moreover, Chavez represents a viable future for Latin America, one that is free
of the chains of US bondage. For these reasons, the ruling class is set on
trying for regime change once more. Anti-imperialists the world over must stand
now and defend Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, not because we agree or
disagree with all of its tenets, but because it stands in opposition to empire,
colonialism, and domination.
Eric Draitser is an
independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. He is the Founder and
Editor of StopImperialism.com
as well as host of the Stop Imperialism podcast. He is a frequent contributor
to Russia Today, the Center for Research on Globalization, and many other sites
and publications.
Posts
a.jpg)
a.jpg)
