Language

Reporter's Notebook: Alex Satanovsky

Venezuela: Oh, the Irony

Posted by Alex Satanovsky - August 26, 2004 at 8:22 pm
I guess you could say what goes around comes around. The following was from BBC, 01 Sept 1992.  

Lt-Col Hugo Chavez, leader of the Venezuelan officers who staged an abortive coup on 4th February, warned in statements released by the press on 30th August of what he termed a ''generalised unrest that is brewing and spreading in civilian society and within the armed forces''. Chavez granted an interview from his prison, 90 km south-west of Caracas, to Jose Vicente Rangel, a reporter and former presidential candidate. President Carlos Andres Perez forbade the airing of the interview on Rangel's television programme on Sunday, 30th August.

The situation now?  

Chavez is the President, Rangel is the Vice President, and Perez, well, he's in Miami telling Chavez to "die like a dog" without any censorship from the Venezuelan government.

About Alex Satanovsky

Biography
I am finishing my undergraduate studies in Political Science and Sociology at the University of Michigan. I've been fascinated with Latin American movements ever since the fascist coup in Venezuela (2002), and along with my long standing view of the repugnant commercial media, I've shaped my studies accordingly over the years.

Latest Notebook Entries

more

Comments

Coup or Mutiny? The Need for Precise Definitions

Submitted August 26, 2004 - 10:26 pm by Al Giordano
I have watched, studied, and participated in news and politics since I was, well, your age Alex! (It was in a previous century!) And you make a great point.

The article you are quoting from, though, calls the 1992 uprising led by Chávez an attempted "coup" (for "coup d'etat") and this, simply, is not accurate by widely accepted historical and political terms.

Let's consult Dictionary.com...

According to The American Heritage Dictionary, a coup d'etat is:

coup d'é·tat    
n. pl. coups d'état (k) or coup d'états (d-täz)

The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

Interestingly, one of the most frequent disparaging complaints about Chávez by the wealthy (or the wannabe wealthy) is that "he only reached the rank of lieutenant." He was not a member of military command or "authority." He led a civilian-military-student revolt, in 1992, against his own commanding officers.

There is a better, more precise word, for what occured in 1992. Let's consult Dictionary.com again...

Let's look at the dictionary definition for the word "mutiny":

mu·ti·ny    
n. pl. mu·ti·nies

Open rebellion against constituted authority, especially rebellion of sailors against superior officers.

What occured in 1992 was an attempted mutiny, and not an attempted coup.

Words are important, and precision in words even more so. A coup is what was attempted, in 2002, against Chávez, by the high command of the Venezuelan military. (And the lower level sailors and soldiers, again, fought against them, as in 1992.)

They can call Chávez a mutineer, but not a coup-monger. And it's vital to not confuse the two: one rebels against authority, the other imposes authority from above.

The rest of your point - about there having been no press freedom under the war criminal Carlos Andrés Pérez - is, of course, brilliant!

Coup, mutiny or both?

Submitted August 27, 2004 - 12:07 am by Andrew Grice (not verified)

With all due to respect to President Chavez and what he attempted to bring about in 1992, I think the phrase attempted coup is a better fit to describe it, although both words apply.  A coup d'etat is always related to an attempt to change the ultimate leadership of the state.  But a mutiny often has lesser or even completely unrelated goals.  Sailors or soldiers protesting their specific situation or refusing to carry out orders they see as suicidal or immoral, can be said to engage in mutiny, whether or not they wish to engage in open revolt against the head of state.  They may even see themselves as loyal followers of the head of state, who they may feel would actually be on their side if only he/she knew of all the particulars involved.  
While Chavez's mutiny of 1992 lacked certain features common to most Latin American coup attempts (high ranking officers, involvement of CIA and/or U.S. embassy), it was still an attempt to use part of the state apparatus to quickly overthrow the state, making the term "attempted coup" accurate and more descriptive than simply "mutiny."  

I really must disagree

Submitted August 27, 2004 - 12:32 am by Al Giordano
The 1992 rebellion was coordinated between three sectors: civilian opposition, students (really, the vanguard of it) and dissident (young: Chavez was 38 years old, for example), lower ranking, members of the military.

How does that constitute "using part of the state apparatus"?

I mean, did they have F-16 fighter jets or anything like that? Of course not! (But the coup-mongers of 2002 sure did until the rank-and-file troops physically took them away!)

These mutineers didn't even have access to the presidential palace! (The way that the 2002 coup-makers just walked in, drew pistols, and took the president hostage.)

Your own opinions about what is a "mutiny" and what is a "coup," I don't know where they come from.

There is a list somewhere here on the Narcosphere of coups in Latin America. It is a very long list. Not one had the "from below" qualities that the 1992 civilian-student-military rebellion had.

Do you know who shed the most blood on that day? The student wing. And I'm just gonna have to bring you to Caracas one day to meet the leaders of that mutiny - who did not wear uniforms, or even have them - and they can show you the scars of the bullet wounds, at least those of them who survived.

In fact, the Narco News Cyber War Room in Caracas, from which we reported during the recent referendum, came from those former students... Readers, by the way, of Narco News.

1992 Caracas was more akin to Paris 68 than to Chile 73. And it pains me that the leadership of the students is forgotten... Who do you think pushed Chavez and the dissident rank-and-file soldiers to join them in the first place?

By that definition, Paris or Chicago 68 were attempted coups... a complete abuse of the word.

more coup/mutiny

Submitted August 27, 2004 - 5:22 am by Andrew Grice (not verified)

The only thing that gives the generals control over F-16s, military bases and the masses of soldiers is obedience to the chain of command.  Had things gone better for the revolt in 1992, ideally, the vast majority of Venezuelan soldiers would have sided with Chavez and the students and workers in the streets.  This would have stripped military power from the regime of Carlos Andres Perez and given it to the rebels.  With the right units joining the rebellion, Chavez's forces may have even got their hands on air power - or at least prevented it from being deployed against them.  Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way and the rebellion was quickly repressed.  But had the rebellion achieved its goal of quickly overthrowing the government, there is no doubt that an apparatus of the state (portions of the military) would have been used to achieve it.  
You are right that it's very important to emphasize the difference between what Chavez did in 1992 and the coups that have plagued Latin America.  But I don't think it helps anything to argue that because of the extremely unusual characteristics of Feb 4 1992, it wasn't an attempted coup at all.  Let the defenders of oligarchy tie themselves into logical and rhetorical knots trying to claim that April 2002 wasn't a coup against Chavez or that Aristide wasn't overthrown in a coup and "modern kidnapping."  Chavez doesn't have anything to be ashamed about for 1992, no matter what you call it.  
I can't categorically say that coups are always a bad thing.  One example of a coup that accomplished far more good than bad, was the 1974 coup in Portugal that overthrew 50 years of fascism.  It too was instigated not by generals conspiring with the CIA, but young officers like Chavez.  

Delacour Smacks Down Shifty Shifter in DC Post

Submitted August 27, 2004 - 2:01 am by Al Giordano
Narco News correspondent Justin Delacour - who was in Caracas with us for the recent, historic, first-ever-in-any-country-on-earth, referendum vote on a sitting president, has a letter in today's Washington Post:

Respect for Venezuela
Friday, August 27, 2004; Page A20

In his Aug. 23 op-ed column, "Contained Revolution," Michael Shifter said that Venezuela's performance under President Hugo Chavez has been "dismal."

Throughout Mr. Chavez's time in office, the government has invested in the expansion of education and school lunch programs, health care, and subsidized food, building materials and credit for the poor.

On a recent visit to Caracas, I saw the government-run stores that were built in poor neighborhoods to provide food staples at below-market prices. I also saw the medical facilities and health services that the government provides free of charge.

Mr. Shifter did not mention that economic problems during Mr. Chavez's time in power are partly due to the business-led opposition, which has attempted to sabotage the government through capital flight, disinvestment and business lockouts. After the opposition lost the recent referendum by a large margin, opposition leaders continued their campaign of political destabilization by crying "fraud," though the Carter Center and the Organization of American States found no evidence of voting irregularities.

It's time for the U.S. political establishment to show the democratically elected government of Venezuela the respect that it deserves.

JUSTIN DELACOUR
Albuquerque

Commentary: Michael Shifter is responsible for more atrocities against human rights in our hemisphere than anyone else in this century. He is, get this, the author of "Plan Colombia."

Sad, but true: He coordinated and staffed the Council on Foreign Relations Committee that wrote the legislation to send, first, $1.3 billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to the Colombian State and Military, to fight an unwinnable war against the poor population of Colombia.

He picked the committee members to rubberstamp his proposed war crimes... the committee was chaired by U.S. Senators Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) and Bob Graham (D-Florida), who sponsored the legislation, based on the text written by Shifter, to fund a Civil War in Colombia.

How much blood can two hands fit?

So it is no surprise that Shifty Shifter, today, is trying to supress the good news from Venezuela and it's potential to spread elsewhere. Shifty Shifter may be inoculated against democracy... but the grand majority of us in this world, in this América are not... We look for authentic democracy... Shifter runs from it and tries to keep it from erupting... And he is paid very well to do that.

Don't shake hands with war criminals, as Barry Crimmins says.

Shifty Shifter is a bad person. Congratulations to Delacour for getting a letter into the Washington Post to smack him down!

User login