Aviso para Venezuela / Warning for Venezuela

Posted by Ron Smith - January 19, 2005 at 7:45 pm

Condoleeza Rice's hearing today contained a warning for our Venezuelan sisters and brothers that we cannot ignore.

La consejera de Seguridad Nacional de EEUU, Condoleeza Rice, durante una audencia en el Comité de Relaciones de Exteriores del Senado avisó a nuestra herman@s en La Republica Bolivariana que debemos pasar al alto.

I'll try to translate this myself in the next reply, just because I think it's important.

Voy a tratar a traducir este entrada abajo porque creo que puede ser importante a iniciar ese dialogo con nuestr@s herman@s al sur de la frontera. This is from the Eugene Register-Guard, I think it's a reprint from the New York Times:

She reserved some of her harshest language for President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, whose government she said had "not been constructive" because of his tough tactics against the press and the opposition.
"Is it possible for you to say something positive about the Chavez administration?" asked Chafee, apparently taken aback at the toughness of her words. When Rice said "it's pretty hard, Senator, to find something positive," Chafee said her attitude "seems disrespectful to the Venezuelan people" who had elected Chavez.

Authentic Journalists in the US and our comrades in Venezuela should not underestimate the importance of these comments, especially considering the difficult situation the Bolivarian Republic finds itself in these days. I think the timing of the Uribe administrations recent kidnapping of Granda in Venezuela is significant, and it is particularly important for us to be highly sensitive to what could result in another attempt at "Regime Change" in Venezuela.

I believe that in the coming days, weeks, and months, we will see strategizing by the United States in another attempt to unseat President Chavez. The recent anouncement of the placement of the Venezuelan Tupumaros on the US list of terrorist organizations, timed closely with the Granda kidnapping could easily serve as a step towards the creation of imaginary evidence of a Venezuelan Government / FARC connection. As the propaganda machine in the US, this case manifested as Rice in the hearings this morning, steps up its attacks on Venezuela, we would be foolish not to pay attention.

About Ron Smith

Personal Website
http://www.activ8media.org

Biography
Documentary Filmmaker

View full user profile

Latest Notebook Entries

Aviso para Venezuela

Submitted January 19, 2005 - 8:10 pm by Ron Smith

Desde Eugene Register-Guard, creo originalmente de los New York Times:

Reservó algo de su lenguaje mas severo para el Presidente Hugo Chavez de Venezuela, el gobierno de el "no han sido constructivo" por el hecho de su tacticas duras en contra de la prensa y de la oposición.
"Puede ser posible a decir algo positivo de la administración de Chavez?" Preguntó [Senador Republicano] Chafee [de Rhode Island,] apparentamente disturbado por la dureza de las palabras [de Rice]
"Es bastante dificil, Senado a encontrar algo positivo." Chafee dijó que su actitude "aparece irrespuestuoso al Pueblo Venezolano" quien ha electado a Chavez.

Periodistas autenticas en los EEYY y nuestr@s compañer@s no deben subestimar la importancia de eses palabras, especialmente si consideramos la posicion en que se encuentra la republica bolivariana hoy dia. Creo que la sincronización del acto de secuestro de Granda en Venezuela por fuerzas alineados con el gobierno de Colombia se significa mucho, y esta bien importante para nosotros a ser altamente sensitivo por lo que puede resultar en "cambio de regimen" en Venezuela.

Creo tambien que en los proximos dias, semanas, meses, vamos a ver la strategia por los EEUU en otra obra de tombar con Chavez. El anuncio receintamente sobre la inducion los Tupumaros de Venezuela en la lista de organizaciones terroristas del EEUU, sincronizado con la secuestra de Granda, puede ayudar en la creacion de evidencia imaginaria de una connecion entre las FARC y el Gobierno Bolivariano. Debemos pagar atencion, especialmente en consideracion de eses palabras de la macina de propaganda hecho por Condaleeza Rice este mañana. Queria empezar un dialogo con nuestr@s compas de Colombia, Venezuela, y todo América Latina sobre eso.

Bathtub gunboat bubbles

Submitted January 19, 2005 - 11:48 pm by Bill Conroy

Given the U.S. history of gunboat diplomacy in South America, Ron's warnings are very well merited.

But at least not everyone appears to be buying Rice and beans program in Congress.

As evidence, the following was released by the Venezuela Information Office today:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez became a prominent figure in the confirmation hearings of Condoleeza Rice this week, drawing the ire of a number of US Senators who pressed Rice to stop exacerbating the divide between the two nations and called for more consistency in US foreign policy.
SENATORS DEFEND VENEZUELA
While Rice repeatedly expressed her distain for a Chavez administration, calling it "unconstructive" to US interests in South America, Senate Democrats and Republicans alike took the opportunity to point out inconsistencies in US Foreign Policy and defend the sovereignty of Venezuela's democracy.
Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) took immediate issue with Rice's statements, commenting that improved relations are "a two-way street." Dodd pointed out the double standard between the US relationship with Venezuela and Brazil. Despite Brazilian President Luiz Ignacio 'Lula' da Silva taking similar stands as Chavez, Dodd noted, the State Department has found ways to collaborate with Brazil while isolating Venezuela. These sentiments were supported by other senators, ranging the ideological spectrum from Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to Norm Coleman (R-MN).
The most pointed comments came from Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee (RI). Chafee complained that Rice's negative stance toward Venezuela is driving a wedge between the US and an important trade partner and said that her animosity toward Chavez "seems disrespectful to the Venezuelan people -- they have spoken."

The Venezuela Information Office put together the following quotes from several U.S. Senators concerning Rice's anti-Boliviarian rhetoric:

Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), on the Senate Floor, January 18, 2005

“. . .after having just come back from South America and meeting with President Chavez, here he has been drawn before his people… [in]… a referendum. And as one of the people from our embassy said, he cleaned their clocks and kicked their butts. And it seems to me to say derogatory things about him may be disrespectful to him, but also to the Venezuelan people.”

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT), on the Senate Floor, January 18, 2005

Improved relations are “a two-way street, Dr. Rice. It requires we work on it as well. . .I can go back and show you a statement that President Lula [of Brazil] made that would compete with anything President Chavez has said. Yet we found a way to work with this new president. My strong suggestion is find ways to do this. Going back and repeating these statements over and over again only dig the hole deeper and deeper. And that's an important relationship. It's important in the hemisphere. We need to work at it. My hope is you will.”

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), on the Senate Floor, January 18, 2005

“As Senator Chafee points out, you praise Uribe[the President of Colombia] for democracy even though we were told at this conference that he's trying to pass a law which would forbid sitting governors and sitting senators from running against him, and you condemn the head of Venezuela, Chavez, after having the administration -- not you personally -- briefly praise a coup. And it wasn't until the OAS spoke up and said, well, wait a minute, that's wrong, then we backed off. So we really do need more consistency here.”

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) from Newshour, January 18, 2005

“I was less happy with what she [Condoleeza Rice] had to say about Venezuela. There was a bipartisan effort on the committee not to embrace Hugo Chavez but to take an opportunity to say "look maybe there's a chance here to have a real relationship." But she was absolutely rigid about it; she was absolutely unbending in willing to consider the possibility that we'd do better by somehow trying to engage with Venezuela through the people in that country, in particular, Hugo Chavez. So I was disappointed in that answer and I thought it was one of the weaker moments.”

Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN), on the Senate Floor, January 18, 2005

“I join with some of my colleagues believing that we need to find more common ground with Venezuela.”

So it appears the wool has not been pulled over the eyes of all the sheep.

Well, there are always exceptions. It seems the Washington Post still likes to play with its gunboat in the bathtub.

Again, from the Venezuela Information Office:

VENEZUELA & THE WASHINGTON POST

Despite the balanced perspective offered from members of the Senate, The Washington Post seems committed to promoting just one side of the Venezuelan story. This past weekend alone, the Post ran two separate opinion pieces targeting the Chavez administration (linked below).
In an editorial published last Friday, the Washington Post refers to President Chavez as "a disciple of Cuban President Fidel Castro" and criticizes US politicians who are interested in strengthening ties between the two countries.
Three days later, the Post ran an Op-Ed by columnist Jackson Diehl which went many steps further, openly pining for the days when United States was more "actively involved" in Central America and Chile. Mr. Diehl sits on the Post's editorial board.

We may have far more to fear from a yellow press than from any other source, as the truth has little to do with an agenda.

Time to mine the waters of the blogoshere, because the paper gunboats are out there, waiting to blow some more bubbles.

(The Post actually makes you register for this garbage, so the url links are included below as well, in case you're interested in taking a bath in some dirty water.)

Washington Post Editorial, "Venezuela's 'Revolution'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A808 8-2005Jan13.html

Washington Post Op-Ed, "Trouble in Our Back Yard"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A147 29-2005Jan16.html

Rice and Gunboats

Submitted January 21, 2005 - 12:24 pm by Ron Smith

Bill,

I think that what we see in the above quotes by the Venezuelan Information Office is a split within the elites. Much as we saw during the referendum, when push came to shove, Wall Street couldn't tolerate the possibility of utter chaos in one of the largest Oil Suppliers, and decided to back President Chavez as opposed to the unknown of an unnamed opposition candidate. I think we're seeing the same split in regards to US policy in Iraq, specifically with Bechtel unhappy about the bid free contracts for Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR. What the current US administration has shown is that it is willing to alienate powerful groups within the US in order to complete its own agenda. While I think that the opposition highlighted by the information office is positive, I think we have two precedents to consider, namely the caving of the Legislature in the decision to invade Iraq, and Iran-Contra, where when there was enough opposition from within, the Reagan administration simply circumvented the rest of the government in order to acheive its primary goal. In the case of Iran-Contra, the elimination of the threat of a good example of government in Nicaragua was far too important to allow democracy in the US to stand in the way. At this time, we in the US have a significantly less democratic society, and the target is not only a "threat of a good example", but it has oil. If we consider that Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela all have oil, it seems that in the minds of the maniacal Bush Policy planners, the target that makes the most sense, more so than even Iraq, is the elimination of an administration that seeks to achieve massive social change AND has petroleum reserves. That's a bad precedent if your concern is complete hegemony.

The neo-Monroe Doctrine

Submitted January 21, 2005 - 11:04 pm by Bill Conroy

Ron,

I think your analysis is right on. I'm under no illusions having dealt with the knuckleheads inside the Beltway that to them it's little more than a numbers game; right and wrong have very little to do with it.

But even the most resolute oligarch has to pause and note how the overt use of military force in Iraq backfired in terms of securing oil reserves or economic windfall, at least in the short-term, which is how capitalists measure such things. Now that they've had their fingers burned (even if they are too prideful to admit it), it's good to keep the heat turned up, and any voice -- even a politician's -- that serves that purpose is of some help.

I think co-opting, psyop and covert action are the more likely strategies to be employed in South America. And I have little doubt that such a plan is in the works in the smoke-filled backroom of the Bush league. That fits right in with the stealth gunboat diplomacy employed in recent decades by our "elected" knuckleheads -- in the sense of a "Contra" type off-the-shelf operation (whitewashed with a pack of lies and sold to the mainstream yes-press and distracted populace of this country).

As evidence of your point, the following site is a good representation of how the Monroe Doctrine continues to this day -- and arguably was extended globally in Bush's recent inaugural speech. So, again, I think your analysis is on the mark -- and any optimism I might have is rightly tempered by the grim realities you point out.

Monroe by Proxy

Submitted January 22, 2005 - 2:16 pm by Ron Smith

I think, in terms of Global hegemonic practices by the US, we have 2 different types of intervention programs operating simultaneously. In the Middle East: Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran or Syria next, (who's up for a macabre betting pool?), these are the typical empire-building direct interventions, a la Phillipines, Cuba, and Hawai'i. Then you have empire-building in the Américas, which has, certainly since the 1970's, taken the form of empire by proxy. Haiti is the prime example, as a paramilitary force is trained and supplied, then takes over, with a surprisingly high amount of assistance from the US, perhaps the US didn't have much faith in the FRAPH, they aren't all white after all. In Killing Hope,William Blum does an excellent job of listing the empire-by-proxy adventures of the US, the Nicaraguan contras are a prime example.

In the case of Venezuela, you have a perfect proxy state to the West, the narcostate. The Granda kidnapping illustrates perfectly Uribe's will to violate Venezuelan sovereignty. As diplomatic ties between Venezuela and Colombia steadily erode, the claims from Colombia are that Venezuela harbors terrorists, the usual pre-invasion propaganda. Colombia, then, provides the proxy and the plausible denial. Additionally, we have a case of "who's calling the shots." Uribe has his own agenda, and could very well be an architect of US policy in the Andes. How long did we really think an oligarchal administration, based on drugs, violence, and paramilitary activity, could tolerate a social revolution across its border?

Also of concern are the Venezuelan military participants in the kidnapping. The final piece of the puzzle is Venezuela's neighbor to the South, who with his targeting of Aristide supporters during the Brazilian leadership of the Haiti occupation, has shown himself more than willing to further the imperial agenda. With the Bush administration solidifying its foreign policy through the electoral win and recent inauguration, the window of opportunity is way open. That's what scares the living crap out of me.

Terrorist List

Submitted January 20, 2005 - 11:03 am by Teofilo Ballve

Ron, where did you find the information about the Tupumaros being on a terror list?

I tried searching for an updated list of foreign terrorist organizations, but could not find one. Maybe the U.S. government has lost count.

Tupumaros

Submitted January 20, 2005 - 9:49 pm by Ron Smith

I think Charlie may be able to help out on this one. I'll also contact my Venezuelan pals and see, but it was all over VTV, El Nacional, and other papers. I'll look tonight.

Tupamaro Controversy

Submitted January 21, 2005 - 11:59 am by Ron Smith

Well, what I've dug up so far, and it is difficult, with google news returning nothing, is that in Maracaibo state, the tupamaros are accused of violating private property, and using explosives. This news blurb is from El Nacional, Janary 1st, however, things heated up before I left. I will keep looking for info. I did find an article in Petroleum World characterizing the Tupamaros as violent armed thugs.

Sede regional del movimiento Tupamaro protesta contra orden de allanamiento
Un grupo de representantes del movimiento político Tupamaro se hizo presente en la sede del Ministerio Público de la ciudad de Maracaibo, para protestar contra la orden de allanamiento de sus instalaciones, por supuesto delito de hurto a la propiedad privada.
En el reporte de la televisora Globovisión, se pudo conocer que la coordinadora general de este movimiento pidió la rectificación del Ministerio Público, ante la orden emitida por la Fiscalía décima tercera. Los representantes aclararon que en la sede de los Tupamaros no existen explosivos, y sólo se encuentran elementos políticos y de formación social.

Language

Reporter's Notebook: Ron Smith