|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Betrayal and Redemption in Venezuela |
Current rating: 0 |
by Dan Chambers
Email: dschambers77 (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified!)
Address: 218 W. Main St. Urbana |
15 Apr 2002
|
|
Overview of what's happened in Venezuela. Neither fair nor balanced, just my view, corroborated by the available information. |
Within one weekend the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, was forced out of government by a coalition of the army, business community, and old guard unions, and stunningly, returned to power amid protests by other Latin American states. How did the president, elected on a platform promising change for Venezuela's poor masses, fall from grace so hard?
During a general strike planned in collusion between unions the president regarded as corrupt and the business leaders of the oil industry, a dozen people were killed. Chavez' opposition used this tragedy as ammunition, claiming that Chavez had armed his supporters to fire on the demonstrators. Commentator Gregory Wilpert, who was there on the scene, noted that who started the conflict was impossible to tell. Unfortunately for Chavez, it has gone unreported in Venezuela, and apparently unnoticed by the Bush administration that the dead were all Chavez supporters. The Venezuelan private media, all vehemently opposed to Chavez' policies, have relentlessly run footage of the carnage without properly attributing the true victims, according to Wilpert, who describes the media as being owned by the oligarchy. This same media has apparently excluded all coverage of pro-Chavez demonstrations, while continuously giving air to the opposition. This atmosphere is what led to Chavez shutting down the private media. Previous presidents like Carlos Andres Perez dealt with the media by buying them up.
In a statement released on Sunday ,Strategic Forecasts, a private intelligence firm staffed by ex-CIA members, concluded that the US government had played a role in the coup, remarking that "several human sources told STRATFOR that the US State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency may have had a hand in the tumultuous events that resulted in the removal of Hugo Chavez." STRATFOR also noted that Chavez could strengthen his own political base at home and abroad by proving such a connection, especially in light of this country's long history of overthrowing governments it deems unfriendly in Latin America. Further proof of Washington's involvement in the coup may be found in the April 13 copy of the Washington Post, which reported that the elites behind the coup were actively seeking America's help. They need not have worried.
Chavez' presidency has so far been characterized by its consistent commitment of programs which benefit the poor, its criticism of neoliberal trade agreements favored by the US government, and its cozy relations with Cuba, that perennial hobgoblin of American foreign policy in this region. Other Latin American presidents have found Chavez' policies distasteful, and even more so his support for groups like the FARC in Colombia. He has so far managed to provide education for over a million poor children and has doubled funding for education; he has joined OPEC, much to the dismay of the Bush Administration, which guarantees a better a price for Venezuelan oil (the New York Times today noted that markets were once again "nervous" over this prospect). Chavez has reduced official unemployment from 18% to 13%, he has introduced a micro-credit program to benefit poor entrepreneurs and women, lowered the infant mortality rate and reduced tax evasion. These facts have been absent in stories released by the New York Times and the Washington Post, but would be the most important to the majority of Venezuela's population
It therefore comes as no surprise that from the outset of his election he has been held at arm's length by the US government. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice admonished Chavez for dealing with his people in a highhanded fashion, and also for concocting policies that don't benefit the people. Which people Rice was referring to must have been the business-military alliance that helped topple him in the first place. The White House released a statement today advising the President of Venezuela to govern in a "fully democratic manner."
Chavez was restored to power by a coalition of Latin American states acting through the Organization of American States which threatened sanctions, and the refusal to recognize Pedro Carmona, a business leader and the man who replaced Chavez, as the head of the government. After taking office, Carmona dissolved the national assembly, and fired the Supreme Court and many high-ranking government officials, moves that concerned Eduardo Duhalde, president of Argentina. He said it was "not good news for the Americas when military coups once again overthrow governments elected by their people." Carmona's support within the military soon collapsed, especially in light of his naming the accused plotter behind the coup, Hector Ramirez, to the defense minister's post. In addition, labor groups that had been part of the coup held no positions in the new government, and neither did other left parties that opposed Chavez' presidency. This information is corroborated by Wilpert's reports that the coup was almost immediately hijacked by right wingers within Venezuela, and this led to the collapse of the coup. Wilpert also points out that any predictions that Chavez had no popular support or support from the military were Bay of Pigs type delusions.
Since his return to office, Chavez has for his part, refused to unduly punish the people who removed him from power, saying only that the country needs to heal, and his new direction will foster that. His vice president Diosdado Cabello has promised that all involved, including military officials, will be tried in a court of law and be given their due rights.
|