Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

A Manufactured Crisis

Venezuela is Not Occupy

by ROGER D. HARRIS

With demonstrating students in the streets confronting state security forces, the recent unrest and violence in Venezuela superficially bears a resemblance to the Occupy Movement that began in New York City’s Zuccotti Park on September 2011. But there the similarity ends.

Manufactured Crisis

The overwhelming character of Occupy was its spontaneity, unpredictability, and certainly its independence from corporate or government influence. Occupy appealed to and was supported by the disposed and marginalized. The Venezuelan unrest has been the opposite. Building on genuine popular discontent in an already highly polarized context, the recent violence in Venezuela has all the elements of a manufactured crisis.

To find a script for the violence to come in Venezuela, one need only go to the Brookings Institute’s January 23rd memo1 to President Obama suggesting “inciting a violent popular reaction” could “oust the radicals and president.” In the polite doublespeak of the Washington consensus, the memo deplores violence at the same time it welcomes its possibilities including a “traditional coup” in Venezuela.

The source of this memo is not a fringe right-wing nut-shop. The Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institute is funded in major part by the U.S. government and is ranked as the most influential think tank in the U.S. and in the world.2 Some 98% of Brookings’s employees’ political donations went to Democrats.3 The positions of the Brookings Institute are generally considered reflective of official U.S. policy, which is to achieve regime change in Venezuela despite the democratic will of its people.

Sabotage by the Wealthy

Venezuela is experiencing serious problems: rampant inflation, scarcities of basic consumer goods such as toilet paper, and one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world. Crime and consumer product shortages are complex problems deeply rooted in Venezuela’s history and the predominant role of oil in its economy. Neither President Chavez nor President Maduro’s governments have been fully able to resolve these problems; both committed missteps as well as had their efforts blunted by individual corruption within state agencies. But in major part, the Venezuelan people have been victims of deliberate sabotage by elite domestic elements backed by the U.S. Unlike the under-funded Occupy Movement, the opposition in Venezuela has enjoyed hundreds of millions of U.S. aid dollars according to WikiLeaks documents.4

Unlike the militantly leaderless Occupy Movement, the Venezuelan opposition is headed most prominently by the U.S. prep school and Harvard educated Leopoldo Lopez, a scion of one of Venezuela’s wealthiest families. Ditto for Maria Corina Machado, who founded the non-profit Sumate, a major recipient of U.S. regime-change funding.5 Or take retired General Angel Vivas who tweeted instructions to opposition followers on how to “neutralize the criminal hordes” by stringing taut wire across roads, which could (and has) decapitated people.

Municipal Elections as a Plebiscite

Far from spontaneous, what triggered the current unrest in Venezuela have not been upticks in crime, inflation, and shortages of consumer goods. Under the leadership of President Maduro, there have been modest improvements in some of these indices (though there is a long way to go). Rather the December 8th municipal elections in Venezuela were a significant precipitating factor. The opposition had touted the upcoming elections as a popular plebiscite that would condemn the Maduro government and Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution. And indeed the elections proved to be a mandate, but not as the opposition hoped. The government party won by a landslide of over 70% of the municipalities.

Defeated electorally, the more right-wing elements in the opposition implemented a strategy of fomenting violence to provoke a government over-reaction which could then be used as an excuse to call in outside assistance from the U.S. and its allies with the hope of overthrowing the democratically elected government.

This strategy of deliberately provoking violence is backfiring on the opposition. More moderate elements in the opposition, such as former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles, have broken with the more militant right and have criticized them. Even more telling is that the violence has almost entirely been perpetrated by the rich and middle-class and contained in their own neighborhoods.

The majority poor and working class people, although suffering from the current economic and security problems, continue to support the Bolivarian government. The majority of the Venezuelan people see their elected government as the solution not the cause of the difficulties as shown in recent public opinion polls.

U.S. Congress Got It Wrong

It comes as no surprise that one of the most bellicose reactionary members of the U.S. Congress, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) sponsored a resolution condemning the Venezuelan government and accusing it of promoting violence, eroding democracy, and engaging in political intimidation. The resolution urges the U.S. State Department to work with other countries and the Organization of American States (OAS) to intervene in the international affairs of Venezuela. (Unlike Occupy, where the neo-conservatives in the U.S. never suggested that there was a need for international intervention on behalf of the beleaguered Occupiers.)

The response of the U.S. House of Representatives was sobering and reflective of the military bent of the Washington consensus. On March 4, House Resolution 488 was approved by a nearly unanimous 393 in favor and only one dissenting vote from a Republican congressman from Kentucky. The entire progressive caucus from California fell in line behind the resolution. Now both Democrats and Republicans in a bipartisan effort are considering sanctions against the sovereignty of Venezuela.

As shown by the lead-up to the Iraq War, Congressional resolutions such as this can pave the way for future U.S. aggression. The distortions by Representatives who should know better need to be directly challenged. Ask your Representative why, in the recent words of a Colombian commentator, “Venezuela is an odd country, the only place where the rich protest and the poor celebrate.” And demand that they renounce their vote and let the Venezuelans solve their own problems without the meddling of the U.S.

Roger D. Harris is president of the Task Force on the Americas a 29-year-old human rights organization that works in solidarity with the social justice movements of Latin America.

1 http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/ 014/01/venezuela-breaks-down-violence-trinkunas. See also the quasi-governmental Council on Foreign Relations Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 16 (http://www.cfr.org/venezuela/political-unrest-venezuela/p28936).

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution

3 Kurtzleben, U.S. News & World Report, March 3, 2011

4 Lovato, March 7, 2014, Aljazeera America

5 http://laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=10717&ArticleId=196875