Annual Fundraising Appeal

Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from Chris Hedges….

Hedges2

Chris Hedges calls CounterPunch “the most fearless, intellectually rigorous and important publication in the United States.” Who are we to argue? But the only way we can continue to “dissect the evils of empire” and the “psychosis of permanent war” is with your financial support. Please donate.

Day8

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….)

paypal-donate-21

Don’t want to donate through PayPal?
Then click here to donate through our secure server.

 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

Alienating Latin America

Obama Administration Faces Diplomatic Isolation on Venezuela

by OLIVER STONE and MARK WEISBROT

The Bush administration had a stated policy of trying to isolate Venezuela from its neighbors, and the strategy ended up isolating Washington instead. President Obama, in his first meeting with hemispheric leaders in Trinidad in 2009, promised to turn a new page. But today, his administration finds itself even more isolated that that of his predecessor, and for much the same reasons.

Exhibit A was the lopsided vote at the Organization of American States (OAS) on Venezuela on March 7. Twenty-nine of 32 countries not only rejected Washington’s attempt to get the OAS to intervene in Venezuela, but to add insult to injury, passed a resolution expressing their solidarity with the government of President Nicolás Maduro. It is hard to imagine a more resounding diplomatic defeat in a body where the U.S. government still has quite a disproportionate influence.

The Obama administration seems surrealistically unaware that this is a very different hemisphere than it was 15 years ago. Governments representing the majority of Latin America are now from the left: including Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Venezuela in South America; El Salvador and Nicaragua in Central America. These governments emphatically reject Washington’s depiction of the recent events in Venezuela as a government trying to “repress peaceful protesters.” If we look at the statements of these governments and bodies such as the South American trading bloc Mercosur and the Union of South American Nations, they share Maduro’s view of the protests. They see them as an attempt to overthrow a democratically-elected government. Even President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, who is reluctant to criticize Washington as many of the others do, used the word “destabilization” to describe the protests. And they see that Washington is once again using its muscle to support this effort.

They have seen this movie before. In 2002, the Bush administration “provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the military coup” that briefly overthrew then-President Hugo Chávez, according to the State Department [PDF]. After the coup failed, Washington stepped up funding to opposition groups, which has continued to this day.

These leaders respect Maduro and have every reason to believe him when he says he is trying to prevent violence. The government has arrested at least 21 security officers so far. Despite crimes committed by individual security officers, there is no evidence that Maduro’s administration has intended to use violence to repress dissent. Since the protests began, most of the deaths associated with them have been at the hands of protesters, not security forces.

Ecuador and Bolivia also faced violent protests when right-wing forces similar to those leading the opposition in Venezuela tried to topple their governments in 2008 and 2010, respectively. South America, led by Brazil, rallied to their cause in these cases. They did the same for Venezuela in April when people were killed (in that case almost all Chavistas) in demonstrations against Maduro’s election victory. There, too, they saw Washington on the wrong side, pouring fuel on the flames by refusing to recognize the results of a democratic election that were completely certain. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and her still well-loved predecessor, Lula da Silva, denounced U.S. “interference.”

The Obama administration’s manipulation of the OAS in the aftermath of the 2009 military coup in Honduras – to help legitimize the dictatorship — spurred the rest of the region to form a new hemispheric organization, CELAC, without the U.S. and Canada. True to form, it was only the U.S. and Canada, joined by the right-wing government of Panama that objected to the March 7 resolution.

The rest of the hemisphere is going to oppose any attempt by the U.S. to put a relatively small number of protesters led by right-wing politicians on an equal footing with a democratically-elected government – which is similar to what Washington did when it arranged “mediation” between the Honduran dictatorship and the democratically-elected government it overthrew in 2009. The region sees Washington as trying to de-legitimize the government of Venezuela, thereby encouraging violence and destabilization.

If the Obama administration wants to improve its relations with the region, it could start by joining the rest of the hemisphere in accepting the results of democratic elections.

Oliver Stone is a director, screenwriter, and producer. He has won numerous Academy Awards for his work on such iconic films as Platoon, Wall Street, JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, Natural Born Killers, and Nixon.

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and co-writer of Oliver Stone’s documentary “South of the Border.” He is also President of Just Foreign Policy (www.justforeignpolicy.org).

This article originally appeared in the Boston Globe.