|
April 17, 2002
Brian Wood
Combing The Ruins of Jenin
George
Monbiot
Chemical
Coup: The CIA's Attempt to Undermine the UN's Weapon Inspector
for Iraq
Robert Fisk
Fear and Learning in America
April 16, 2002
Todd May
US
Should End Aid to Israel
Gabriel Ash
The Oilman, the General
and the Coup that Failed
Ron Jacobs
Wake
Up Some Mornin',
Find Your Own Self Dead:
The Chavez Coup
Brian Wood
Inside Jenin: Rubble and Decomposing
Bodies
Jack McCarthy
Citizen
Coup: The Times,
The Post and the Coup Plotters
Dave Marsh
Hymns: How I Got Through
Last Week
April 15, 2002
Susi Abeles
A
Field Trip to Jenin
Breyten Breytenbach
A Letter to Ariel Sharon:
"You Won't Break Them"
Gregory
Wilpert
CounterCoup
in Venezuela
Kristen Schurr
Amid the Rubble of Nablus
Jordy
Cummings
An
Open Letter to Abe Foxman
Christopher Reilly
The Media, the CIA
and the Chavez Coup
James
T. Phillips
"Homicide"
Bombers
April 14, 2002
William Blum
The CIA and Venezuela
David
Vest
A
Good Old-Fashion "Incursion"
Ralph Nader
General Motors:
Stuck in Reverse
M. Junaid
Alam
From
the Ashes: Palestinian Struggle for Freedom
Sam Bahour
Palestinians and Americans
April 13, 2002
Beth Daoud
Life
in the Ruins of Nablus
Patrick Cockburn
Bulldozing History:
The End Nears for Stalin's
Most Monstrous Hotel
Gregory
Wilpert
The
Coup in Venezuela:
an Eye-Witness Account
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
Thoughts on Our War
Against Terrorism
Anne Winkler-Morey
Why
I Didn't Organize
a Passover Seder This Year
April 12, 2002
Nancy Stohlman
Live from East Jerusalem:
International Nonviolence
Brian
J. Foley
Defeating
Evil
Olivier Audeoud
Did the US Break
the Laws of War?
Rep. Ron
Paul
The
Middle East Quagmire
Michael Colby
Republican Porn:
Oiling Up the Caribou
John Chuckman
Tom
Friedman's Fabrications
April 11, 2002
Patrick Cockburn
Battle of St. Petersburg Zoo
Jeff Halper
After
the Invasion:
Now What?
Falk / Krieger
Taming the Nuclear Monster
Steve
Perry
The
Good Life of
Nellie Stone Johnson
Nick Ring
Efficiency and Occupation:
Terrorism vs. Taylorism
Alexander
Cockburn
From
the West Bank to BBQ
to Old Sparky, And Beyond
April 10, 2002
M. Junaid Alam
Blaming the Victims:
Hating the Palestinians
George
Monbiot
World
Bank to West Bank
Fran Schor
US-Sponsored State Terror
David
Vest
Political
Color Schemes
Jack McCarthy
Florida State Radicals:
The Berkeley of the South
Rises Again
Doreen
Miller
A
Tale of Two Warring Tribes
Michael Neumann
Israelis and Indians
April 9, 2002
Bernard
Weiner
Colin
Powell's Table Talk
Matt Vidal
Thomas Friedman,
Another Wasted Pulitzer
Ron Jacobs
Buyer
Beware
Robert Jensen
I Helped Kill a Palestinian
Vijay
Prashad
Memories
of Barbarity:
Sharonism and September
Wayne Madsen
Anthrax and the Agency:
Thinking the Unthinkable
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published March 15, 2002
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The New Crusade:
America's War on Terrorism
By Rahul Mahajan
The Memphis Blues Again:
Six Decades of Memphis Music Photographs
Photos by Ernest Withers
Text by Daniel Wolff
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
April 17, 2002
Undermining
Latin American Democracy
Undoing Chavez
By Norman Madarasz
The recent coup in Venezuela shows that, in many
ways, it's only a secondary matter whether the CIA was informed_or
whether it was behind it (Newsweek.com,
April 15). Most Americans understand the subversive nature of
the CIA's agenda, as they recognize the existence of other secret
agencies linked to the government or sectors thereof. What seems
more important is that the W. Bush administration has now split
with the 'democracy' principle. A typical adjunct is how the
American press and media establishment follow suit by simply
not giving a damn.
In a remarkable twist of fate, deposed
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez returned to power early Sunday
morning, April 14. The turnabout occurred at the expense of over
40 lives in Saturday's anti-coup protest riots in Caracas. These
events led the military leaders to force the resignation of interim
president, Pedro Carmona Estanga, the head of Venezuela's most
important business association. He is virtually the CEO of CEOs.
Carmona lost favor not only with the
population, but with his fellow junta partners as he dissolved
the (unicameral) National Assembly and Supreme Tribunal of Justice,
acts akin to assuming dictatorial powers. Consequently, Chavez
was reinstated and sworn in once again as Venezuela's legitimately
elected civilian president. The turnabout was so sudden that
in his return address he complained about not having had time
enough to reflect on events and write some poetry.
No matter what one's personal opinion
of Chavez is he remains the democratically elected president
of Venezuela, a full-fledged member of the Organization of American
States. Moreover, Venezuela is a member-state of OPEC, over which
one of its ministers, Ali Rodrigues, currently presides. But
judging by what Latin America analysts from the New York Times
and Washington Post have to say, the democratic legitimacy to
his rule might just as well be irrelevant.
We've justifiably come to expect newspapers,
especially articles penned by pundits, to be a forum for the
free expression of opinion. Face it, we love to hate reading
the fabrications and misrepresentations of our journalist and
analyst counterparts when what they issue can't be distinguished
from doublespeak. What has always been far less acceptable is
when the State Department is shaped into a pulpit of propaganda
and disinformation. Consider the State Department's initial reaction
to the coup. As reported by the Washington Post, Ari Fleischer
spoke of the events that led to Chavez's imprisonment and the
dissolving of the legislative assembly merely as a case of him
'losing his job'. Fleischer is also reported to have said that
Chavez's undoing was something he brought himself as he tried
to suppress peaceful demonstrations, ordered its supporters to
fire on unarmed protesters and blocked media broadcasts of the
events_all of which have been contested.
Were the Bush government to appeal their
misevaluation to flaws in its information supply, an alert public
would then be entitled to ask why, with all the money spent on
intelligence gathering, does it continue to be so ill-informed.
Far less patient with official excuses, skeptics spot direct
government complicity with the way the events unfolded. As eyewitnesses
claim, there was shooting from a number of different sources
on the day of the coup. But those shown on images broadcast the
world over of men firing at the crowd from an advantageous position
on an upper-level terrace happen not to be Chavez supporters.
Just another flaw in the picture-medium we all know to be incapable
of lies.
As the demonstration turned violent,
the media had by then reportedly come under the control of the
anti-Chavez clan. Which makes Mr. Fleischer's claims not only
absurd, but completely misleading. Chavez's tolerance and abidance
by the principles of free speech have been a constant until,
that is, different seditious groups began calling for the government
to be toppled. Any radio or television station in the world is
forced to comply by law with the illegal nature of broadcasting
sedition. When Chavez interfered with the media days before the
demonstration, it was already too late. Who was controlling them
on the day Chavez was brought down is not Fleisher's concern.
Nor is it worth it for him to subsequently specify, as regards
Chavez's alleged human rights violations, that there were at
least twice as many deaths committed on Saturday by security
forces answering to the interim 'president' and his military
backers than there were during Friday's demonstrations by Chavez
forces.
What appears to have happened is the
following. In Chavez's most spectacular move in his policy of
reshuffling the country's economic controllers, he replaced the
administrative heads of the Venezuelan national oil company.
Venezuela is the third oil supplier to the US, surpassed only
by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. His controversial decision provoked
the ire of oil industry managers and professionals, who are among
the most privileged group in the population. A large protest
was set for the end of last week and ended by halting exports
of oil, if only momentarily, to the US. Given that supplier number-four,
Iraq, had just decided to stop exporting oil a week earlier as
protest of American support for Israel in their war against the
Palestinians, Chavez's decision can only seem ill-timed, if not
a misguided provocation.
The ease and discipline with which the
interim junta was brought to power should indicate that the coup
had been planned for a considerable amount of time. As Chavez
has criticized the US in spectacular fashion, and has defiantly
befriended its most dreaded enemies, it's little wonder that
the US Embassy in Caracas was aware of the conspiracy. As for
the conspirators, they knew very well that neighboring Latin
American countries would unequivocally reject any grounds for
a coup. Not only does the world have to deal with the unilateralist
track record of the current American government on everything
dealing from protecting the environment to economic protectionism,
now we get the painfully clear recurrence of America's arbitrary
position on international democracy. Iraq may have been presented
as an exception. Now, it seems, it's time for the rule.
What we in the North should notice is
the tone of the OAS's denunciation, lest we become complicit
again to criminal behavior on our governments' part. A coup d'Etat
is a betrayal of democracy, and suspending its institutions is
a crime against our political morality, no matter who the leader
should be. Furthermore, if the American administration favors
the act of toppling leaders it perceives as distasteful, then
its implications ought to apply at home. According to such criteria,
the democratic grounds by which George W. Bush won the recent
elections stand open to doubt again, and the principles according
to which his cabinet pleads for secrecy in its internal affairs
casts suspicion fully and rightfully over it.
Brazil's president Fernando Henrique
Cardoso has stood out among leaders in his immediate condemnation
of the coup. On Friday, he issued a strong-worded declaration
to the press stating that there could be no justification to
undermining the institutions of a democracy. In fact, Latin American
leaders have been so swift in their collective denunciation of
the coup, it has taken Washington aback. It could still be heard
in the voice of National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice,
as she refused to name it as such on Sunday's 'Meet the Press'.
On Saturday, as Larry Rohter the NY Times
Americas analyst, was casting doubt on the real commitment to
democracy by Latin American leaders, the OAS had negotiators
already dispatched to Caracas ("A Vicious Circle: Failures
and Instability", April 13, 2002). Through a sleight-of-hand
that can only be called disinformation, Mr. Rohter places the
Venezuelan coup on the same level as the dramatic changes coming
about in Argentina, Equator and Peru. Little of the failed Venezuelan
coup can be placed on the same level as the popular revolt in
Argentina that toppled president De la Rua. As the Argentine
peso edged toward devaluation, any observer with the slightest
sense for spotting difference, could see the revolt was in favor
of MORE democracy, and not toward the dictatorial powers assumed
by the Venezuelan junta.
The Argentine popular revolt sought reparation
for the siphoning of national wealth from State coffers. Whereas
the revolt against Chavez aimed, by diverted means, at securing
the nation's wealth for the corporate elite. As for deposed Peruvian
president, Alberto Fugimori, who is wanted by Peruvian justice
on an extradition charge related to corruption, he may have been
"forced" from office, in Rohter's words, though the
fact remains he refused to concede defeat to president-elect
Toledo. And Colombia, despite how well its democratic institutions
are functioning via US military aid_the country being the third
largest taker after Israel and Egypt_has been at war for 35 years.
Hardly part of a recent trend, then.
What's more, the picture drawn by Rohter
completely elides Brazil. Its democratic institutions have been
working with increased efficiency since the late 1980s, following
25 years of military dictatorship. Presidential elections are
set for this fall. For once, corruption scandals are being exposed
during the election campaign, instead of letting the population
pay for them after instatement.
Rohter's commentary the day after the
coup stuns the mind even more: "Fear of Loss of Democracy
Led Neighbors to Aid Return" (NY Times, April 14). In a
newspaper awarded Pulitzer Prizes for its coverage of 9/11, to
whose "accuracy" distinguished Oxford/Stanford Professor
Timothy Garton Ash recently endowed laurels, here we have a journalist
intimating that there's something wrong in upholding the virtues
of democracy. There's nothing surprising in how the OAS has defended
the democratic institutions of Venezuela and the man elected
by the people to preside over them. Even less that this support
comes from countries having crossed years of terror, with loss
of life counted in the tens of thousands. The historical awareness
inherited by their democratic leaders is that of the loss of
an entire generation of politically active opposition critics.
Their courage ran head first into the refusal by the ruling business
and landowning oligarchies, often with US support and aid, to
develop the education, health and industrial infrastructure in
countries such as Argentina, Chile, Brazil_and Venezuela.
These countries, and among them Venezuela,
have risen to show that their opposition powers are far from
wiped out. When the population summons for the respect of democratic
principles, it has little to do with a game, in respect of which
Ms. Rice has tried to credit Hugo Chavez with merely being a
lucky player.
Still, despite the renewal of America's
claims over Latin America politics, Hugo Chavez's position has
to be carefully appraised. As does the jeopardy in which his
explosive confrontational style places the young thriving democracies
of the Southern American Hemisphere.
In light of this, it's still pertinent
to ask who the man posing in front of a Simon Bolivar "The
Liberator" portrait really is. By now, it should be known
that he's the former military commander who, after orchestrating
a failed coup in 1992, was elected president in 1998 on a populist
reformist platform, dubbed the "Bolivar Revolution".
He was reelected in 2000, as part of referendum on the new constitution
passed by the legislature in December 1999, which he was instrumental
in promoting. His current term was supposed to give him executive
and legislative leeway until 2006. His aim has been to answer
calls for the reform of Venezuela's economic structure and provide
increased opportunity for this country that lives essentially
on revenues from the petroleum sector.
These revenues are enormous, for Venezuela
is the second producer of crude oil in the world. Nonetheless
it is estimated that half of its population of 24m lives well
below the poverty line, while an additional one-third lives from
the 'informal' economy. Its formal economy is controlled by scores
of powerful families, whose interests the conspiring president,
Carmona, stood up to serve. More than a quarter of the population
is without work, and, worse, without prospect, as Venezuela's
enormous crude oil wealth is invested anywhere but in the country's
industrial infrastructure. Once again, in agreement with Washington's
beliefs, one need not move outside of one's own country to condemn
globalization. We can do it in Brazil, France, Canada or in the
US itself. However, when a country may want to turn complaint
into counter-policy, Washington hammers in to show why it's not
worth putting it into practice.
Exports from Venezuela's petroleum sector
dominates the economy, accounting roughly for a third of its
$146 billion GDP, and more than half of government operating
revenues. Growth of the economy has been estimated at 3.2% in
2000. In view of such satisfactory results, the fact that recession
was still afflicting the domestic economy while the world's was
thriving overall suggests that capital flight is a serious problem,
without even pointing to the country's extremely weak nonoil
sector. Recall also that Venezuela suffered terrible hardship
subsequent to massive flooding and landslides in December 1999,
which caused an estimated $15 to $20 billion in damage.
When considering change the question
is what type of leaders can skillfully bring them about. Within
Washington itself, few of them abound. If they exist in Latin
America, the best among them are doing their work and keeping
a low profile. No one benefits from the Bonapartist-style charismatic
leader: not the country, not the disenfranchised, not the aspiring
and educated middle classes utterly frustrated with changeless
decades enforced by military and economic crackdowns, aided by
the North whenever reform is seriously on the agenda. The risk
at which Chavez puts his neighbors can lead even the most diplomatic
of leaders, such as Brazil's Cardoso, to publicly question his
good sense.
Since the return of democracy to Latin
America, leaders elected on reformist platforms have chosen the
subtle non-confrontational approach. No matter what perceptions
are of the actions undertaken by the US on the continent throughout
the 20th century, and how reticent they are to being locked into
'free' trade agreements, many leaders understand that it does
not pay to criticize the US publicly. Chavez may be playing up
his strengths vis-a-vis the Venezuelan population by holding
diplomatic ties with Saddam Hussein and Mohamar Khadaffi. Through
his friendships, he takes on their tyrannical, dictatorial air.
In the end, they do the region, not to
mention his own country, a great disservice. As learned from
the deposition and murder of Salvador Allende, Chile's former
democratically elected president, support from progressive thinkers,
writers, and states, is not enough when trying to fend off on-coming
terror. To make matters more complicated, Chavez's political
moves represent some of the deviations of the diehard Latin American
Marxist Left, caught between violent exclusion and economic opportunism.
In the eyes of the Western media, Chavez's
moment of glory came from a front-page elegy in the French monthly,
Le Monde diplomatique in October 1999. Though skeptical regarding
the international acceptance of Chavez's projects, Ignatio Ramonet
profusely cited the Venezuelan leader, hailing him for "taking
a distance from the neoliberal (economic) model and resisting
globalization." Still, Ramonet described him in uncertain
terms, already highlighting his unpredictable nature and charismatic
eccentricities.
With the passing of the new constitution
in December 1999, and the series of laws on land reform, Chavez
may have been inching toward solid reforms. However, Emir Sader
argues in the Jornal do Brasil (April 15, 2002) that the tide
had begun to turn for Chavez. With recession in the North American
economy bringing crude prices down, matched with the breakdown
in cooperation with the country's business elite, Chavez was
confronted with unregulated flight of capital and factory lockouts.
As outside observers, our policy position
can only be one of caution. The junta who held power for little
over a day has strong backing from the oil sector, as well as
some divisions in the military. Their action must be condemned
as a crime against democracy on the same scale as was the coup
attempted against Mikhail Gorbachev in the USSR in 1991. The
coup ought to be seen in the perspective of the desire by the
business elite to privatize the national oil company, which would
ultimately seal the fate of reform hopes well into Venezuela's
future.
This is why, contrary to what the US
is demanding, the conspirators ought to be brought to justice,
and information must be gathered as to how the junta was organized
and what led to the coup. The trial should be observed by international
NGOs, open as well to representatives of the US government. Afterward,
and afterward only, a full presidential pardon should be given.
For Chavez needs to seek reconciliation with the conspirators.
Despite initial appearances, due to Carmona's subsequent decision
to assume dictatorial powers, there was little unity in the junta.
Chavez will seize upon this fact to build on the dissentions
so as to avoid the irreversible consequences another coup would
involve.
These steps seem to be cautious ones,
aimed at upholding justice and seeking conciliation with the
business community. No one ought to give sway to dreaming profusely
here. Whenever economic reform in Latin American states was successfully
undertaken in fighting poverty and corruption, creating new industries
and jobs, and, foremost, distributing wealth into improved education
and health programs through broader and more efficient taxation
schemes, the reaction of successive US governments and its multilateral
financial arms, the IMF and World Bank, has been far from laudatory.
These infrastuctural strategies are among the most pressing challenges
to improving its struggling economies, though Latin America has
only met them with mitigated success. The frustration ensued
from running into these obstacles, which can be felt in the flare-up
of uncontrollable urban violence, has indeed brought Latin America
into the greatest political fragility it has seen in thirty years.
Canadian philosopher and political analyst,
Norman Madarasz lives in Rio de Janeiro. He has edited
and translated Alain
Badiou's Manifesto for Philosophy, available at SUNY
Press. He welcomes comments at: n_madarasz@hotmail.com
.
|