What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
How to Spot a Police
Spy
Is it the
guy who asks you after the meeting about how the antiwar movement
needs to get "serious" and asks you lots of questions
about terrorism and "fighting back"? Jennifer Van Bergen
reports, first-hand. Part
2 of our series on what really happened on 9/11/2001: the physics
of collapse, and how not to make a "pancake" by Manuel
Garcia, PLUS Engineer Pierre Sprey on why "controlled demolition"
theories are off target.What
you just missed, but can still get, in our last newsletter: Paul
Craig Roberts on the Collapse of America. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are
funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch.
Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation towards the cost of this online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
I was hoping to use this space to include
content that will not fit in columns or op-eds that the mainstream
press runs. Below is a column I wrote that ran during the past
week in a number of US newspapers. It provides some background,
missing from almost all press coverage, about why President Hugo
Chavez might see George W. Bush as "the Devil:" namely,
the Bush administration's involvement in the 2002 military coup
that briefly overthrew Venezuela's democratic government, and
the administration's continued intervention inside Venezuela,
to this day.
Why is this so important? To
readers of CounterPunch it is obvious that this should be the
starting point and the number one piece of background information
in every news article about the sorry state of U.S.-Venezuelan
relations. It is hard to imagine any more important set of facts
that would explain this problem. Yet these basic facts are almost
never mentioned. The Economist's description in its September
30 issue is typical of most reporting on this issue:
"Though Mr. Chavez blames
the United States for a failed coup against him in 2002, the
evidence suggests that the administration merely failed to condemn
it."
Below the column I have pasted
a letter that was sent to The Economist explaining and
documenting why this statement is wrong and misleading.
One of the things that happens
when there is a systematic distortion of this type in the media
(as opposed to day-to-day errors) is that it becomes increasingly
difficult over time to reverse it, as journalists feel they have
to write what everyone else is writing. I have written the facts
about this issue in dozens of U.S. newspapers, stated them on
national TV (e.g. CNN) and radio, and I often have had to argue
with editors who think that it can't be true since hardly anyone
else is saying it (although the New York Times did have
a good article about it, cited below; and sometimes good reporters
try to write about it but are blocked by their editors).
This dynamic holds true for
many issues that I have written about (mostly economic issues)
over the last decade. It is especially challenging with regard
to economic issues, where reporters and editors often do not
feel confident enough in their own knowledge of the subject matter
to challenge systematic distortions, even where the data accepted
by the economics profession is enough to clarify the issue. (For
a daily and highly informative and educational review of these
distortions, see my colleague Dean Baker's blog "Beat the
Press".)
I think it is a good thing
for readers to write to reporters, editors, and even publishers
to correct important errors and omissions whenever they can.
After all, if the press had simply done its job in the lead-up
to the Iraq war, it might never have happened. --MW
This column ran in the Kansas City Star (MO), Monterey County
Herald (CA), Charlotte Observer (NC), and Augusta Chronicle (GA)
on October 8 and 9.
Bush Administration
Has Done Much to Provoke Hostility at UN By Mark Weisbrot
Hugo Chavez's speech at the
United Nations in New York two weeks ago ignited a firestorm
of indignation from politicians, TV pundits, and editorial writers
that has yet to be extinguished. The president of Venezuela referred
to President Bush as "the Devil" and warned the world
about the threat of the "American empire."
It's too bad that these same
people who were outraged by Chavez's speech were not so offended
by the Bush administration's support for a military coup against
Chavez's democratically elected government in 2002. Although
Chavez's language was undiplomatic, a military coup that abolishes
another country's constitution, Supreme Court and elected Congress
is considerably less diplomatic. But almost all of the voices
loudly denouncing Chavez were silent - or worse, supportive -
when democracy was temporarily overthrown in Venezuela.
The U.S. State Department has
stated that "U.S. assistance programs provided training,
institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations
understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the
Chavez government." The CIA has released documents showing
that the Bush Administration had advance knowledge of the coup;
but the White House and State Department lied about the events,
claiming it was not a coup at all, in an effort to help it succeed.
The Bush Administration claims
that it is not currently funding efforts to topple Venezuela's
government, but it is pouring millions of dollars into organizations
within the country and won't divulge where this money is going.
So Chavez can hardly be blamed
for seeing President Bush as a threat to democracy and the sovereignty
of nations. So, too, does most of the world, as was evidenced
by the hearty and sustained applause that his speech received
from the UN delegates.
More powerful evidence will
be seen on October 16: despite intense lobbying, threats, and
bribing from the Bush Administration, the majority of countries
will vote to have Venezuela represent Latin America on the UN
Security Council. The United States is backing Guatemala, a country
with a long history of horrific human rights abuses.
And yet Chavez is not anti-American,
as the media describe him. While in New York he announced that
Venezuelan-owned Citgo would more than double the number of US
low-income households - already in the hundreds of thousands
last winter - that would receive heating oil at discounts of
up to 40 percent this year.
"Citgo Petroleum and Venezuela
have stepped up to the plate to help people worried about freezing
in their own homes this winter," said Brian O'Connor of
Citizens' Energy Corp. in Boston.
It was not the United States
or Americans that Chavez railed against in his speech, but "the
empire," and he was careful to make that distinction. "What
kind of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?"
he asked.
Many millions of Americans
are asking the same question: they do not think that the United
States should invade other countries or try to rule the world.
And we are paying a high price for such efforts, especially in
Iraq, where more than 2,700 US soldiers have been killed and
more than $380 billion wasted.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN John
Bolton responded to Chavez's speech by lamenting that the Venezuelan
president didn't give the "same freedom of speech"
that he had just exercised to Venezuelans. Conservative TV talk
show host John McLaughlin made fun of Bolton's ignorance: "Well,
Ambassador Bolton, maybe they already have freedom of speech."
Indeed they do, with the most anti-government media in the hemisphere.
The Bush administration seeks
to de-legitimize Venezuela, both to weaken Chavez's criticism
and to justify its intervention there. The media often contribute
to this effort. But Venezuela remains a democracy, even if Washington
doesn't like what its elected president has to say.
* *
*
Letter recently
written to the Economist:
Dear Louise,
I am writing to request a correction
to an article in the latest issue of the Economist (dated September
30). In the article "The world according to Chavez; Venezuela
and the United States," the author wrote:
"Though Mr. Chavez blames
the United States for a failed coup against him in 2002, the
evidence suggests that the administration merely failed to condemn
it."
This is not correct, and merits
a correction.
First, according to the U.S.
State Department's Office of Inspector General,
"it is clear that NED [the National Endowment for Democracy],
Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs
provided training, institution building, and other support to
individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved
in the brief ouster of the Chavez government." [1]
Second, and even more importantly,
the Bush Administration had advance knowledge of the coup but
then lied about it when it occurred, claiming that it was not
a coup at all, in an attempt to make it succeed. This is a form
of involvement. To take an analogy: imagine that someone tells
me that they are going to kill someone, and then does so. He
then claims self-defense. If I then go to the police, with full
knowledge that the crime was planned, and say that it was self-defense,
I am participating in the crime. In that sense, then, Washington
was a participant in the attempted coup.
During the April 16, 2002 White
House press briefing, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated
that the U.S. government had no prior knowledge of a pending
coup in Venezuela: "events were combustible, events were
fluid. Those events were not anticipated."[2]
However, an April 6, 2002 CIA Senior Intelligence Brief lays
out that "[d]issident military factions, including some
disgruntled senior officers and a group of radical junior officers,
are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President
Chavez, possibly as early as this month To provoke military action,
plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations
slated for later this month or ongoing strikes at the state-owned
oil company PDVSA." [3] Intelligence briefs such as this
one are typically read by as many as 200 officials in the Bush
Administration.
Earlier, a March 11, 2002 CIA Senior Intelligence Brief had warned:
"If the situation further deteriorates and demonstrations
become more violent or if Chavez attempts an unconstitutional
move to add to his powers, the military may move to overthrow
him."[4]
It is thus clear that U.S. officials were briefed at the highest
level about an anticipated and likely military coup against the
Chavez government. Yet when the coup occurred, White House and
State Department officials attempted to convince the public that
it was not a coup but rather a popular uprising. (See below).
Third, the White House supported the coup government in other
ways:
White House spokesperson Ari
Fleischer said on April 12, one day after the attempted coup:
We know that the action encouraged by the Chavez government provoked
this crisis. According to the best information available,
the Chavez government suppressed peaceful demonstrations The
results of these events are now that President Chavez has resigned
the presidency. Before resigning, he dismissed the vice president
and the cabinet, and a transitional civilian government has been
installed[5]
The U.S. State Department Deputy
Spokesman Philip Reeker followed the White House line stating
that undemocratic actions committed or encouraged by the Chavez
administration provoked yesterdays crisis in Venezuela.[6]
Jorge Castaneda, former Foreign Minister of Mexico revealed that
Effectively, there was a proposition made by the United States
and Spain, to issue a declaration with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina
and France recognizing the government of [coup leader] Pedro
Carmona.[7] Similar allegations were made by Castaeda in a New
York Times article that after the coup Mexico and Chile countered
a coordinated effort by the U.S., Colombia, El Salvador and Spain
to cobble together diplomatic support for the interim coup government.[8]
Your statement that "the
evidence suggests that the administration merely failed to condemn
it [the coup]," is therefore misleading and merits a correction.
We look forward to your response.
Mark Weisbrot is an economist, co-director of the
Center for Economic and Policy Research and president of Just
Foreign Policy.
[6]Venezuela: Change of Government,
Press Statement by Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Department
of State, April 12, 2002. Available online at: www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9316.htm
[7] Jorge Castaeda, former
Foreign Minister of Mexico, in Colombia, Espaa, El Salvador y
EE UU Apoyaron el Golpe, by Nancy Fara, Agence France-Presse,
November 28, 2004
[8] Documents Show C.I.A. Knew
of Coup Plot in Venezuela, by Juan Forero, New York Times,
December 3, 2004.
Now
Available
from CounterPunch Books!
The Case
Against Israel
By Michael Neumann
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
