FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bush Administration Tries to Hide Role in Venezuelan Coup

by Mark Weisbrot

Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill’s trip to Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay has brought some needed attention to the financial and economic crises there. But there is one country where the US is playing an enormous — and thoroughly destructive — role that has been left out of the picture: Venezuela.

Last April the Bush Administration sent a powerful message not only to Venezuelans but to all of our Southern neighbors: if we don’t like the presidents you elect, we will use our muscle to get rid of them. By any means necessary. That is what was understood when the Administration endorsed the attempted military coup on April 11 against the elected president of Venezuela. (The White House later justified its response by saying it thought that President Hugo Chavez had “resigned;” but nobody south of the Rio Grande was fooled).

Now we will see whether the Democratic-led US Senate will object to this 1950s-style foreign policy.

On May 3, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee requested an investigation from the US State Department, to find out what it did wrong in Venezuela. What he got was a complete whitewash — which was turned over to the Senate last week.

The State’s Department’s supposedly independent Office of the Inspector General didn’t even interview a single Venezuelan, but relied on US embassy officials and others who had a direct career interest in covering up what happened. This is comparable to investigating Enron by talking to Ken Lay and Andrew Fastow.

Significant parts of the report remain classified — most tellingly, a section entitled “Miscellaneous Issues Raised by the News Media in Venezuela or the United States.” Just what issues raised by the Venezuelan and U.S. news media are our State Department trying to keep away from the public discussion?

Of course they can’t hide what the press has already printed. The Washington Post and New York Times cited numerous meetings between top US officials and the people who led the military coup on April 11. The European press was even more explicit about these meetings: “The coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent,” reported the Observer of London, citing sources at the Organization of the American States.

There were dozens of such leads in the press that the State Department could have investigated. But they chose not to do so; or if they did, they have apparently withheld the results from the public.

Some of the report’s admissions are even more damning than the omissions. Listing the reasons for US hostility to President Chavez, the report notes “his involvement in the affairs of the Venezuelan oil company, and the potential impact of that on oil prices.” There you have it: the number one reason for the US State Department supporting a military coup against a democratically elected president. He had the nerve to get involved in deciding how much oil Venezuela should produce, instead of leaving these decisions to Washington! And people wonder why anti-US sentiment is rising in Latin America.

Even more importantly, the report admits that US officials did little or nothing to warn the coup leaders that the United States would impose sanctions on a government that was installed by military force. This means that all the admonishments from the US embassy about not supporting a coup — while Washington was funneling millions of dollars to pro-coup organizations — were a mere formality. The real message was a big green light.

The anti-democratic Venezuelan opposition will continue to understand that message, until there is an explicit statement from the Bush Administration that a coup would result in a cut-off of economic and diplomatic relations with the United States.

The Senate should demand exactly such a statement, and conduct a real investigation in place of the State Department’s cover-up. Anything less would tell the world that our Congress — not just the Bush Administration — has little respect for democracy in Latin America.

Mark Weisbrot is co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is co-author (with Dean Baker) of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press).

More articles by:

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of  Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail