US declares Venezuela a national security threat when it is the other way around

President Obama signed an executive order declaring Venezuela a national security threat, and also ordered sanctions against seven Venezuelan officials.

+ Add Image

The executive order was said to target people who had undermined the democratic process or institutions, had committed acts of violence or abuse of human rights, been involved in public corruption, or prohibition of freedom of expression. So why is President el-Sissi of Egypt not being sanctioned since he certainly committed acts of violence and prohibits freedom of expression? Venezuela's real problem is that it has challenged U.S. policies. None of these reasons for these sanctions show that Venezuela is a threat to U.S. security. The targeted sanctions implement the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, a bill that Obama had signed on December 18, 2014.

The declaration was accompanied by the inevitable moralistic justification:"Venezuelan officials past and present who violate the human rights of Venezuelan citizens and engage in acts of public corruption will not be welcome here, and we now have the tools to block their assets and their use of U.S. financial systems. We are deeply concerned by the Venezuelan government's efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents. Venezuela's problems cannot be solved by criminalizing dissent."The U.S. has supported governments in Afghanistan in which corruption was endemic. It supports governments such as Saudi Arabia which will not allow demonstrations and where insulting the monarch is a crime. Of course the Reuters article has no mention of an earlier coup attempt. The degree of U.S. involvement is not clear but certainly they knew about it and must have known that Chavez did not resign but was captured and held by the military.They went along with the lie that he resigned. I enclose a video on the failed coup back in 2002.

This is not to say that there is no repression in Venezuela or no corrupt politicians. Conditions in Venezuela are quite poor, due to a considerable extent, to a huge drop in oil prices. However, the government was facing public unrest and demonstrations when the 2002 coup was mounted. The video above shows how some private TV stations manipulated footage to portray Chavez supporters in the worst light. Of course manipulation of footage is common to both sides. The prize-winning documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised that I have appended, also has bits that are edited at times to provide a narrative favourable to Chavez. Some of the evidence for the US role in the 2002 failed coup can be found in this article.

Critics claim that instead of dealing with his economic problems Maduro is busy inventing plots against the government. Some evidence of U.S. attempts to destabilize the regime is provided in this article. There is wide coverage in Venezuela of what is called the Blue Coup plot. The Mayor of Caracas is accused of being implicated: February 19th 2015 (venezuelanalysis.com) Venezuelan opposition Mayor and longtime rightwing politician, Antonio Ledezma, has been arrested by the country’s intelligence services, SEBIN, for his alleged role in plotting to stage a coup against the democratically elected government of Nicolas Maduro.Ledezma was also involved in the 2002 failed coup. On February 11th, he circulated a statement signed by other opposition politicians as well:The document calls on Venezuelans to unite behind a plan to remove elected President Nicolas Maduro and sets out an action programme for the would be provisional government. This includes facilitating the return of “exiled” Venezuelans, prosecuting current members of government and reaching out to international financial lending agencies such as the International Monetary Fund.

More recently, Maduro on TV provided more evidence for the plot:President Maduro played the audio of a conversation held between Carlos Manuel Osuna Saraco, a former Venezuelan politician living in New York, and a soldier, in which Osuna dictates the statement that the rebel soldiers should read out during the coup.While some of this may be fabricated such details are not worth reporting in most of the mainstream press. Just say that Maduro is making up coup plots to divert attention from his political and economic problems and to blame others for them.

There is no doubt that there is unrest in Venezuela as inflation has risen 70 percent as the value of the currency has dropped by 20 percent and the price of oil has plummeted, leaving the government less money to fund its programs. The approval rating of Maduro is only in the low twenties. If there is a coup the U.S. will blame it on the Venezuelan government and it will be no time before the U.S. meets any new leader. While the U.S. now has a lot of its own oil, it would probably be happy if it could get better deal for purchasing Venezuelan oil.

Divisions within Chavism

Michael Lebowitz is professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver Canada. He was director of the Program in Transformative Practice and Human development in Caracas, Venezuela from 2006-2011

Lebowitz discusses the divisions within Chavism and the outlook for Venezuela during Chavez's fourth term. Much of the material for this article is taken from an interview with a Croatian newspaper published on November 1st 2012. The original interview in Croatian can be found here. Although the interview was long before Chavez' death it nevertheless shows many of the problems that the revolutionary movement in Venezuela faces and gives a brief history of developments there that put the situation in context. Lebowitz discusses his general views on socialism, and the problems of promoting socialism in the 21st century, in the interview on the appended video.

Before Chavez was elected, Lebowitz descibes Venezuela as a rentist economy depending upon oil revenues, and a political culture that grew up around and depended upon oil rents. There was a culture of corruption and clientalism. Neoliberal policies resulted in cutbacks to social services and ending of subsidies on basic goods and also privatization. By the 1990s the situation was a disaster, and this helped Chavez get elected at the end of the decade.

Chavez gained power not only with the support of social movements and the poor but much of the middle class who also were fed up with the situation. At the time Chavez was calling for a ""good capitalism" and an ending of neoliberal policies.

He funneled oil revenues into education and health services. While Lebowitz sees these moves as basically populist, meant to maintain and develop political support, he also notes that they meet real needs and gave people the power to develop. In particular Chavez developed communal councils at the local neighbourhood level. These local councils grouped together to form communes which were designed to deal with wider problems.

These groups are what Chavez considered the cells of a socialist state. Also developed were workers' councils. These give working people a say in decision-making. However, Lebowitz points out that the transformation of Venezuelan society is far from smooth.

WIthin Chavism, Lebowitz identifies three main groups. One group is associated with the base and social movements, the local communities, and sections of the working class. A second group are people who have risen along with Chavism and who have enriched themselves through their positions. They continue corruption and clientalism exactly as did political leaders in the old regime. They think the revolution should now stop. They have a nickname in Venezuela the "boli-boourgeoisie". Finally, there is a third group who want to continue the process of change but through authoritarian means from the top down. They see themselves as vanguard leaders whose duty is to impose the proper socialist order from above.

The growth of cooperatives under Chavez has been astonishing. In 1998 when Chavez took power, there were 762 cooperatives in Venezuela but not long ago there were already 84,000. As Lebowitz points out, many of these small cooperatives fail or are discontinued although there are some in rural areas that have been quite successful. Lebowitz sees these cooperatives as schools where people learn to cooperate and to discover that they can carry out useful projects together. However, Lebowitz thinks that even more important as a training ground is involvinng workers in managing state enterprises

Lebowitz's vision of socialism involves people developing their powers through transforming both their circumstances and themselves through their practice. Venezuela has taken steps towards what he calls a protagonistic democracy. Lebowitz sees a considerable struggle within Chavism as well as with the opposition who want to curb the power of the people and return to an earlier period.

Meanwhile Chavez is still demonized quite often by the media in the west often being called a dictator even though he is an elected president in elections with international observers. The issue of demonization is discussed in this Al Jazeera discussion

Hugo Chavez leads in Venezuela presidential election

In spite of recently receiving cancer treatments Hugo Chavez leads in a recent poll. The presidential election will be held October 7.

After a failed coup in 2002 and a boycott of national elections this time around the opposition is taking a more sophisticated approach. Henrique Capriles Radonsk, the main opposition candidate, says he is a reformer and free of any ideology even though he is a member of the conservative Justice First Party. That party stresses private investment and is critical of state economic controls. These policies are diametrically opposed to those of Chavez.

Opposition leaders now support rather than oppose the 1999 constitution as they did when it was adopted overwhelmingly in a popular referendum. Some Chavez programs have won him support among the poor. The Housing Mission has built thousands of homes and has involved barrio residents both in planning and execution of the construction rather than having the plans made and executed by outsiders and bureaucrats. The opposition is concerned about their candidates' failure to increase his support.

The Datanalisis survey gave Chavez 43.6% of the vote as against 27.7 per cent for Capriles. 62.4% rated Chavez' performance as above average against 29.4% who consider it poor. The polling company is owned by Luis Leon who is a staunch supporter of the opposition. It is doubtful that he is tinkering with the results unless he wants to fool Chavez supporters into thinking he is safely ahead!

Chavez' lead is rather surprising given doubts about his health. The opposition points out that there is no obvious successor to Chavez should his health again fail. They point to the Capriles' youthful energy in contrast to the frail Chavez.

Even Chavez has finally begun to admit that he needs to delegate power more. A former adviser the Spanish academic Juan Carlos Monedero warns of the danger of what he calls "hyperleadership". To me that sounds like a fancy name for the cult of personality. During Chavez' extended medical treatments in Cuba several top leaders filled the gap including the foreign minister Nicolas Maduro and an executive vice president Elias Jaua. There is also the National Assembly president Diosdado Cabello.

The UN Economic Commission on Latin America claims a 21% reduction in poverty between 1999 and 2010. However many in the middle and upper classes do not like the changes Chavez has brought about. This is reflected in a poll by the Venezuela Institute of Data Analysis. Relatively privileged voters favor Capriles over Chavez by 52.5% to 32.5%. To me it seems surprising that he actually has as much support in that group. However the government has passed some programs to help the middle class to dampen concern that he will eliminate private property and is mostly concerned for the poor.

For his part Capriles claims he is forward looking and does not want to turn the clock back to past policies even though those policies were implemented by those who support his candidacy. Capriles even pledges that he would not scrap but improve on Chavez' social programs. Perhaps he intends to privatize them! The results of the presidential election will help determine whether Venezuela continues with the leftist, interventionist policies of Chavez or more market friendly policies and attempts to encourage more foreign investment as would no doubt happen if Capriles should win. This is just a sample of a long analysis of the situation in Venezuela that can be found here and here. There seems little commentary or coverage of the Venezuelan election in the U.S. The appended video is from an Iranian TV outlet!

Venezuela makes its own drones

Many countries make or have  unmanned aerial vehicles but recently President Hugo Chavez showed off the first model made in Venezuela. The drone is not armed but will have military and civilian uses for surveillance.

The drone was made with help from Russia, Iran, and China. During a news meeting with his defense chiefs Chavez said that it is“one of three aircraft that we have made here, and we will continue to manufacture them,”

The drone has a range of 60 miles and can fly up to 10,000 feet. Flight time is only up to 90 minutes. It measures 3 by 4 meters. The drone will be used to monitor pipelines, dams, and other infrastructure in rural areas.

The state company that manufactured the drone is also planning to manufacture rifles, grenades and ammunition. It already manufactures AK 103 assault rifles in a factory developed with Russina aid. For more see this article. Venezuela obviously has a very long way to go to match the drones made in the U.S. or even Israel.

Noam Chomsky meets with Chavez in Venezuela

Interesting idea that there should be a peace zone in Latin America where foreign militaries are not allowed to operate. Chomsky is correct to notice that very timid response to the coup in Honduras even though the coup leaders have rejected out of hand the carefully crafted U.S. and OAS negotiated solution. I still am surprised at the coup leaders unyielding position. No doubt they think that there is enough right wing support in the US and Latin America to help them weather any storm the Obama administration might have in store.

Noam Chomsky Meets with Chavez in Venezuela

August 28th 2009, by James Suggett

Mérida, August 27th 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) -- U.S. author, dissident intellectual, and Professor of Linguistics at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology Noam Chomsky met for the first time with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Caracas and analyzed hemispheric politics during a nationally televised forum on Monday.
Chomsky is well known in Venezuela for his critiques of U.S. imperialism and support for the progressive political changes underway in Venezuela and other Latin American countries in recent years. President Chavez regularly references Chomsky in speeches and makes widely publicized recommendations of Chomsky's 2003 book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance.
"Hegemony or survival; we opt for survival," said Chavez in a press conference to welcome Chomsky. He compared Chomsky's thesis to that of German socialist Rosa Luxemburg in the early 1900s, "Socialism or Barbarism," and referred to Chomsky as "one of the greatest defenders of peace, one of the greatest pioneers of a better world."
Through an interpreter, Chomsky responded, "I write about peace and criticize the barriers to peace; that's easy. What's harder is to create a better world... and what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created."
During Monday's forum, which was broadcast on the state television station VTV, Chomsky pointed out that the ongoing coup in Honduras, which began on June 28th, is the third coup the United States has supported in Latin America so far this century, following the coup against Chavez in 2002 and Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004.
The nearly finalized deal to allow the U.S. to increase its military presence on Colombian bases "is only part of a much broader effort to restore Washington's capacity for intervention," said Chomsky.
According to Chomsky, the region has the capacity to unite and form a "peace zone" in which foreign militaries are forbidden to operate. "Venezuela can help to advance this proposal, but it cannot do it alone," he said.
"The transformations that Venezuela is making toward the creation of another socio-economic model could have a global impact if these projects are successfully carried out," said the renowned author.
Aporrea.org, a popular Venezuelan news and pro-revolution analysis website, described Chomsky as oriented toward "libertarian socialism" and "vehemently anti-Stalinist" in an introduction to a recent interview in which Chomsky said U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy will be similar to that of the second administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush.
Chomsky addressed this issue during Monday's conference as well, commenting that Obama "could have much to offer Latin America if he wanted to, but hasn't given any signals that he does." He cited the U.S.'s indecisive posture toward the coup in Honduras as evidence.
Chomsky also addressed the media and freedom of expression in the U.S. "In the United States the socio-economic system is designed so that the control over the media is in the hands of a minority who own large corporations... and the result is that the financial interests of those groups are always behind the so-called freedom of expression," he said.
Chomsky said the growing disappointment with the Obama administration in the U.S. was predictable because the corporate media marketed Obama's presidential candidacy on the slogan of "Change We Can Believe In" but omitted concrete proposals for effective changes, and the Obama administration has since shown an incapacity to institute such changes.
Chomsky was accompanied in Caracas by the co-founder of South End Press and ZMagazine and system operator of ZCom, Michael Albert, and the co-founder and editor of Venezuelanalysis.com, sociologist Gregory Wilpert.