Posted on 04/20/2002 4:48:06 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The United States is being clobbered in Latin American and European capitals for its initial failure to condemn the short-lived coup that tried to overturn the government of Venezuela's leftist populist President Hugo Chávez last week, and much of the criticism is well deserved.
In recent days, there has not been a major newspaper in the Spanish-speaking world that has not described the Bush administration's handling of the April 12 civic-military coup against Chávez as a dangerous departure from the 2-decade-old U.S. policy of strong support for democracy in Latin America, and a dangerous return to the days when U.S. backed rightist dictatorships in the region.
Longtime critics of the United States are having a field day.
Mexico's leftist daily La Jornada ran a nearly ecstatic front-page banner headline reading, The State Department and the CIA may have supported the coup.
Argentina's left-of-center daily Página 12 carried the headline, Bush's hand in Venezuela.
Both serious historians and conspiracy theorists were given their best opportunity in many years to dust off the long list of U.S. interventions in Latin America, including the 1954 U.S.-backed coup against Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz, the 1965 invasion of the Dominican Republic to topple leftist President Juan Bosch, and the 1973 military coup against President Salvador Allende in Chile.
''The United States and the International Monetary Fund couldn't hide their happiness during the few hours in which it seemed that Hugo Chávez had lost power in Venezuela,'' wrote Ignacio Ramonet, publisher of Le Monde Diplomatique and leader of several anti-globalization groups, in the Spanish daily El País. ``This is a very serious blow to democracy.''
But it was not just the far left that lashed out against the Bush administration. Argentina's largest-circulation daily, Clarín, said Wednesday that ``The United States knew that the military and the Venezuelan opposition were organizing a coup against President Hugo Chávez, but didn't do anything to stop it.''
Clarín's Internet poll on the Bush administration's role in the Venezuelan coup showed that 86 percent of the 9000 people who responded said the United States had acted ''in complicity with the coup,'' while only 5 percent said the United States had acted ``in support of democracy.''
Some condemnations can be easily dismissed as hypocritical: Many of those criticizing the coup in Venezuela in the name of democracy are supporters of the total absence of democracy in Cuba. They cannot be taken seriously as democrats.
But a vast majority of those who condemned the coup early on, including the presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, did exactly what the United States should have done: demand that Chávez's removal be carried out in a constitutional way -- be it by a legal resignation or an impeachment by the Venezuelan Congress -- in order not to set a precedent that could have unleashed a wave of military coups in the region.
What the Latin American presidents did Friday, in the early hours of the coup, was to uphold a U.S.-backed Organization of American States' Democracy Charter signed last year, which calls for collective measures to oppose any interruption of constitutional rule in the region.
It's a treaty that could also -- and perhaps should -- be invoked against Chávez, a former coup plotter who since taking office three years ago has harassed the media, business and labor groups, and taken on increasingly authoritarian powers.
Did the Bush administration back the coup plotters? An honest review of what is known so far shows that top U.S. officials met with some of the coup leaders -- as they had with pro-Chávez politicians -- and may have tacitly supported a constitutional way to oust Chávez, but did not encourage or help plan a military coup.
U.S. officials say they explicitly warned potential coup plotters that the Bush administration would not back a coup.
Furthermore, the Bush administration objected when the coup's leader ordered the closing of the National Assembly, hours before Chávez was returned to the presidency.
U.S. officials say their initial wavering hours earlier were because Venezuela's military leaders had announced that Chávez had resigned, which -- if true -- would have been a constitutional way out of the country's political crisis.
But the Bush administration's failure to demand a constitutional resolution to the crisis early on was a major blunder, which threatens to overshadow the public memory of the role played by recent U.S. administrations in defense of democracy in countries such as Haiti, Paraguay and Peru.
Perhaps, the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 embrace of military leaders such as Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf and other U.S. allies in the war on terrorism led top U.S. officials to forget that -- whatever the U.S. policy in the rest of the world may be -- there is a treaty for the collective defense of democracy in the Americas. It was rightly used against the Venezuelan coup plotters, and it should be used against Chávez if he crosses the line of democratic rule.
The Bush administration has been very vocal about Chavez's drift into a dictatorship while at the same time condemning any undemocratic approach to resolving the problem. But they weren't hypocrites and pretend to be unhappy Chavez was toppled. Even the Washington Post finally gave an unflattering description of Chavez's rule. The New York Times praised Pedro Carmona Many countries who hold distain for Chavez were more guarded in their remarks. El Salvador and Colombia were outspoken in their favorable reaction to a transition government.
Chavez went off half-cocked, as usual, and ordered the military to fire on the marchers. They wouldn't, instead they removed Chavez from office. They asked the most visible man in the opposition, Pedro Carmona, to step into the gap. Unprepared for the unfolding events Carmona made fateful missteps that concluded with the return of Chavez.
Chavez, as usual, is now trying to deflect attention away from his disastrous presidency and with the help of the media, here and abroad, he's attempting to make it appear it was the U.S. that tried to remove him. Odd the media isn't as concerned about Chavez's support of Marxists rebels (FARC) in Colombia.
Chavez has stated he plans to be the anti-American state around which all other South American countries can rally. The Bush administration has made it clear they want to make inroads in this hemisphere. Bush has outlined an initiative to help poor nations that respect human rights, root out corruption, open their markets, and have education and health care systems.
The Bush administration seeks freedom for people of the world. The Chavez regime seeks communism for the people of the world. Obviously these two approaches are at odds.
That's not possible either!
The war against terrorism: Whose side is Sen. Chris Dodd on?
Why is Christopher Dodd, Democratic Senator from Connecticut, trying to sabotage the war on terrorism? President Bush nominated the highly experienced and very able Otto Reich as Assistant Secretary for Western Hemispheric Affairs. Since then Dodd has done everything within his power to prevent the appointment from being finalised.
So obsessed is Dodd with Reich that he has undertaken a massive document search in the hope of uncovering any evidence of wrongdoing that would destroy Reich’s reputation. (Dodd is in the ‘fortunate’ position of not have much of a reputation to destroy). His self-appointed search and destroy mission against Reich has been an embarrassing failure, not that Dodd has ever proved sensitive to embarrassment. Despite his mean spirited efforts Reich not only remains unscathed but his nomination has also been endorsed by twenty-two career Foreign Service officers, nine of whom are ambassadors. (clik link above if you want to read rest of article)
April 17, 2002 -New York Times ***Mr. Dodd expressed dismay that the administration had been slow to criticize Mr. Chávez's ouster. Administration officials erroneously reported on Friday that Mr. Chávez had resigned and said his antidemocratic behavior was responsible for his undoing. Only after Mr. Chávez had been restored on Saturday did the administration support a resolution at the Organization of American States condemning the interruption of democratic rule. "While all the details of the attempted coup in Venezuela are not yet known, what is clear is that the vast majority of governments in the hemisphere lived up to their responsibilities under the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and denounced the unconstitutional efforts to take power from a government which had been freely elected," Mr. Dodd said.***
_______________________________________________________________________________
Details aren't known but Dodd fills in the blanks. Pathetic. He's always ready to side with oppression.
Bush and his administration said that many times, publicly and from reports, privately. When they got word he'd resigned under pressure from his top military, who'd been ordered by Chavez to shoot opposition Venezuelans peacefully holding a march, it was obivious to anyone who believes in constitutional order, that Hugo Chavez had departed from democracy and Bush had "the balls" to say Chavez was the architect and instigator of his own downfall.
Suuurrre they can; didn't ya' know, every day is open season on the USA for every miserable country on this globe to criticize and condemn for all of their own failures and inadequacies.
"Venezuela has a government that was legitimately elected and enjoys popular support. I might even say that it enjoys more popular support than any other country in the American continent," he said. He claimed the news media were "putting on a show" with the officers.
Adding weight to the dissidents' argument that they speak for a silent majority in the ranks, a Bush administration official said Tuesday that some Venezuelan officers have sounded out U.S. diplomats about how Washington would react to a coup. They were told the U.S. stridently opposes any subversion of Venezuela's democratic process, the official said on condition he not be identified.
In Washington, a State Department spokesman said the United States has made no secret of its concerns that Chavez has tried to stifle dissent. "We believe that all parties should respect democratic institutions," said the spokesman, Richard Boucher. "That applies to whatever direction the attacks on democracy might be coming from," he added. [End Excerpt]
___________________________________________________________________
March 7, 2002- U.S. Gets Tough on Chavez, Will Not Back His Ouster -(Bets on he won't be in office much longer) [Excerpt] U.S. administrations have taken a wait-and-see view since the former military coup plotter was elected with massive support in 1998, and have tolerated his anti-American rhetoric and visits to Cuba, Libya and Iraq. ………….Washington did not want to rock the boat or stoke nationalist sentiment in the South American country, which supplies the United States with 1.5 million barrels a day of oil and has the largest reserves outside the Middle East. But the Bush administration adopted a tougher line after the Venezuelan leader criticized the United States for bombing innocent people in Afghanistan in its war on terrorism.
"There was a change when he attacked us for our military actions in Afghanistan. We decided that we would not let that pass," a Bush administration official told Reuters. But he added: "We don't want Venezuelans to fall into unconstitutional temptations to reach a quick solution." "The line that we only cared about what he does and not about what he says has clearly been exhausted," said Michael Shifter, of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank.
In the first public criticism of Chavez by a top U.S. official, Secretary of State Colin Powell questioned his democratic values and his visits to "despotic regimes" during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Feb. 5. The next day, CIA director George Tenet expressed concern with the buildup of discontent inside the United States' third-largest supplier of oil. "The crisis atmosphere is likely to worsen," Tenet told a Senate intelligence hearing. …………..
Political analysts in Washington believe Chavez's days are numbered, unless he drops his confrontational style and reaches out to sectors of Venezuelan society he has annoyed.
"Not too many Venezuela watchers in Washington think he is going to be there at the end of this year, though it may be a little longer," said Mark Falcoff, the Latin America specialist at the American Enterprise Institute. "He is his worst enemy. He is obviously living in a bubble." Falling oil prices, incompetent management of the economy and corruption has fueled widespread unrest, Falcoff said. On Tuesday, Venezuela's leading business and labor groups forged a rare alliance against Chavez, making clear they are seeking a way to force him out within the framework of the country's constitution.
Options under study are the impeachment of the president on the grounds of mental incapacity or a referendum, though under the constitution that cannot be called until January 2004. "If Chavez can't fix the situation, he will not finish his term. The situation is really serious," the Bush administration official said. "He has enraged everyone he needs to govern."[End Excerpt]
__________________________________________________________________
March 20, 2002- Bush to Be Tough on U.S. Aid During LatAm Trip-[Excerpt] During his talks with world leaders at the conference, Bush will promote his initiative to help poor nations that respect human rights, root out corruption, open their markets, and have education and health care systems. "I'm going to be tough about it," Bush told a group of regional reporters Tuesday in a preview of his trip. "I'm not interested in funding corruption."
Bush separately had some tough talk about Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. The image of the world's No. 4 oil exporter has taken a beating in recent months as opponents of the maverick left-wing president have stepped up protests against his three-year rule, raising fears that political confrontation may worsen and even turn to violence.
"We are concerned about Venezuela," Bush said, citing the long-term U.S. relationship with the country, particularly in the oil business. "We are concerned any time there is unrest in our neighborhood. We are watching the situation carefully. This man was elected by the people. We respect democracy in our country, and we hope he respects the democratic institutions within his country," the president said. [End Excerpt]
Chavez was supporting FARC, an organization which wants to run operations against U.S. interests. This was a situation where we had the right reaction. We're not sorry to see Chavez go, and make no comment about the method of his exit from power.
We need to do something about Chavez. If it means we have to play rough, and bend or break a few rules, so be it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.