The London Independent has a new report on the Bush Administration's attempts to impose regime change on the democratically elected government of Venezuela. Hugo Chávez may be a pain in the rear for the US at times. But, especially to hear Republican warhawks tell it, so are France, Germany and a very large number of the other democratic countries of the world.
US revealed to be secretly funding opponents of Chavez Independent 03/13/04.
Washington has been channelling hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund the political opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - including those who briefly overthrew the democratically elected leader in a coup two years ago.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that, in 2002, America paid more than a million dollars to those political groups in what it claims is an ongoing effort to build democracy and "strengthen political parties". Mr Chavez has seized on the information, telling Washington to "get its hands off Venezuela". ...
Washington's antipathy towards Mr Chavez is fuelled by his friendship with Cuba's Fidel Castro and his open criticism of Washington-backed free market policies. But Venezuela is also America's fourth largest supplier of oil - something that gives Mr Chavez a degree of leverage but, at the same time, makes him vulnerable to those who would like to see a more pro-American leader in power.
As I ask in the title, how is this making the United States safer against terrorists? Venezuela isn't funding anti-American terrorists. They're not accused of harboring "weapons of mass destruction." This policy of trying to destabilize Venezuela has "disaster" written all over it. And "blowback"echoing in the background.
7 comments:
how is it possible that nothing has been learned from centuries of US interference in Latin American politics? we are a nation doomed to repeat history, it would seem.
It appears that you are either assuming that counter-terrorism is the administration's /only/ foreign policy consideration, or that it should be.
Isn't this just a little short-sighted on your part?
Try the preservation of Democracy.
Chavez has run amok and is blamed for killing at least 12 opposition members in the last two weeks alone, not to mention the cancellation of over 1 million signatures to Democratically initiate his recall.
How did the coup of 2002 promote democracy? The real questions for those of you who support American intervention to overthrow the government of Venezuela include, how much are you willing to expend in American money and lives for that goal? With the military already overstrecthed, are you ready now to support a new draft? And how does that fit in with the priorities of fighting terrorism, the Iraq War, the Afghan War, and the interventions in Haiti and Liberia? - Bruce
Do you mean the coup of a leader who has taken his democratic appointment and squandered it. A leader who is silencing the opposition so it sounds like there is none?
How can you look the other way? What if the current administration was silencing their critics here at home? Would you still look the other way.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse. a man who has nothing which he cares more about than his safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill
I'm not sure what an abstract quotation about war in general has to do with the current US policy toward Venezuela. When our Army is already stretched occupying one major oil producer (Iraq), and we have increasing tensions with another (Saudi Arabia), it's a high-risk move for the US to be destabilizing a third (Venezuela). You'll have to excuse me if I'm skeptical about Bush's and Cheney's burning concern for democracy in Venezuela. - Bruce
Post a Comment