[News] Petras on the US coup plans in Venezuela

[News at freedomarchives.org]

http://www.counterpunch.org/
July 8, 2004


The Venezuelan Referendum


The Truth About Jimmy Carter

By JAMES PETRAS

On August 14, 2004, Venezuelan voters will decide on a referendum, which 
has the utmost world historic and strategic significance. What is at stake 
is nothing less than the future of the energy world, the relations between 
the US and Latin America (particularly Cuba), and the political and 
socio-economic fate of millions of Venezuela's urban and rural poor. If 
Chavez is defeated and if the Right takes power, it will privatize the 
state petroleum and gas company, selling it to US multinationals, withdraw 
from OPEC, raise its production and exports to the US, thus lowering 
Venezuelan revenues by half or more. Internally the popular health programs 
in the urban "ranchos" will end along with the literary campaign and public 
housing for the poor. The agrarian reform will be reversed and about 
500,000 land reform recipients (100,000 families) will be turned off the 
land. This will be accomplished through extensive and intensive state 
bloodletting, jailing and extrajudicial assassination, and intense 
repression of pro-Chavez neighborhoods, trade unions and social movements. 
The apparently "democratic" referendum will have profoundly authoritarian, 
colonial and socially regressive results if the opposition wins.

Regionally, an anti-Chavez outcome will tighten the grip of US and Europe 
on Latin America's oil resources; the denationalization of the petroleum 
industry in the post-Chavez period will follow in the footsteps of Lula's 
privatization of Petrobras in Brazil, Gutierrez' privatization in Ecuador 
and the continuity of private foreign ownership in Argentina, Bolivia and 
Peru. Control of Venezuela's oil will heighten US control over world oil, 
decrease its dependence on the Mid East, especially with high intensity 
conflict in Iraq now, Saudi Arabia and Iran in the future. Equally 
important the US will eliminate the strongest opponent of ALCA--the free 
trade treaty--and pave the way for direct US control over the rules and 
regulations for trade and investment in the hemisphere. Strategically the 
US takeover of Venezuelan oil will have grave consequences on the Cuban 
economy as Washington will abruptly end exports and its client regime will 
likely break relations. Direct colonial control over Iraq and Venezuela, 
two of the top suppliers of oil will increase US global power over its 
competitors, while serving as an "object lesson" to potential opposition 
regimes.

The "referendum" in Venezuela emerges as a major clash between the US and 
OPEC, US imperialism and Latin American nationalists, neo-liberalism and 
social nationalism, between US-backed authoritarian ruling elites and 
endogenous socially conscious urban workers, unemployed, small business 
people, landless rural workers and small peasants. These historical 
confrontations find their specific focus in the referendum. The events 
leading up to the referendum speak eloquently of the crass US intervention, 
the violent tactics of the elites, the rule or ruin strategy of the 
opposition, the unbridled totalitarian propaganda of the privately owned 
mass media. The opposition has backed a violent military coup (which was 
defeated); it organized a bosses' lockout that almost destroyed the economy 
(which ended in defeat); it organized a contingent of over 130 Colombian 
military and paramilitary forces with the aid of active Venezuelan officers 
to sow violence--that was aborted by Venezuelan intelligence. Equally 
ominous, in the campaign to secure signatures for the referendum, 
fraudulent identity cards were massively produced and distributed, tens of 
thousands of deceased, incapacitated and coerced had their signatures 
forged and thousands of signatures were written by a single hand. 
Opposition corruption and fraud was rife but the official international 
observers urged the Chavez government to accept them and proceed to the 
referendum. More ominously among the key voices that made their presence 
felt were the ubiquitous Jimmy Carter and Jose Miguel Vivanco of Human 
Rights Watch.

The Unknown History of James Carter

The two faces of imperial power include the iron fist military intervention 
and the "soft sell" of electoral frauds, intimidating diplomacy and 
democratic blackmail. Jimmy Carter is "the quiet American" of Graham Greene 
fame, who legitimates voter fraud, blesses corrupt elections, certifies 
murderous rulers, encourages elections, in which the opposition is funded 
by the US state and semi-public foundations, and the incumbent progressive 
regime suffers repeated violent disruption of the economy.

Behind the simple and humane façade, Carter has a strategy to reverse 
progressive regimes and undermine insurgent democrats. Carter and his 
"team" from his Center probe and locate weaknesses among insecure 
democrats, particularly those under threat by US-backed opponents and thus 
vulnerable to Carter's appeals to be "pragmatic" and "realistic"--meaning 
his barely disguised arguments to accept fraudulent electoral results and 
gross US electoral intervention. Carter is a quiet master in mixing 
democratic rhetoric with manipulation of susceptible democrats who think he 
shares their democratic politics. The international mass media feature his 
self-promoted overseas trips to conflictual countries and above all his 
phony "human rights" record. The mass media provide Carter with the 
appearance of democratic credentials.

In fact, his frequent political interventions have been dedicated to 
sustaining dictators, legitimizing fraudulent elections and pressuring 
popular democratic candidates to capitulate before US-backed opponents. 
Carter has deliberately and systematically worked over the past quarter of 
a century to undermine progressive regimes and candidates and promote their 
pro-imperialist opponents.

Today in Venezuela, faced with a referendum of dubious validity, backed by 
the most rancid reactionaries, Carter once again poses as a "neutral 
monitor" while working with the anti-Chavez opposition to first legitimate 
the referendum then to provide opportunities for its favorable outcome. 
Carter has said absolutely nothing about strenuous US funding of the 
opposition--a blatant violation of any democratic, electoral process -- 
activities which would be felonious in his own country, the USA. He calls 
for "fair reporting" by the hysterically anti-Chavez mass media, knowing 
full well that, with a wink of his eye, they have free rein to provide 
exclusively favorable coverage of the opposition and uniformly negative 
disinformation about Chavez. In exchange Carter secured from Chavez a 
promise to avoid compulsory national chain broadcasts. Carter refuses to 
recognize that the electoral playing field is not equal, yet under the 
guise of "free press" he defends the right of the media oligarchs to voice 
venomous lies, denying the electorate the right to hear both sides. Carter 
refuses to recognize the intimidating effects of US military maneuvers in 
the Caribbean, the belligerent statements of undersecretary of state of 
Latin American Affairs Noriega against Chavez and the hyperactivity of the 
US Ambassador Shapiro in support of the anti-Chavez forces. Above all 
Carter ignores the plots, fraudulent practices and paramilitary activities 
leading up to and beyond the referendum. Focusing on enforcing the 
Government's compliance with electoral procedures and ignoring the highly 
prejudicial context of the election, Carter is fulfilling his role of a 
"set-up man" for either an electoral victory of the opposition or in the 
event of a defeat, for a post-election pretext for violent coup. Carter's 
history provides an extremely useful context for substantiating these 
observations and affirmation.

Carter Certifies a Stolen Election: Dominican Republic 1990

In 1993, I spent several hours interviewing Juan Bosch, the Dominican 
Republic's most notable democratic political leader. He told me that in the 
aftermath of the presidential elections of 1990, which he legally won, his 
opponent, the rightist, pro-US Juan Balaguer, engaged in massive theft, 
witnessed by poll watchers. Jimmy Carter headed the mission "monitoring" 
the election. Bosch presented Carter with a wealth of documents and 
testimony, witnesses and photos of Balaguer supporters dumping ballots in 
the river. Carter acknowledged the corruption and fraud, but urged Bosch to 
accept the results "to avoid a civil war". Bosch accused Carter of covering 
up to gain a US client. He led a march of 500,000 in protest. Carter 
certified Balaguer as the product of a "free election" and left. Balaguer 
proceeded to repress, pillage and privatize basic services.

Haiti I: Carter the Smiling Blackmailer

In 1990, Bertrand Aristide, a very popular former priest was leading in the 
polls with over 70% against a US-backed former World Bank functionary, Marc 
Bazin with barely 15% of popular support. Jimmy Carter, the self-styled 
neutral electoral monitor, set up a meeting with Aristide in which he 
demanded that Aristide withdraw from the elections in favor of the 
unpopular US candidate in order to avoid a "bloodbath". Carter did 
everything in his power to frighten Aristide and deny the populace its 
right to choose its president. Carter must have known in advance from his 
contacts with President Bush (Senior) that Washington was intent on 
preventing Haiti from taking an independent road. Eight months after 
Aristide's accession to the Presidency, a coup, backed by the US took 
place. Aristide was ousted and replaced and Carter's preferred candidate, 
Marc Bazin, was appointed Prime Minister, backed by a paramilitary 
terrorist group called FRAPH that instituted a "bloodbath" killing more 
than 4,000 Haitians. Carter and Bush, the quiet diplomat and the President 
with the iron fist worked in tandem, when the first failed, the latter 
stepped in.

Haiti II: General Cedras--Sunday School Teacher--1991-94

With Aristide out of the way, the US-backed regime proceeded to massacre 
thousands of Haitian supporters of the former elected President. The key 
member of the governing junta was General Cedras. With thousands of 
Haitians fleeing his brutal regime and heading for Florida, Jimmyb Carter 
spoke in defense of the bloody General Cedras, "I believe and trust in 
General Cedras." Later Carter gushed, "I believe he would be a worthy 
Sunday school teacher." Carter later certified the respectability of the 
disreputable dictator on his way to exile--after emptying the treasury. 
President Clinton convoked a meeting with Aristide in Washington. A 
Congressional aide privy to the meeting told me that Clinton's aide handed 
Aristide a neo-liberal program and list of cabinet ministers and told him 
his return to Haiti was contingent on accepting Washington's dictates. 
After many hours of psychological pressure, threats and arguments, Aristide 
capitulated. Clinton allowed him to return. Carter welcomed the return of 
"democracy" -US style.

Ten years later when Aristide refused to comply with threats from the US to 
privatize public utilities and break relations with Cuba (which was 
providing hundreds of doctors and nurses for Haiti's public health system), 
the US sponsored a paramilitary attack, followed by a US invasion. 
Aristide, the elected President, was kidnapped by US forces and 
flown--virtually blindfolded--to the Central African Republic. Carter did 
not protest the gross US intervention but questioned Aristide's election. 
Carter's criticism of Aristide (at a time when Aristide was a prisoner in 
the Central African Republic) provided a fig leaf of legitimacy for the US 
invasion, kidnapping, occupation and establishment of a murderous puppet 
regime. The US intervention in Haiti was seen in Washington as a "dress 
rehearsal" for an invasion of Venezuela.

Nicaragua 1979: Part I--Carter and Somoza

In June 1978, President Jimmy Carter sent a private letter to the 
Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza lauding Somoza for the "human rights 
initiatives" while he criticized Somoza publicly. Carter had made "human 
rights" a centerpiece of his interventionist propaganda ( Morris Morley, 
Washington, Somoza and the Sandinistas, 1994, pp 115-116). This two-faced 
policy occurred during one of the bloodiest periods of Somoza's rule when 
he was bombing cities sympathetic to the revolution. Carter's rhetorical 
declaration of concern for human rights was for public consumption, his 
private assurances to Somoza encouraged the dictator to continue his 
scorched earth policy.

Nicaragua May 1979 : Part II--Carter Proposes Intervention

In June 1993 the Foreign Minister under the late Panamanian President 
Torrejos told me of President Carter's briefest regional meeting. It took 
place less in May 1979 less than two months before Somoza was overthrown. 
Carter convened a meeting of foreign ministers of several Latin American 
countries who were opposed to Somoza's dictatorship. President Carter 
entered and immediately tabled a proposal to form an "Inter-American Peace 
Force", a military force of US and Latin American troops to invade 
Nicaragua to "end the conflict" and support a diverse coalition. The 
purpose, according to the former Panamanian minister present, was to 
prevent a Sandinista victory, preserving Somoza's National Guard and 
replace Somoza with a pro-US conservative civilian junta. Carter's proposal 
was rejected unanimously as unwarranted US intervention. Carter in a pique 
ended the meeting abruptly. Carter's attempt to throttle a popular 
revolution to preserve the Somocista state and US dominance clearly belied 
his pretensions of being a "human rights" President. His legacy of using 
"Human Rights" to project imperial military power became standard operating 
procedure for Reagon, Clinton and both Bush presidencies.

Afghanistan: Carter Finances the Invasion of Islamic Terrorists

In the late 1970's Afghanistan was ruled by a nationalist secular regime 
allied with the Soviet Union. The regime promoted gender equality, free 
universal education for women and men, agrarian reform including the 
redistribution of feudal estates to poor peasants, the separation of 
religion and the state and adopted an independent foreign policy with a 
Soviet tilt. Beginning at least as early as 1979, the US, Pakistan and 
Saudi Arabia orchestrated a massive international recruiting campaign of 
Islamic fundamentalist to engage in a "Jihad" against the "atheistic 
communist regime." Tens of thousands were recruited, armed by the US, 
financed by Saudis Arabia and trained by the CIA and Pakistani 
Intelligence. Pakistan opened its frontiers to the flood of armed invaders. 
Internally the displaced Mullahs, horrified by the equality and education 
of women, not to speak of the expropriation of their huge land holdings, 
joined the Jihad en masse.

The Carter Presidency (and not Reagan) was responsible for the 
organization, financing, training of the Islamic uprising and the terror 
campaign which followed. Zbig Brzesinski later wrote of the US--Afghanistan 
campaign as one of the high points in US Cold War diplomacy--it provoked 
Soviet intervention on behalf of the secular Afghan ally. Even when 
confronted with the consequences of the total devastation of Afghanistan, 
the rise of the Taliban and Al Queda and 9/11, Carter's former National 
Security Adviser, Brzesinski replied that these were marginal costs in 
comparison with a war which successfully hastened the fall of the Soviet 
Union. President Carter's intervention in Afghanistan initiated the Second 
Cold War, which was pursued with even greater intensity by Reagan. Carter 
backed a series of surrogate wars in Angola, Mozambique, Central American, 
the Caribbean and elsewhere. Carter was clearly an advocate and 
practitioner of the worst kind of imperial intervention and a master of 
public relations: he was an early practitioner of "Humanitarian 
Imperialism"--humane in rhetoric and brutally imperialist in practice.

The Carter Factor: Venezuela 2002-2004

Nowhere and at no time does Jimmy Carter, the kindly-appearing human rights 
rhetorician, pose a more dangerous threat to democratic freedoms and 
national independence than he does today in Venezuela. With the ardent 
backing of the violence-prone opposition, Carter has frequently intervened 
in Venezuelan politics, presenting himself as a neutral mediator. At every 
step of the way Carter has moved to legitimate an opposition engaged in 
coups, uprisings, paramilitary terrorists and bosses lockouts devastating 
the economy. Carter convinced President Chavez to "reconcile" with the 
elite leaders and supporters of a violent coup which briefly overthrew his 
elected government. He continually pressured the elected President to 
negotiate and "share power" with an opposition even after he had won six 
national elections. Carter refused to recognize Chavez' electoral victories 
and constitutional mandates--instead he supported the opposition's demand 
for new unscheduled elections and then promoted the "referendum". Carter 
endorsed the referendum results pronounced by the opposition--even though 
there were gross electoral violations. He then exercised pressure on the 
National Electoral Council to accelerate its examination of votes--urging 
them to get on with the referendum. Carter never acknowledged hundreds of 
thousands of instances of voter fraud (as he refused to do in the case of 
Juan Bosch's stolen victory earlier) and fraudulent identity cards. Carter 
was acting in Venezuela as the "Quiet American"--one espousing high ideals 
while engaged in dirty tricks. The historical record is abundantly 
clear--Carter cannot be trusted to act as a "neutral observer". He has been 
and is today a partisan of US imperial interests and is not merely an 
"observer" but an active, insidious partner of US clients. He continues to 
defend and promote any political opposition or regime, any ruler or 
"coordinator" which will defeat popular movements and progressive governments.

Carter is not a democrat! He is a lifelong partisan of the US Empire. He is 
especially dangerous as the Venezuela referendum approaches. The US is 
illegally providing millions of dollars to the anti-Chavez opposition via 
the National Endowment for Democracy and other "foundations". And the 
Carter Institute will be there to legitimate fraud and deceit: to question 
the questions for the referendum and the election if Chavez wins. Carter is 
especially likely to take advantage of some opportunist politicos who 
surround Chavez and are prone to make concessions to secure "democratic 
legitimacy" from the presence of this envoy of Empire. Carter fits into the 
larger strategy of US-backed coups and lockouts, paramilitary violence and 
support of Colombia's military threat.

No one in the Chavez regime intent on an honest referendum can permit this 
pious hypocrite to play any role in Venezuela.

An Afternote: Other Human Rights Mercenaries

The US imperial state is mobilizing all of its organizational resources to 
defeat Chavez. In addition to Carter, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the 
National Endowment for Democracy and a small army of NGOs (local and 
international), are active on behalf of the US-orchestrated anti-Chavez 
campaign. "Human Rights" Director Vivanco is among the most blatant early 
interveners: Shortly after President Chavez concurred with the National 
Electoral Council decision to convoke the referendum, Vivanco announced a 
"report" in which he declared that Venezuela "was suffering a 
constitutional crisis that could affect its already fragile institutions". 
He accused the Chavez government of "purging and taking over the 
judiciary". He called for the "intervention of the US-dominated 
Organization of American States".

To force the Chavez government to conform to his declaration, Vivanco 
demanded that the World Bank and IMF suspend aid directed at "modernizing" 
the judicial system. Over the past 3 years, HRW has followed the State 
Department's lead in attacking Chavez democratic credentials--overlooking 
his participation (and victory) in six free electoral contests and his 
generous acceptance of the dubious signatures backing the referendum. HRW 
totally ignored the vast voter fraud by the opposition, echoing the line of 
the opposition. HRW leaders are rife with former US officials including its 
recent recruitment of Marc Garlasco, a former Defense Intelligence Agency 
official, as a senior military analyst.

HRW played a major role in demonizing Yugoslavia's President Milosovic, 
supported the US invasion of the Balkans and was silent over US war crimes, 
including the bombing of civilian targets, the KLA's assassination of over 
2,000 Serb civilians and the ethnic purge of 200,000 non-Albanians from 
Kosovo. During the peace negotiations between President Pastrana and the 
FARC, which the US opposed and was keen on disrupting, Mr. Vivanco and HRW 
issued a "report" claiming that the FARC was violating all the terms of the 
peace negotiations--something no other human rights group on the ground in 
Colombia claimed--in order to pressure Pastrana to break negotiations and 
resume the military campaign, which he subsequently did. HRW, like the 
Carter Center, has already intervened on the side of the authoritarian 
US-backed opposition. It has smeared the independence of the courts to 
pressure it to conform to the opposition, it has rejected the democratic 
deliberations of the Venezuelan Congress and its vote on judicial reform, 
it has openly declared the government as illegitimate and it has already 
called for a US-backed intervention via the OAS.

Watch out for the humanitarian interventionists! Their presence is 
extremely dangerous for the integrity of the electorate and Venezuelan 
independence.

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New 
York, owns a 50 year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the 
landless and jobless in brazil and argentina and is co-author of 
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1856499383/counterpunch>Globalization 
Unmasked (Zed). He can be reached at: 
<mailto:jpetras at binghamton.edu>jpetras at binghamton.edu




The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20040708/934fe505/attachment.htm>