[News] WOLA: Media’s ‘Left’ Source for Pro-Coup Propaganda in Venezuela

Anti-Imperialist News news at freedomarchives.org
Sat Jun 6 11:53:01 EDT 2020


https://fair.org/home/wola-medias-left-source-for-pro-coup-propaganda-in-venezuela/
WOLA:
Media’s ‘Left’ Source for Pro-Coup Propaganda in Venezuela
------------------------------

By Lucas Koerner  –  Jun 4, 2020

[image: David Smilde]

The mass media, as Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman documented
<https://books.google.cl/books?id=Kv_-bvCqgrEC&sitesec=reviews> decades
ago, are structurally dependent on pre-ordained “experts,” who play a
decisive role in filtering the information reaching the public.

When it comes to Venezuela, one DC-based think tank has become the Western
media’s go-to source for confirming the US elite’s regime change groupthink
(*FAIR.org*, 4/30/19
<https://fair.org/home/corporate-media-cover-for-us-mob-threats-against-venezuela/>):
the Washington Office on Latin America <https://www.wola.org/> (WOLA).

Styling itself the “leading source for independent analysis and commentary
on Latin America,” WOLA is regularly cited in corporate media reporting on
Venezuela across the media spectrum. Founded in 1974 and originally part of
the progressive Central American solidarity movement, WOLA moved to the
right in the 1990s, until by 2002 it was calling (12/02
<https://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/downloadable/WOLA%20General/past/CrossCurrents1211.pdf>)
for a “negotiated and peaceful settlement” to the “political impasse” in
Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez had been reelected with 60% of the vote two
years earlier. But WOLA’s  “progressive” reputation—based on its
decades-old critiques of Reagan administration Central America policy—still
allows it to position itself as the gatekeeper of legitimate “opposition”
to US Latin America policy.

WOLA’s in-house Venezuela “experts”—Tulane University sociologist David
Smilde <https://www.wola.org/people/david-smilde/> and former Open Society
Latin Americanist Geoff Ramsey
<https://www.wola.org/people/geoff-ramsey/>—excel
at disseminating polite, proceduralist criticisms of US policy while
validating the imperial assumptions that justify Washington’s aggression.
They demarcate the leftmost extreme of acceptable opinion on Venezuela,
effectively boxing out any genuinely dissenting views.
*Constructively Criticizing the Godfather*

The Trump administration on March 31 unveiled a “democratic transition”
plan to replace Venezuela’s Maduro government with a five-person junta
composed of opposition and ruling party loyalists, in defiance of the
country’s constitution.

The corporate media dutifully touted the reasonableness of the Mafia-like
“offer,” unanimously ignoring Washington’s threat to ramp up deadly
economic sanctions until Maduro cried uncle (*FAIR.org*, 4/15/20
<https://fair.org/home/corporate-media-cover-for-us-mob-threats-against-venezuela/>
).

Apparently concerned that its blackmail was too subtle, the Trump
administration announced the next day, April 1, an “anti-drug” operation in
the Caribbean targeting Venezuela, which was widely reported
<https://apnews.com/d4c51884ba3ac6a4311b6f548434f958> as one of the largest
military deployments in the region since the US’s 1989 invasion of Panama
<https://fair.org/extra/how-television-sold-the-panama-invasion/>.

The “transition” plan and military escalation came just days after the US
Department of Justice on March 26 unsealed
<https://miami.cbslocal.com/2020/03/26/sources-venezuela-to-be-designated-state-sponsor-of-terrorism-us-to-charge-maduro/>
“narco-terrorism”
indictments against Maduro and other top Caracas officials, including a $15
million bounty on the Venezuelan leader’s head.

Like clockwork, WOLA stepped in to rationalize US policy, even while
quibbling with some of its “contradictory” elements.

[image: WaPo: Despite contradictions, State Department’s Venezuela plan is
a step in the right direction]

Smilde and Abraham Lowenthal of the Woodrow Wilson Center, writing in
the* Washington
Post* (4/14/20
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/trumps-venezuela-policy-is-moving-right-direction-despite-some-contradictions/>),
applauded the Trump administration’s gunpoint “proposal” as a “step in the
right direction.”

The authors notably refused to call for rescinding the indictments—which
they acknowledged were part of a politicized pressure campaign—or easing
illegal
<https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/venezuela-sanctions-emergency/> US
sanctions in a bid to secure Chavista buy-in for the plan. Instead, they
urged Washington, represented by war criminal Elliott Abrams (*CounterSpin*
, 3/1/19
<https://fair.org/home/the-violence-elliott-abrams-supported-is-unspeakable/>),
to offer “guarantees for indicted officials” against extradition, as if
Maduro would resign his elected post with a $15 million price on his head
and a US fleet on his doorstep.

Ramsey had likewise taken to the *Post *editorial page (3/27/20
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/27/by-indicting-maduro-trump-is-kneecapping-transition-venezuela/>)
a few weeks earlier to gently criticize the “narco-terrorism” charges as
feckless and politically motivated, but he conceded their core premise that
Venezuela is essentially a narco-state:

There’s no question that organized criminal elements, including
drug-trafficking organizations and Colombian guerrilla groups
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/05/venezuelas-implosion-is-becoming-colombias-security-nightmare/?tid=lk_inline_manual_5&itid=lk_inline_manual_5>,
have penetrated state institutions in Venezuela. The allegations are not
surprising given the clear corruption and authoritarianism of the Maduro
regime, and they are serious.

[image: WaPo: By indicting Maduro, Trump is kneecapping a transition in
Venezuela]

Ramsey presented no evidence to support these significant claims, merely
linking to another *Post *op-ed (7/5/19
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/05/venezuelas-implosion-is-becoming-colombias-security-nightmare/>)
by Venezuelan emigre blogger Francisco Toro
<https://fair.org/home/financial-times-reporter-quotcant-possibly-be-neutralquot/>,
whose main source regarding Colombian guerrilla activity in Venezuela is
none other than the Colombian government, which was caught lying
<https://colombiareports.com/duque-misinformed-un-over-eln-in-venezuela-report/>
on
that very subject last year.

Ramsey levels such accusations against Venezuela without saying a word
about his own government’s well-documented role in abetting drug money
laundering
<https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-230696/>,
and waging imperial dirty wars
<https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/time-for-a-us-apology-to-el-salvador/>
in
league with narcotics traffickers
<https://theintercept.com/2017/06/18/the-history-channel-is-finally-telling-the-stunning-secret-story-of-the-war-on-drugs/>,
among any number of other examples of systemic US lawlessness.

Compared to gangster states like the US, the Maduro “regime”—which was
reelected in 2018 by a greater percentage
<https://www.mintpressnews.com/when-is-a-democracy-not-a-democracy-when-its-venezuela-and-the-us-is-pushing-regime-change/254321/>
of
the electorate than Trump in 2016
<https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/federalelections2016.pdf> or
Obama in 2012
<https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf>—is
infinitely less “corrupt” and “authoritarian.” Western liberals and
leftists’ refusal to acknowledge this reflects imperial indoctrination and
arrogance (*FAIR.org*, 2/12/20
<https://fair.org/home/left-media-and-venezuela-an-exchange/>).

Indeed, for Ramsey, Washington’s sin is not its sixth coup attempt
<https://www.mintpressnews.com/global-left-danger-dirty-war-venezuela/255501/>
in
20 years against an elected government, but its “baseless optimism”: its
belief “that if they just saber-rattle hard enough, the Maduro regime will
collapse under its own weight.”

Revealingly, his op-ed contained no mention of US sanctions, estimated to
have killed tens of thousands
<https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04.pdf>—sanctions
that WOLA initially embraced, then very inadequately critiqued, and often,
as here, helped the media ignore entirely.
*Sycophants for Sanctions*

[image: Geoff Ramsey]

WOLA has long been given a prominent media platform to make the liberal
case for US sanctions as a legitimate means of forcing the Maduro
government to “negotiate.”

Both Smilde and Ramsey were cheerleaders for the Trump administration’s
August 26, 2017, financial sanctions, which effectively cut Venezuela off
from global credit markets, denying the country desperately needed loans to
finance its economic recovery. Crucially, the move blocked Venezuelan state
oil company PDVSA’s US-based subsidiary, Citgo, from repatriating profits,
which were averaging $1 billion per year. For reference, Venezuela’s
medical imports totaled $2 billion in 2013.

Smilde told the *Associated Press* (8/25/17
<https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/us-imposes-tough-economic-sanctions-on-venezuela/2053776/>)
that he backed the sweeping unilateral measures, which the outlet
disingenuously mischaracterized as “limited sanctions targeting future
indebtedness.”

The Tulane University professor’s most vocal concern was that even more
severe economic sanctions “would bolster his [Maduro’s] discourse that
Venezuela is the target of an economic war.”

At the time, Smilde and Ramsey released a statement
<https://venezuelablog.org/reactions-new-us-economic-sanctions-venezuela/> on
behalf of WOLA praising the “virtues” of the financial embargo, which they
claimed

complicate[s] the Maduro government’s finances in such a way that…will not
have an immediate impact on the population (although in the longer term,
they likely would).

In fact, even anti-Maduro economist Francisco Rodríguez, considered one of
the world’s foremost experts on Venezuela’s economy, immediately raised
fears that the coercive measures “risk worsening the country’s already deep
economic crisis” (*Financial Times*, 9/12/17
<https://www.ft.com/content/f6e95cbc-970d-11e7-b83c-9588e51488a0>).

[image: NYT: Should the United States Attack Venezuela?]

Several months later, Smilde (*New York Times*, 1/14/18
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/14/opinion/united-states-venezuela-attack.html>)
doubled down, urging Washington and its allies to “continue to pressure Mr.
Maduro by deepening the current sanctions regime.”

Despite warning against “widening economic sanctions to an oil embargo,” he
praised the existing financial sanctions, which he credited with “bringing
the Maduro government to the negotiation table.”

The WOLA fellow’s defense of sanctions came just 48 hours after Rodríguez
published another article (*Foreign Policy*, 1/12/18
<https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/12/why-more-sanctions-wont-help-venezuela/>)
revealing that Venezuelan imports had declined by a further 24 percent in
the two months following the August measures, “deepening the scarcity of
basic goods.”

Smilde’s indifference to Venezuelans’ suffering under the sanctions he
championed was only matched by his contempt for their political will,
refusing to acknowledge that over 55 percent of the population
unsurprisingly opposed the noose around their economy’s neck, even
according to pro-opposition pollster Datanálisis
<https://www.venepress.com/article/Segun_Datanalisis_mas_venezolanos_apoyan_el_dialogo_y_rechazan_las_sanciones_de_EEUU1513117549166>
.

Even more cynically, Smilde sought to frame his endorsement of the
financial blockade as dovish opposition to US military intervention: “A
military strike against Venezuela would be folly,” he warned, taking the
standard liberal stance that casts Western aggression as a “blunder” at
worst—never a brutal crime.
*Art of the Cover-Up*

But as the deadly toll of US sanctions became increasingly difficult to
justify, WOLA eagerly assisted the corporate media in concealing their
existence.

[image: NYT: Venezuelan Refugees Are Miserable. Let’s Help Them Out.]

Writing on the one-year anniversary of the sanctions, Ramsey and WOLA Andes
director Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli penned an op-ed (*New York Times*, 8/29/18
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/opinion/venezuela-refugees.html?searchResultPosition=8>)
accusing Maduro of having “brought his country to its knees.”

Under the ironic headline “Venezuelan Refugees Are Miserable. Let’s Help
Them Out,” the authors related harrowing stories of Venezuelan migrants in
Colombia, with one key omission: They failed to dedicate even one line to
the US financial embargo that exacerbated Venezuela’s economic crisis and
fueled the “exodus” they decried.

This elision was especially glaring, given that not just Rodríguez (*Foreign
Policy*, 1/12/18
<https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/12/why-more-sanctions-wont-help-venezuela/>)
but a growing number <https://afgj.org/endsanctions> of internationally
renowned intellectuals and human rights activists, including then–UN
independent expert Alfred-Maurice de Zayas (*Real News*, 3/14/18
<https://therealnews.com/stories/un-rapporteur-us-sanctions-cause-death-in-venezuela>),
were sounding the alarm bells about the sanctions’ lethal impact.

Ramsey and Sánchez-Garzoli proceeded to blame the collapse of Colombia’s
peace process on Caracas (which incidentally helped negotiate the accords
<https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/12167>), absolving Bogotá and Washington
of their almost exclusive responsibility for the failure:

As the exodus grows, it also threatens to undermine Colombia’s peace
process.

Colombia has promised to improve badly needed services to marginalized
communities as part of an accord with FARC rebels, and the arrival of
Venezuelan refugees has complicated the situation.

The authors made no mention of the Colombian state’s systematic violation
of the peace accords, including the assassination of at least 75 social
leaders from January through August 2018. Sánchez-Garzoli was doubtless
aware of this fact, having published a WOLA statement
<https://www.wola.org/2018/08/colombian-activists-killed/> on the very
topic eight days prior.

Instead of denouncing the Colombian narco-state’s reign of terror, WOLA
sympathetically urged Colombian President Iván Duque (*FAIR.org*, 7/2/19
<https://fair.org/home/nbc-news-whitewashes-colombias-right-wing-president/>)—the
protegé of ultra-right paramilitary-linked
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/08/alvaro-uribe-accused-paramilitary-ties>former
President Álvaro Uribe—to “lead a regional protection and assistance effort
for fleeing Venezuelans.” An informed reader would have to conclude that
Ramsey and Sánchez-Garzoli’s purpose was to whitewash the US and its ally (
*Extra!*, 4/01
<https://fair.org/extra/new-york-times-changes-take-on-colombian-death-squads/>*;
FAIR.org*, 2/1/09
<https://fair.org/home/fair-study-human-rights-coverage-serving-washingtons-needs-2/>*;
Colombia Reports*, 12/29/19
<https://colombiareports.com/genocide-the-new-normal-in-duques-colombia/>)
as they menaced Venezuela.

Days before Maduro’s inauguration for his second term, Smilde and Lowenthal
(*The Hill*, 1/6/19
<https://thehill.com/opinion/international/423625-venezuela-needs-politics-and-diplomacy-not-military-intervention>)
called for “the internal mobilization of a unified opposition, in tandem
with international pressure” to force the Venezuelan president to enter
“negotiations.” Here “international pressure” was a not-so-subtle euphemism
for sanctions, which they steered clear of mentioning, let alone denouncing.

Smilde was certainly cognizant of the data pointing to a plausible causal
link between the US financial blockade and Venezuela’s collapsing oil
production, as WOLA published an article by Francisco Rodríguez (9/20/18
<https://venezuelablog.org/crude-realities-understanding-venezuelas-economic-collapse/>)
making such a case months before. Yet he and his colleague remained silent
on that, preferring to encourage the right-wing opposition to unify and
mobilize against the Venezuelan government—incidentally, just as the
opposition had in the violent US-backed coup attempts of 2002
<https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6922>, 2002/03
<https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7527>, 2013
<https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/8830>, 2014
<https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/10580> and 2017
<https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13081>.

To this end, Smilde and Lowenthal compared the difficulty of transition
from Chavista governance with the challenges faced by movements that
resisted various dictatorships: Pinochet’s Chile, apartheid South Africa
and Communist Poland. In reality, Chavismo’s opponents face less formidable
challenges than third-party candidates
<https://newrepublic.com/article/146884/america-stuck-two-parties> in the
US.
*Faux Opposition to Mass Murder *

WOLA’s defense of sanctions continued after the previously unknown head of
Venezuela’s opposition-controlled parliament, Juan Guaidó, proclaimed
himself “interim president” of the country on January 23, 2019, with
Washington’s blessing.

[image: CNBC: No solution to Venezuela crisis without some kind of
settlement, says pro]

Speaking to *CNBC* (1/24/19
<https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/01/24/venezuela-crisis-settlement-pro.html?&qsearchterm=washington%20office%20on%20latin%20america>),
Ramsey argued against a US oil embargo, on the grounds that the existing
sanctions afforded necessary “pressure” on Maduro:

There already are a series of important sanctions against Venezuela. The US
has leveled strong financial sanctions that restrict the government’s
ability to get access to new debt…. I don’t think there’s any shortage of
pressure. What we need is engagement.

In addition to continuing to back the sanctions, WOLA refused to call out
Guaidó’s self-swearing in as a coup attempt, even though it triggered
<https://twitter.com/frrodriguezc/status/1088145584760995841?s=21> a de
facto trade embargo, given that the US and its allies no longer recognized
the Maduro government’s right to invoice Venezuelan oil exports.

Rather, Smilde told *Democracy Now! *(2/5/19
<https://www.democracynow.org/2019/2/5/whats_next_for_venezuela_as_us>)
that “it’s a plausible interpretation that if there’s…not a legitimate
president, it will be the National Assembly president that steps in as
interim president.” He did raise concern about the US recognition of Guaidó
creating “a real difficulty in Venezuela in terms of the lack of funds
coming in,” but at no point did he condemn it as a coup.

WOLA released a statement
<https://www.wola.org/2019/01/u-s-oil-sanctions-risk-deepening-human-suffering-venezuela-weaken-mobilization-democracy/>
criticizing
the oil embargo that the Trump administration formalized on January 28,
though it stopped short of calling for the illegal measure to be
unconditionally rescinded.

Despite acknowledging that “sanctions have punished and weakened
populations” in Zimbabwe, Syria and North Korea, the think tank merely
suggested that the new measures should be lifted “if there is no way for
the human cost of these oil sanctions to be avoided.” WOLA made no mention
of the previous financial sanctions exacerbating “the severe hardships and
suffering” that they decried.

However, as sanctions predictably caused drastic fuel shortages
<https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14500> across Venezuela and Washington
moved to tighten <https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14527> the deadly
siege, WOLA still refused to demand that they be lifted. The fact that
prominent economists Jeffrey Sachs and Mark Weisbrot published a study
(CEPR, 4/19
<https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04.pdf>)
finding the August 2017 financial sanctions responsible for an estimated
40,000 deaths over the following year was apparently of negligible concern
to them.

[image: NYT: Negotiating Venezuela’s Transition]

Meanwhile, Smilde and Lowenthal were quite busy penning op-eds urging
“strong international support” for Norway-mediated talks between the
Venezuelan government and opposition (*New York Times*, 6/11/19
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/11/opinion/guaido-venezuela-norway.html>; *The
Hill*, 7/3/19
<https://thehill.com/opinion/international/450875-venezuela-negotiations-deserve-strong-international-support>
).

“Strong international support” evidently meant continuing devastating
sanctions, because in neither piece did the authors call for sanctions
relief.

The *Times *article—published five days after the Treasury Department banned
<https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14527> the export of diluents to
Venezuela, which are vital for gasoline and diesel production—did not even
contain the word “sanctions.”

In the absence of any credible domestic opposition to its coup policy, the
Trump administration doubled down in August
<https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13330>, expanding the existing embargo
to an Iran-style ban on dealings with the Venezuelan state, enforceable via
secondary sanctions on third party actors.

WOLA teamed up with several Latin American partner organizations to issue
yet another deferential statement (8/6/19
<https://www.wola.org/2019/08/human-rights-organizations-new-u-s-sanctions-risk-aggravating-human-suffering-in-venezuela-with-no-solution-in-sight/>)
expressing “deep concern about the potential for these broad economic
sanctions to aggravate Venezuela’s humanitarian emergency.”

As it had in January, WOLA politely recommended that perhaps the Trump
administration should lift its illegal blockade “if there is no way to
avoid the human cost of these measures and provide humanitarian assistance
with the urgency and breadth that is required.”

In comments to corporate media, Ramsey criticized the escalation as an
electoral ploy “built on Cold War rhetoric” (*New York Times*, 8/6/19
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/world/americas/venezuela-sanctions-bolton-maduro.html>),
but he once again parroted US propaganda that sanctions were motivated by
an interest in democracy (*Bloomberg*, 8/9/19
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-09/as-maduro-and-guaido-trade-threats-their-underlings-seek-a-deal>
):

If there are clear, verifiable signals that new presidential elections
would be free and fair, the US government could be interested in ways to
loosen the impact of economic sanctions without lifting them entirely.

The August 2017 financial sanctions, which Ramsey helped justify and then
conceal, were levied 16 months before the deadline for Venezuelan
presidential elections. Like the US embargo on Sandinista Nicaragua in the
1980s
<https://todaynicaragua.com/on-this-day-reagan-announces-nicaragua-trade-embargo/>,
the sanctions had absolutely nothing to do with whether Maduro won “free
and fair” elections, which he had in 2013 and did again in 2018 (*FAIR.org*
, 5/23/18
<https://fair.org/home/media-delegitimize-venezuelan-elections-amid-complete-unanimity-of-outlook/>
).

Rather, the US blockade is a naked expression of imperial might, which WOLA
and other Western propaganda amplifiers hide behind empty rhetoric about
“democracy” and “human rights.”

Source URL: FAIR
<https://fair.org/home/wola-medias-left-source-for-pro-coup-propaganda-in-venezuela/>
Lucas Koerner

Lucas Koerner is a journalist and political analyst based in Caracas,
Venezuela. He currently serves on the editorial board of Venezuelanalysis.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20200606/512a5abd/attachment.htm>


More information about the News mailing list