Will The U.S. Invade Venezuela? It Wouldn't Be The First Time It Has Overthrown A Government In Latin America!

(The map above is from gzeromedia.com.)

Donald Trump has refused to take a military intervention of Venezuela off the table. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he invaded that country. Things are not going well for him in the United States, and he might just think a war is just what he needs to solve his domestic problem.

He has tried to frame Venezuela's current problems as supporting democracy. But the truth is that he is supporting an attempted coup that tried to unseat an elected leader (and undoubtably, that attested coup was probably arranged, or. at least supported by our own CIA).

It wouldn't be the first time the United States has overthrown a Latin American government. Since 1898, the U.S. has done it at least 41 times (and that doesn't count the number of times we tried and failed, like the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba). We have a long history of meddling in Latin America.

The myth that most Americans want to believe is that the U.S. did that to spread democracy or defend human rights. That is a lie! Many of the governments we overthrew were democratically-elected, and none of the meddling was to support human rights. Most of the time it was done on behalf of American corporations -- when the leader of a country got the crazy idea that his country's resources belong to the people of that country, and not a foreign (U.S.) corporation.

Below is part of an excellent article by John H. Coatsworth for the Harvard Review of Latin America:

In the slightly less than a hundred years from 1898 to 1994, the U.S. government has intervened successfully to change governments in Latin America a total of at least 41 times. That amounts to once every 28 months for an entire century (see table).

Direct intervention occurred in 17 of the 41 cases. These incidents involved the use of U.S. military forces, intelligence agents or local citizens employed by U.S. government agencies. In another 24 cases, the U.S. government played an indirect role. That is, local actors played the principal roles, but either would not have acted or would not have succeeded without encouragement from the U.S. government.

While direct interventions are easily identified and copiously documented, identifying indirect interventions requires an exercise in historical judgment. The list of 41 includes only cases where, in the author’s judgment, the incumbent government would likely have survived in the absence of U.S. hostility. The list ranges from obvious cases to close calls. An example of an obvious case is the decision, made in the Oval Office in January 1963, to incite the Guatemalan army to overthrow the (dubiously) elected government of Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes in order to prevent an open competitive election that might have been won by left-leaning former President Juan José Arévalo. A less obvious case is that of the Chilean military coup against the government of President Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973. The Allende government had plenty of domestic opponents eager to see it deposed. It is included in this list because U.S. opposition to a coup (rather than encouragement) would most likely have enabled Allende to continue in office until new elections.

The 41 cases do not include incidents in which the United States sought to depose a Latin American government, but failed in the attempt. The most famous such case was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961. Also absent from the list are numerous cases in which the U.S. government acted decisively to forestall a coup d’etat or otherwise protect an incumbent regime from being overthrown.

Overthrowing governments in Latin America has never been exactly routine for the United States. However, the option to depose a sitting government has appeared on the U.S. president’s desk with remarkable frequency over the past century. It is no doubt still there, though the frequency with which the U.S. president has used this option has fallen rapidly since the end of the Cold War.

Though one may quibble about cases, the big debates—both in the public and among historians and social scientists—have centered on motives and causes. In nearly every case, U.S. officials cited U.S. security interests, either as determinative or as a principal motivation. With hindsight, it is now possible to dismiss most these claims as implausible. In many cases, they were understood as necessary for generating public and congressional support, but not taken seriously by the key decision makers. The United States did not face a significant military threat from Latin America at any time in the 20th century. Even in the October 1962 missile crisis, the Pentagon did not believe that the installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba altered the global balance of nuclear terror. It is unlikely that any significant threat would have materialized if the 41 governments deposed by the United States had remained in office until voted out or overturned without U.S. help.

In both the United States and Latin America, economic interests are often seen as the underlying cause of U.S. interventions. This hypothesis has two variants. One cites corruption and the other blames capitalism. The corruption hypothesis contends that U.S. officials order interventions to protect U.S. corporations. The best evidence for this version comes from the decision to depose the elected government of Guatemala in 1954. Except for President Dwight Eisenhower, every significant decision maker in this case had a family, business or professional tie to the United Fruit Company, whose interests were adversely affected by an agrarian reform and other policies of the incumbent government. Nonetheless, in this as in every other case involving U.S. corporate interests, the U.S. government would probably not have resorted to intervention in the absence of other concerns.

The capitalism hypothesis is a bit more sophisticated. It holds that the United States intervened not to save individual companies but to save the private enterprise system, thus benefiting all U.S. (and Latin American) companies with a stake in the region. This is a more plausible argument, based on repeated declarations by U.S. officials who seldom missed an opportunity to praise free enterprise. However, capitalism was not at risk in the overwhelming majority of U.S. interventions, perhaps even in none of them. So this ideological preference, while real, does not help explain why the United States intervened. U.S. officials have also expressed a preference for democratic regimes, but ordered interventions to overthrow elected governments more often than to restore democracy in Latin America. Thus, this preference also fails to carry much explanatory power.

The U.S. Should Stop Interfering In Politics Of Venezuela

The United States is interfering in the internal politics of the nation of Venezuela. It's not the first time. The U.S. has been angry with Venezuela since they elected Chavez (and he nationalized Venezuelan oil -- taking it away from U.S. corporations). The U.S. even funded a coup attempt during the Bush administration (and is likely doing the same right now). Trump has even suggested several times using the U.S. military to intervene in Venezuela on the side of the right wing in that country.

This is the height of hypocrisy. While American politicians decry the intervention of Russia in our own political system, those same politicians (of bot political parties) see nothing wrong with interfering in Venezuelan politics.

The United States government needs to STOP interfering in the politics of Venezuela. Venezuela must solve its own political problems without outside interference -- just like the U.S. needs to do without foreign interference.

The following open letter is from Common Dreams:

The following open letter—signed by 70 scholars on Latin America, political science, and history as well as filmmakers, civil society leaders, and other experts—was issued on Thursday, January 24, 2019 in opposition to ongoing intervention by the United States in Venezuela.

The United States government must cease interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country’s government. Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.

Venezuela’s political polarization is not new; the country has long been divided along racial and socioeconomic lines. But the polarization has deepened in recent years. This is partly due to US support for an opposition strategy aimed at removing the government of Nicolás Maduro through extra-electoral means. While the opposition has been divided on this strategy, US support has backed hardline opposition sectors in their goal of ousting the Maduro government through often violent protests, a military coup d’etat, or other avenues that sidestep the ballot box.

Under the Trump administration, aggressive rhetoric against the Venezuelan government has ratcheted up to a more extreme and threatening level, with Trump administration officials talking of “military action” and condemning Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as part of a “troika of tyranny.” Problems resulting from Venezuelan government policy have been worsened  by US economic sanctions, illegal under the Organization of American States and the United Nations ― as well as US law and other international treaties and conventions. These sanctions have cut off the means by which the Venezuelan government could escape from its economic recession, while causing a dramatic falloffin oil production and worsening the economic crisis, and causing many people to die because they can’t get access to life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, the US and other governments continue to blame the Venezuelan government ― solely ― for the economic damage, even that caused by the US sanctions.

Now the US and its allies, including OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro and Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, have pushed Venezuela to the precipice. By recognizing National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the new president of Venezuela ― something illegal under the OAS Charter ― the Trump administration has sharply accelerated Venezuela’s political crisis in the hopes of dividing the Venezuelan military and further polarizing the populace, forcing them to choose sides. The obvious, and sometimes stated goal, is to force Maduro out via a coup d’etat.

The reality is that despite hyperinflation, shortages, and a deep depression, Venezuela remains a politically polarized country. The US and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change. If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability. The US should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America.

Neither side in Venezuela can simply vanquish the other. The military, for example, has at least 235,000 frontline members, and there are at least 1.6 million in militias. Many of these people will fight, not only on the basis of a belief in national sovereignty that is widely held in Latin America ― in the face of what increasingly appears to be a US-led intervention ― but also to protect themselves from likely repression if the opposition topples the government by force.

In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections. There have been efforts, such as those led by the Vatican in the fall of 2016, that had potential, but they received no support from Washington and its allies who favored regime change. This strategy must change if there is to be any viable solution to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.

For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis.

Signed:

Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, MIT and Laureate Professor, University of Arizona 

Laura Carlsen, Director, Americas Program, Center for International Policy 

Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University 

Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History and Chicano/a Latino/a Studies at Pomona College 

Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, University of Sydney 

Steve Ellner, Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives 

Alfred de Zayas, former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order and only UN rapporteur to have visited Venezuela in 21 years 

Boots Riley, Writer/Director of Sorry to Bother You, Musician 

John Pilger, Journalist & Film-Maker 

Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research 

Jared Abbott, PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University 

Dr. Tim Anderson, Director, Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies 

Elisabeth Armstrong, Professor of the Study of Women and Gender, Smith College 

Alexander Aviña, PhD, Associate Professor of History, Arizona State University 

Marc Becker, Professor of History, Truman State University 

Medea Benjamin, Cofounder, CODEPINK 

Phyllis Bennis, Program Director, New Internationalism, Institute for Policy Studies 

Dr. Robert E. Birt, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University 

Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University 

James Cohen, University of Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle

Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, Associate Professor, George Mason University 

Benjamin Dangl, PhD, Editor of Toward Freedom 

Dr. Francisco Dominguez, Faculty of Professional and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, UK 

Alex Dupuy, John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology Emeritus, Wesleyan University 

Jodie Evans, Cofounder, CODEPINK 

Vanessa Freije, Assistant Professor of International Studies, University of Washington 

Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor in International Development Studies, St. Mary’s University 

Evelyn Gonzalez, Counselor, Montgomery College 

Jeffrey L. Gould, Rudy Professor of History, Indiana University 

Bret Gustafson, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis 

Peter Hallward, Professor of Philosophy, Kingston University 

John L. Hammond, Professor of Sociology, CUNY 

Mark Healey, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut 

Gabriel Hetland, Assistant Professor of Latin American, Caribbean and U.S. Latino Studies, University of Albany 

Forrest Hylton, Associate Professor of History, Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Medellín 

Daniel James, Bernardo Mendel Chair of Latin American History 

Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice 

Daniel Kovalik, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh 

Winnie Lem, Professor, International Development Studies, Trent University 

Dr. Gilberto López y Rivas, Professor-Researcher, National University of Anthropology and History, Morelos, Mexico 

Mary Ann Mahony, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University 

Jorge Mancini, Vice President, Foundation for Latin American Integration (FILA) 

Luís Martin-Cabrera, Associate Professor of Literature and Latin American Studies, University of California San Diego 

Teresa A. Meade, Florence B. Sherwood Professor of History and Culture, Union College 

Frederick Mills, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University 

Stephen Morris, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Middle Tennessee State University 

Liisa L. North, Professor Emeritus, York University 

Paul Ortiz, Associate Professor of History, University of Florida 

Christian Parenti, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, John Jay College CUNY 

Nicole Phillips, Law Professor at the Université de la Foundation Dr. Aristide Faculté des Sciences Juridiques et Politiques and Adjunct Law Professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law 

Beatrice Pita, Lecturer, Department of Literature, University of California San Diego 

Margaret Power, Professor of History, Illinois Institute of Technology 

Vijay Prashad, Editor, The TriContinental 

Eleanora Quijada Cervoni FHEA, Staff Education Facilitator & EFS Mentor, Centre for Higher Education, Learning & Teaching at The Australian National University 

Walter Riley, Attorney and Activist 

William I. Robinson, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara 

Mary Roldan, Dorothy Epstein Professor of Latin American History, Hunter College/ CUNY Graduate Center 

Karin Rosemblatt, Professor of History, University of Maryland 

Emir Sader, Professor of Sociology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro 

Rosaura Sanchez, Professor of Latin American Literature and Chicano Literature, University of California, San Diego 

T.M. Scruggs Jr., Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa 

Victor Silverman, Professor of History, Pomona College 

Brad Simpson, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut 

Jeb Sprague, Lecturer, University of Virginia

Kent Spriggs, International human rights lawyer

Christy Thornton, Assistant Professor of History, Johns Hopkins University 

Sinclair S. Thomson, Associate Professor of History, New York University 

Steven Topik, Professor of History, University of California, Irvine 

Stephen Volk, Professor of History Emeritus, Oberlin College 

Kirsten Weld, John. L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, Department of History, Harvard University 

Kevin Young, Assistant Professor of History, University of Massachusetts Amherst 

Patricio Zamorano, Academic of Latin American Studies; Executive Director, InfoAmericas

Trump Is Destroying The U.S. Reputation In Latin America

Why did Donald Trump decide to skip the Summit of the Americas recently, and send the vic-president instead. The charts above could be a big clue. Most of the people in Latin America do not like or trust Donald Trump.

These charts use information from a survey of seven important Latin American countries (Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela) by the Pew Research Center in 2017. Note in the top chart, huge majorities in all those countries have no confidence that Trump will do the right thing regarding world affairs.

That lack of trust and confidence in Trump has resulted in a much less positive view of the United States in all of those countries.

In other words, Trump is trashing the reputation of the United States with our Latin American neighbors -- just like he has done in the rest of the world.

Trump Is A MORON When Talking About Venezuela

A couple of days ago, Trump made some very stupid remarks about Venezuela -- remarks that show he is either a complete moron or a liar (probably both).

He said he was going to replace the socialism in Venezuela with democracy. That makes no sense at all. Democracy is not the antonym for socialism. Democracy is a form of government, while socialism is a type of economic system. While right-wingers want to deny it, the two can co-exist. A country can be both a democracy and a socialism.

And that is exactly what Venezuela is -- a socialistic democracy. They are a socialism because the government has assumed control of their natural resources (taken away from U.S. corporations) and the government provides a social safety net for its citizens. That is not a bad thing. Governments should take care of the needs of their citizens.

And they are a democracy. The government, including President Maduro, was elected by a majority of the people of Venezuela in free and fair elections (verified as fair by international observers, including Jimmy Carter). That's more than can be said for Trump (who received 3 million less votes than his opponent).

Americans have been propagandized into believing that socialism is evil and capitalism is good. The truth is that both have advantages -- although socialism provides advantages for the masses, while capitalism provides advantages for the rich and corporations. Here is the United States, we have a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Our government does not own most of our natural resources (we let corporations do that), but we have provided a socialistic safety net for many of our citizens (including Social Security, Medicare, public schools, food stamps, Pell grants, etc.).

Trump is a corporatist, and like other right-wingers, he is unhappy that American corporations can no longer steal the natural resources of Venezuela (as they do in many other countries around the world). But this is a ridiculous position. Venezuela has the right to own and control their own natural resources, and they have the right to elect their own government -- and the United States does not have the right to interfere in Venezuelan affairs.

Trump is a moron (and a liar), and he needs to leave Venezuela alone. Like the United States, they have the right of self-determination.

Public Is Still Convinced Trump Will Get Us Into A War

The chart above reflects the results from the Economist / YouGov Poll. It is a weekly poll, and I went back to show how the country feels about Trump and war. By picking up the poll every two weeks, it is clear that a majority of the public, since Trump was sworn in, believes Trump will get us into a new war --either out of ignorance or because he thinks a war will make him more popular.

Currently, about 57% of the population thinks it is likely Trump will get us into a new war, while only 25% thinks that is unlikely. And after Trump bombastic speech to the United Nations, that 57% could well be right.

Trump threatened to completely destroy North Korea and wants to withdraw from the Iranian treaty (which they are abiding by). Both of those threats make the world a more dangerous place. Hopefully, the Pentagon and the State Department can talk him out of war with either of those nations -- wars that would kill hundreds of thousands of people, and have little likelihood of success.

But he also threatened "action" against a third nation -- Venezuela. He would have you believe that Venezuela is ruled by a tyrant who opposes democracy. That is simply not true. Venezuela's president was elected in a democratic election, and he actually got a significant majority of the votes (unlike Trump himself). The truth is that Trump (and other American presidents) are unhappy with Venezuela because they kicked out American corporations and nationalized their natural resources (oil).

Trump has already made it clear that he represents corporations -- not the American people. And I'm afraid he could decide that Venezuela would be the best place to have a war -- thinking it would be an easier target than North Korea or Iran, and would allow him to put a right-wing government in power there (that would welcome back American corporations. I hope I'm wrong, but I think the likeliest place for a Trump war is Venezuela (even though they pose no danger to this country).

I think Trump is itching to wage war somewhere. Am I right? What do you think?

U.S. Sanctions Against Venezuela Are Wrong

Yesterday, the Trump administration announced sanctions against Venezuela. The sanctions would freeze any assets that Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro has in the U.S. (although it is unclear if he has any), and would make it illegal for any American to do business with him.

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said:

"By sanctioning Maduro, the United States makes clear our opposition to the policies of his regime and our support for the people of Venezuela who seek to return their country to a full and prosperous democracy."

That's pure bullshit. Venezuela is a democracy, and Maduro is its duly elected president. And he was actually elected with a majority of the vote (unlike the current U.S. president).

The truth is that the United States has been upset with Venezuela since the country elected a socialist president (Hugo Chavez) who kicked American corporations out of the country and seized their properties for the benefit of the Venezuelan people. Maduro was elected after Chavez died, but continues his policies.

The U.S. has tried to reinstate the former right-wing capitalists, but failed -- and they continue to support those anti-democratic forces. This makes no real sense, since Venezuela poses no danger to the United States in any way. In addition, the U.S. currently supports much more authoritarian leaders in other countries (like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines), and doesn't seem to worry about the lack of democracy in those countries. We even send some of them foreign aid, and sell weapons to all of them.

We should stop picking on Venezuela. It's no business of ours who the Venezuelan people elect as their president, or what kind of government and economic system they prefer. We wouldn't stand for them trying to dictate to us, and we should show them the same courtesy by staying out of their internal affairs.

Latin America Agrees - U.S. Should End The Cuban Embargo

 (This cartoon on Cuban embargo is by Matt Wuerker at Politico.com.)

Recently, U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro negotiated a return to normal diplomatic relations between the two countries. And last month each nation officially opened an embassy in the other country. But one thing the president did not do was end the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

That embargo has now been in effect for over 50 years. It was instituted to put economic pressure on Cuba, and force it to change their government (to one more compliant with U.S. government policies and U.S. corporate greed). To say it has not worked would be an understatement -- and the other nations of the world long ago abandoned it. They all now trade with Cuba as though the embargo did not exist. That includes the nations in this hemisphere, especially the Latin American nations.

Latin American nations have tried to convince the United States for many years to allow Cuba into the Organization of American States (OAS), and to normalize relations with Cuba. Those goals have now been accomplished. All that really remains to be done is to end the embargo on trade with Cuba.

The reason President Obama couldn't end the embargo is because that embargo was imposed by Congress -- and only Congress can remove it. Unfortunately, Congress is controlled by right-wing Republicans -- and they still think they can gain politically from continuing the embargo (especially among their xenophobic base).

Latin American nations disagree. They want the embargo to end. The Pew Research Center surveyed at least 1,000 citizens in each of five of the largest and most powerful Latin American nations, and they found huge majorities of citizens in those nations want the United States to end the embargo against Cuba. They see it as divisive and counterproductive. The results of that survey are illustrated in the chart below:

President Obama (& The Right) Are Wrong About Venezuela

Recently, President Obama issued an executive order declaring the nation of Venezuela to be a national security threat to the United States (and imposing sanctions on some of its leaders). The president is wrong. Venezuela is a democratic country, and poses no national security risk to the United States at all. What has really happened is that President Obama has caved in to the interests of giant American corporations, who are unhappy because Venezuela's leaders are doing what is best for their own citizens instead of allowing those corporations to impose their own economic agenda on Venezuela -- robbing them of their own natural resources.

If you want to know the truth about the Venezuelan situation, then you need to read this article. It was written for jacobinmag.com by George Ciccariello-Maher (assistant professor of political science at Drexel University in Philadelphia).

On March 9, the Obama administration issued an executive order declaring Venezuela a threat to US national security and imposing sanctions on several individuals. What’s the backstory?

The pretext for these sanctions is so-called human rights abuses that occurred more than a year ago, during a wave of street protestsagainst the government of Nicolás Maduro. I say so-called because what actually happened in the streets a year ago has been systematically misrepresented. The opposition narrative is one of spontaneous, peaceful protests by all Venezuelans against a tyrannical government — in the vein of the Arab Spring or the Occupy Movement — to which the government responded with brutal repression.

The reality was very different: the protests were hardly spontaneous, and in fact part of a strategy by the radical right-wing sector of the opposition to overthrow a democratically elected government. The means were far from peaceful, and while in some cases the police and national guard responded brutally, they were on the whole incredibly patient with the protesters, who they allowed to blockade entire areas of cities for more than a month.

In the end, the forty-three deaths were distributed evenly among Chavistas, the opposition, and security forces. But while many of the police responsible for violence were arrested, the same can’t be said for the protesters who, for example, decapitated motorcyclists with barbed wire and sniped at police from rooftops. And their constituency was far from “all Venezuelans” — nearly all the protesters were from the middle and upper classes, as were the neighborhoods that saw protests.

During the 2014 protests, the Obama administration insisted that the sanctions being pushed by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and others would be counterproductive. What changed?

The timeline is very revealing. On December 17, 2014, the Obama administration announced a historic thaw in relations with Cuba, and on it December 18, 2014, announced a first round of sanctions on Venezuela — this only a week after the release of the Senate torture report.

The second and most recent sanctions announcement came a mere five days after the release of the Department of Justice’s Ferguson report. And yet, irony of ironies, the White House has the temerity to accuse Venezuela of trying to “distract” attention from internal problems by inventing threats abroad.

But this distraction also serves an electoral purpose: while thawing relations with Cuba is increasingly popular among a younger generation of Cubans in Florida, it runs the risk of pushing more hardline elements — who are also very wealthy — into the Republican camp, especially if Rubio winds up running for the presidency. So by making Venezuela the new Cuba, the new international pariah, the Democrats are trying to have their cake and eat it too (my apologies to Emiliana Duarte for the metaphor).

But if the sanctions will be “productive” in Florida, won’t they still be counterproductive in Venezuela?

Absolutely — and it’s hard to understand how the Obama administration could fail to see this. While the Venezuelan opposition in Venezuela is almost as delusional as the Venezuelan self-exiles in Miami, there’s one big difference: opposition leaders on the ground have to live with the consequences of their catastrophic decisions.

What that means in this case is that, while radical right-wingers in Florida may be celebrating the sanctions, it would be suicidal for the opposition in Venezuela to do the same. They would simply prove what Chavistas already believe: that they are treasonous lapdogs of imperial power.

The Venezuelan opposition is a walking contradiction. Unable to become a majority, it is perennially torn between participating in elections it will almost certainly lose and boycotting them. It can’t win as long as it is seen as undemocratic, and boycotts and coups only support this view. It lacks a political program or any proposals whatsoever, because any proposals it would make would be deeply unpopular. And so the opposition swings wildly between lost elections and failed insurrections, each only confirming the other.

So the concurrence of Cuban thaw and Venezuelan winter is no coincidence. But this attempt to keep Florida in the Democratic column comes at the expense of political rationality. And it shows yet again that Miami itself, the zone where Venezuelan and Cuban terrorists walk free as political kingmakers, is a severe liability for the opposition. Some among the opposition recognize this, even constructing farcical conspiracy theories about Obama secretly wanting to keep Maduro in office.

What about Maduro’s claims to have dismantled a coup plot?

Here’s a second way that Obama’s executive order has been completely counterproductive. When the Maduro government recently announced the discovery of yet another coup plot, arresting several military officials as well as the opposition mayor of greater Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, the international media narrative was clear: here was a paranoid despot imagining threats and imprisoning his political enemies.

Despite the increasing evidence of the coup-plotting and despite Ledezma’s own brutal past and insurrectional calls in the present, even many Venezuelans were likely feeling some coup fatigue. This isn’t to say that the threat is imagined. Just the opposite: there have been so many plots that even the very real threats can seem more a part of everyday life — a “continuous coup,” in the words of some.

The executive order simply confirms this, by making it absolutely clear that the United States supports regime change in Venezuela (hence the comical interaction between US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki and Associated Press reporter Matt Lee). Maduro has taken full advantage of this clear violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, rallying an anti-imperialist front at home — giving some much-needed respite from economic challenges — and even securing a unanimous call by the Union of South American Nations to revoke the sanctions.

So, is Venezuela a threat?

Let’s hope so! The great revolutionary poet June Jordan once wrote that: “I must become a menace to my enemies.” To use her words, US hegemony “should be extirpated from my universe . . . should be cauterized from earth completely (lawandorder jerkoffs of the first terrorist degree),” and those who fight it do indeed represent a “menace.”

The Obama administration has every reason to worry, and there are reasons for their “jumpy fits and facial tics,” even if we’re talking about the frozen and tic-less face of Psaki. For Jordan, who dedicated her words to the revolutionary Angolan President Agostinho Neto, becoming a menace entails standing up, becoming a subject in a world of objects, and demanding control over your own future: “I must become the action of my fate.”

Venezuela is a threat like Mike Brown was a threat, like Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant were threats, like CeCe McDonald is a threat, like it is threatening to even say “black lives matter” to a system that every day proves otherwise. Venezuela is a threat in the same way that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover once declared the Black Panther Party “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country.” Venezuela is a threat like Ferguson is threat incarnate: both clearly show the world-making role of popular insurrections, riots, and rebellions, that what is made can be unmade and made again.

Venezuela is a threat because, at a bare minimum, people want to live and breathe, and even more so because some dare to demand control over their own lives. Venezuela is a threat because, again in the words of Jordan, the Venezuelan people “will no longer lightly walk behind.”

U.S. Media Is Not Reporting The Truth About Venezuela

I have been amazed recently at the reporting on Venezuela by the American press. Instead of getting the story right, and reporting the truth about what is happening in that country, both broadcast and print media is doing nothing more than repeating government propaganda. And sadly, the Obama administration is no better than the Bush administration was when it comes to spreading lies about Venezuela.

The press should be digging deeper, but they have shown by this shallow support of anti-Venezuela propaganda that they no longer seem to be interested in real reporting. The corporate-controlled media is more interested these days in profit, so they report fluff pieces and political press releases -- because real reporting costs money, and could cut into the corporate profits. This is dangerous because a democracy like ours requires a well-informed public, and that can only be accomplished by a media willing to dig deep and report the truth.

Two members of the Green Party Shadow Cabinet, Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, have written an excellent article on Venezuela and the failure of the American press for Truth-Out.org. It's a great article and I recommend reading all of it. Here is some of it:

Americans might be fooled by mass media misinformation, but Venezuelans know what is really happening in their country.

The misinformation in most of the media about the protests in Venezuela is astounding. Often the opposite of reality is repeated as if it were true. Americans who rely on the corporate mass media, politicians and corrupted nonprofits might fall for these tales, but Venezuelans know what is really happening.

Venezuelans have gone through 14 years of abuse and lies, including a coup attempt. They know what is really occurring in their economy and political system and are aware that their government is in a battle with the power of money both internally as well as with the US empire. In every election since 2002, Venezuelans have shown that their deep political education, participatory democracy and experience will overcome the falsehoods of the opposition. The violent actions of the opposition and intentional undermining of the economy are signs of an oligarch class that has lost power and is desperate. It must work outside of democracy to try to retake control of the government. . .

Below are responses to four falsehoods followed by one truth you will not hear in the US media.

Falsehood 1: The Maduro Government Is a Dictatorship.

Venezuela is one of the most democratic nations on Earth. Here are some facts about democracy in Venezuela:

"Regarding the supposed 'democratic deficit of the Venezuelan regime,' the facts speak for themselves. Since 1998 there have been four national plebiscites, four presidential elections, and eleven parliamentary, regional, and municipal elections. Venezuela is the Latin American country with the highest number of elections and it also has an automatic electoral system (much more modern than Chile's), described by Jimmy Carter, who has observed 92 elections in all continents, as 'the best system in the world.' "

The real "democratic deficit" has been shown by the United States and the opposition. In particular, Secretary of State John Kerry has flown his anti-democracy flag repeatedly when it comes to Venezuela. As Mark Weisbrot recently wrote "when Maduro was elected president and opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles claimed that the election was stolen, Kerry refused to recognize the election results. Kerry's aggressive, anti-democratic posture brought such a strong rebuke from South American governments that he was forced to reverse course and tacitly recognize the Maduro government. (For those who did not follow these events, there was no doubt about the election results.)"

In December 2013, the Maduro government showed even greater strength in municipal elections. It won 58 percent of the country's municipalities. Maduro and his allies gained more than 49 percent of the total vote share, versus 43 percent for the opposition. This means that the right-wing opposition coalition had now lost four national elections in the past 14 months then lost the most recent municipal elections. . .

Falsehood 2: Maduro and Chavez Have Destroyed the Economy. Markets Do Not Have Essentials and Inflation Is Out of Control

It is important to understand that the oligarchs, in league with the United States, have been at war with the Chavez-Maduro governments since Chavez was first elected in 1999. One of the consistent strategies they have used has been to undermine the economy. This is a common strategy used by the United States in efforts to foment regime change throughout the world, as it has been doing since the 1950s.

In fact, documents released by attorney and journalist Eva Golinger in November 2013 show a plan by the United States, Colombia and the oligarchs in Venezuela to undermine the economy to remove Maduro. The document, "Strategic Venezuelan Plan," was prepared by people from Colombia, the United States and the oligarchs in Venezuela. According to Golinger, the plan was developed during a meeting with leaders of the Venezuelan opposition; J.J. Rendon, an expert in psychological operations; and Mark Feierstein, director of the US Agency for International Development for Latin America.

The plan includes a variety of steps to undermine the Venezuelan economy. They put forward strategies "to maintain and increase the sabotages that affect public services, particularly the electrical system that will enable responsibility to be placed on the government for supposed inefficiencies and negligence."

Regarding the scarcity of goods, Golinger writes:

"Throughout the year, Venezuela has experienced problems with the supply of basic products, such as toilet paper, sugar, milk, oil, butter, flour and other food staples. Venezuelan authorities have confiscated tons of these products illegally held inside warehouses belonging to opposition businesses. They have also captured large quantities of these items on the border with Colombia, where they are sold as contraband."

Maria Paez Victor confirms this writing:

"A double blow of outrageous overpricing of goods plus artificial food scarcity started just as people were beginning their Christmas shopping. Wealthy merchants proceeded to hoard essential goods: corn flour, sugar, salt, cooking oil, toilet paper, etc. placing them in hidden warehouses or spirited off to Colombia through a well-planned smuggling operation. The military discovered an illegal bridge built for motorcycles that carried the smuggled goods. Thousands of bags of foodstuffs were discovered simply left rotting on Colombian byways: this was not smuggling for economic reasons, but for political reasons."

The purpose of the shortages is to create chaos, social unrest and lack of confidence in the government. In the leaked "Strategic Venezuela Plan," it describes their goal as "generating emotion with short messages that reach the largest quantity of people and emphasize social problems, provoking social discontent. Increase problems with supply of basic consumer products.". . .

Falsehood 3: The Maduro Government Controls All of the Media, so the Opposition Has No Freedom of Speech

Another argument that is being constantly repeated is the supposed lack of freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Venezuela. Once again the numbers speak for themselves:

"80% of the media is private. The three national newspapers (El Universal, El Nacional and Ultimos Noticias) are opposed to the government, especially the first two, and they bring together 90% of the readership. Of the four television channels with national coverage, three of them (Venevision, Globovision, and Televen) are opposition, and likewise bring together 90% of the audience, according to information provided by the company AGB."

Mark Weisbrot did an analysis of Venezuelan television coverage to test whether statements by the The New York Times (and others like it) are accurate. The Times begins its news report on Friday from Venezuela with "The only television station that regularly broadcast voices critical of the government was sold last year and the new owners have softened its news coverage." Weisbrot found the statement to be completely false. He provided links to major private TV coverage of recent events that were all supportive of the opposition and critical of the government. The interviews included all of the leaders of the opposition. . .

Falsehood 4: The Maduro Government Is Reacting With Violence Against Nonviolent Protesters

As part of the plan described in the leaked "Strategic Venezuelan Plan" the opposition seeks to: "Create situations of crisis in the streets that will facilitate US intervention, as well as NATO forces, with the support of the Colombian government. Whenever possible, the violence should result in deaths or injuries." What is being seen on the streets of Venezuela is consistent with that strategy.

After the last presidential election, won narrowly by Maduro, Eva Golinger reports that his opponent called for violence: "Capriles refused to accept the results and called his supporters to take to the streets in protest, to 'get all their rage out.' During the two days after the elections, 11 government supporters were killed by Capriles' followers."

Professor Steve Ellner of the Universidad de Oriente in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela, argues that the cause of the violence is the opposition, not the government. He points out the opposition has been caught killing Venezuelans in the past, describing the juxtaposing of images during the 2002 coup against Chavez. The opposition tried to make it look like Chavez was killing Venezuelans, and the US media, including CNN, reported these false images. Later, the full images showed it was actually the opposition murdering Venezuelans.

Ellner points to violence used by the opposition in the current upheaval - including attacking grocery stores, banks, buses and government buildings. Other commentators also have described specific incidents of violence by the opposition, including killing people. Maduro ordered the arrest of a retired general who tweeted how to use wire to decapitate people (in fact people have been killed and injured by such tactics) on motorcycles and how to attack armored vehicles with Molotov cocktails. Others in the opposition have tweeted about how to use blockades and to pour oil to cause vehicles to crash and catch on fire. . .

Truth: The United States Has Been Supporting the Overthrow of the Venezuelan Government Since Chavez Was Elected

Bhatt: "WikiLeaks actually produced a document, a 2006 cable, which ... was signed by the US ambassador and described a number of positions, which included 'Penetrating Chavez' Political Base,' 'Dividing Chavismo,' protecting US vital interests and 'Isolating Chavez Internationally.' " US diplomatic cables demonstrate that the United States has been using tactics to try to undermine Chavez-Maduro for a long time.

Golinger reports that the United States has been a consistent funder of the opposition in Venezuela. She writes:

"Over the ten year period, from 2000-2010, US agencies, including the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and its Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI), set up in Caracas in 2002, channeled more than $100 million ... to opposition groups in Venezuela. The overall objective was regime change."

During this time Chavez-Maduro has gotten stronger in Venezuelan elections, and the opposition has failed to make progress. Golinger reports that the United States has more recently focused on building a youth-protest movement in Venezuela, writing:

"Over one third of US funding, nearly $15 million annually by 2007, was directed towards youth and student groups, including training in the use of social networks to mobilize political activism. Student leaders were sent to the US for workshops and conferences on Internet activism and media networking. They were formed in tactics to promote regime change via street riots and strategic use of media to portray the government as repressive"

Leopoldo Lopez has taken on a leadership role in the current protests. He recently was arrested for inciting violence and calling for the removal of Maduro. Lopez has a long history with the United States and comes from one of the wealthiest families in Venezuela. Lopez was involved in the US-backed 2002 coup and received start-up money from the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its offshoots, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

But Lopez's ties to the United States go back to his time as an undergraduate at Kenyon College in Ohio. Kenyon is known as a training ground for CIA assets; it even has a CIA scholarship program. Kenyon has CIA-friendly professors, and the Kenyon Review was even funded by the CIA. Lopez spent five years at Kenyon and went on to get a master's degree at the JFK School for Government at Harvard. With this history, it not surprising to see him involved in the 2002 coup and in the leadership of the current unrest, while the United States is funding his political party and opposition organizing.

The other major leader of the opposition is Marína Corina Machado, the president of SUMATE, another opposition party. SUMATE also received an NED grant from the United States of tens of thousands of dollars after the 2002 coup.

Wikileaks exposed the connection between the United States and opposition forces in trying to undermine the government. The documents came from the Stratfor leaks, quoting the CEO of Stratfor saying the US government is maneuvering to remove Chavez and how the State Department provides information to what he calls "a clueless US media." . . .

The United States knows that Venezuela is the key to regaining control of Latin America, which has broken from US domination. Venezuela is also a leader in challenging the economic policies of the United States that empower private corporations and weaken the power of government to provide services to meet the needs of the people. Putting in place a US-friendly government is a top priority for the United States in Latin America. Americans need to be very skeptical about what they hear about Venezuela.

Venezuela Stays The Course

President Hugo Chavez was extremely popular in Venezuela, and I feared that after his death that country might once again be seized by right-wing forces -- who would undo all the reforms Chavez had done and create a plutocracy (where the rich would rule and the poor would be left out in the cold once again). But while the election was closer than when Chavez ran, the right-wing was beaten back.

The man in the picture above is Nicolas Maduro, who has been the acting president since the death of Hugo Chavez. He was also the person recommend by Chavez to be his successor. And a couple of days ago, he was the winner in Venezuela's presidential race. It was a squeaker, but he won and will now start a full term as president. Here are the official results:

Nicolas Maduro...............7,563,747 (50.75%)
Henrique Capriles...............7,298,491 (48.97%)

Capriles is of course complaining that the election was unfair, but that is normal (and he complained just as hard when defeated by a much larger margin by Chavez). But the truth is that the people of Venezuela voted (79.17% of them) and he lost in a fair election.

I congratulate the people of Venezuela on their choice for president, and I hope he can continue the reforms that Hugo Chavez started.

Hugo Chavez Was Good For Venezuela

There has been a lot of pretty bad press regarding President Hugo Chavez in this country since his death. In fact, far too many in the United States seem to be celebrating his death. That is primarily because the U.S. government has been demonizing President Chavez for many years. They have done this because U.S. foreign policy is driven by what is good for the giant corporations -- and Chavez made the U.S. corporations mad by seizing control of Venezuela's huge oil reserves from the corporations.

But while U.S. corporate moguls didn't like President Chavez, he was very good for the people of Venezuela. His policies reduced poverty, made education more available to more people, reduced child malnutrition, increased GDP, and generally helped more Venezuelans to participate in the economic success of their country. The following charts show just how good President Hugo Chavez was for the people of Venezuela:

The charts represent, from top to bottom -- GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, poverty, child malnutrition, growth of number getting pensions, growth in pre-primary and primary and secondary education, and growth in number of college graduates. I can understand why corporate America did not like President Chavez (although I disagree with them), but it cannot be denied that he was good for the nation of Venezuela and its people.