[news] What's at stake in Venezuela

[mstainsby at resist.ca]

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
Globalization Unmasked (Zed). He can be reached at:
jpetras at binghamton.edu

--
Macdonald Stainsby
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
In the contradiction lies the hope.
--Brecht.