Condi leaning on Venezuela's Chavez already

[housewolf]

Consider this:

"Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice, at her Senate confirmation
hearings Tuesday, accused the Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez of
meddling in the affairs of its neighbors. She said a thrust of her tenure as
Secretary of State will be to hold accountable Latin American leaders who fail
to uphold democracy.

The Bush administration has been a persistent critic of Mr. Chavez for what
are seen here as efforts to subdue the country's political opposition and
independent media, and Ms. Rice is making it clear that this approach will
continue as President Bush's second term begins.

Ms. Rice said the Bush administration doesn't want to see the democratic
trend in Latin over the past several years revert to a
totalitarian one.

She said there needs to be vigilance with regard to Mr. Chavez and, as she
termed it, the ’Äòdifficulties' his government is causing for its neighbors and
its ’Äòclose association' with Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

’ÄòWe are very concerned about a democratically elected leader who governs in
an il-liberal way,' she said. ’ÄòAnd some of the steps that have been taken, with
the media, against the opposition, I think are really very deeply troubling.
And we're going to have to, as a Hemisphere, that signed a Democracy Charter,
be devoted to making sure that those who signed that charter live up to it.'"
(http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-01-18-voa54.cfm)

As one source observed: "U.S. attacks on Chavez caricature him as a tyrant in
the class of Saddam Hussein, or a Marxist, or an anti-American clone of
Castro." (http://hnn.us/articles/7018.html)

The attacks on Hugo Chavez are not merely verbal. The US Government has been
stirring up and supporting opposition to Chavez. The US has worked with
internal groups to foment civil unrest, call strikes, and even support a coup: "The
failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US
government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the ’Äòdirty
wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that
time."
(http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html)

The US government was also deeply involved in efforts at a recall of Chavez:
"The documents...cited show that ’ÄòSumate,' a group that directs the signature
collection for Chavez' recall, received $53,400 from the congressionally
funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), whose mandate is to fund
causes that
strengthen democracy." (http://www.counterpunch.org/landau03252004.html)

In a classic strategy, the US government attempts to overthrow a foreign
government, then cites that government's reactions as anti-democratic behaviors.

Where is this leading?

"...the intentions of the U.S. government are clear. Last week the State
Department ordered non- essential embassy personnel to leave the country, and
warned American citizens not to travel here. But there have not been attacks on
American citizens or companies here, from either side of the political divide,
and this is not a particularly dangerous place for Americans to be.
In this situation, the State Department's extreme measures and warning can
only be interpreted as a threat. The Bush Administration has also openly sided
with the opposition, demanding early elections here. Then this week Washington
changed its position to demanding a referendum on Chavez's presidency, most
likely figuring that a divided opposition could easily lose to Chavez in an
election, despite its overwhelming advantage in controlling the major means of
communication."
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1218-05.htm

All of this already represents low intensity warfare and it is likely to get
worse until Chavez is finally removed from power.

Why is the US government calling Chavez a dictator, claiming that human
rights abuses are on the rise, and even accusing Chavez of harboring terrorists?
Saudi Arabia is not a democracy and is a supporter of terrorist groups. Why
the difference in treatment?

Could it be because the Saudis are amenable to the US agenda while Chavez is
regulating foreign oil companies?

Given the long history of US intervention in the region and around the globe,
can we take seriously administration claims about concerns for human rights?
The US has supported many dictators in the region and trained some of their
death squads in the "School of the Americas."

An excellent book on the kinds of non-military tactics which are employed in
foreign affairs is "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," by John Perkins.
Perkins is not a left wing person, he's a whistle blower who has seen things from
the inside. His book is important because it shows that coups and
interventions are often a continuation of policies which were first advanced with
non-military tactics.

After the "elections" in Iraq, the Bush administration will be eager to
consider the Iraq matter settled. A "peace keeping" force will be necessary
(as it is in Afghanistan) to keep the "anti-democratic" forces at bay.

If the administration fails to remove Chavez by other means, we may then hear
more about his "crimes" and the need to remove him in order to stabilize
democracy in the region.


From a private email list, no source