The Latin American governments understand this strategy and see it as an ugly threat to democracy in the region; hence their quick response and fierce opposition to the sanctions.Latin American leaders are all too aware of US history from slavery followed by cultural and institutional racism, Native American genocide, "gunboat diplomacy," and the Spanish-American War, to the Bay of Pigs, the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile, the Pinochet dictatorship, and the death squads, and the coup against Hugo Chavez that was foiled, right down to the recent overthrow of democracy in Honduras and now the foiled coup against the Maduro government in Venezuela.
Counterpunch
Behind the White House’s Sanctions Against Venezuela
Mark Weisbrot | co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy
Also
An Open Letter to the People of the United States
Venezuela is Not a Threat
Nicolas Maduro | President of Venezuela
Also
An Open Letter to the People of the United States
Venezuela is Not a Threat
Nicolas Maduro | President of Venezuela
17 comments:
But but but ... Jen Psaki said that America never supports coups !
The People of the United States are out to lunch and could not be reached.
Return to sender.
Whitehouse version:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/09/fact-sheet-venezuela-executive-order
Translation of the WH version — Step on a coup attempt and we'll step on you. It's called the boot on-throat maneuver.
Tom the WH is accusing THEM of the 'boot on throat' move on demonstrators...
I have to think the Obama admin is concerned about a humanitarian crisis down there but dont want to put it in those terms... so they think the regime can be changed and better non-corrupt people can get in the Ven. govt to avoid a potential humanitarian crisis...
I cant see Obama admin acting on the motivations cited via Weisbrot here...
FD I didnt even vote for Obama I dont think much of this admin but it is not even this low as Weisbrot atttributes to them...
rsp,
@Matt Franko, Obama is concerned about a humanitarian crisis ????
Obama is so concerned that he imposed sanctions that will make people suffer?
Dan the "sanctions" freeze the assets of the corrupt officials that they can identify in accounts in the USD system. . ..
O seems to be trying to get them to resign and new leadership in to avoid a potential humanitarian crisis down there which they look at as threatening to US security. . Rsp
History is in favor of the Maduro government account, which the Latin American organizations and many governments have also endorsed very publicly.
These people are getting fed up with gunboat diplomacy and imposition of Pinochets on them by shock doctrine neoliberals that manufacture instability. This is no isolated case but follows a long pattern of US interference to install puppets.
Honduras Coup 2009: WikiLeaks Honduras: State Dept. Busted on Support of Coup
Tom I think those were old Cold War oriented policies down there....
Bush told them to put Chavez back in during coup in 2002 if you remember:
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html
they had Chavez out and the US told them to put him back in as he won the election...
Times have changed since the end of cold war and now it is about anti-corruption and competence...
There are 30m citizens in Ven. iirc so this is a major issue as that's a lot of people at risk...
rsp
lol sorry Tom here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt
"By March the CIA was briefing US officials that a coup might be planned, and on 6 April it issued another brief saying efforts to mount a coup were possibly being stepped up.[56] The 6 April brief noted that "To provoke military action, the plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month or ongoing strikes at the state-owned oil company PDVSA."[141] The United States embassy in Venezuela then supposedly informed Chávez of a possible coup and Chávez allegedly ignored their warnings.[134]
The New York Times also notes that the documents used by Golinger do not show direct involvement of the U.S. government in the coup attempt; instead, they show that U.S. officials issued "repeated warnings that the United States will not support any extraconstitutional moves to oust Chávez," whilst nonetheless talking only "broadly" to Mr. Chavez about opposition plans, and "provid[ing] few hard details of the looming plot"
This is the post Cold War policy now Tom... no coups...
rsp,
Even if there were corruption in Venezuela or any other country with a democratically elected government, what gives the US the right to interfere. The law says that sanctions can only be imposed for national security reasons. Venezuela is a threat to US national security. On that reasoning, any country doing major business with China in natural resources could be accused of threatening US national security.
Economic sanctions are a piece in hybrid warfare along with funding opposition groups, psyops, clandestine black ops and propaganda to conceal the facts. Venezuela is a country under attack by the US, make no mistake about it. The US government is basically fronting for the US oil industry that is not only outraged at the nationalization of Venezuela oil but want "our oil" back.
This latest is part of an ongoing tussle over (neo)colonial resources and US regional control in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Factbox: Venezuela's nationalizations under Chavez
What's happening instead is that the US is losing Latin America, which is increasingly turning left in reaction to rightist domination of American policy even under the Democrats.
The not-so-hidden agenda is that given the US policy of permanent military, political and economic hegemony, any breach of neoliberal globalization under US rules is a threat to US national security.
For example, US elites are now beside themselves on the defection of close allies. including the UK, to joining the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank against US wishes.
Matt. let's agree to differ on this.
First, in mu view almost everything that comes of the US is propaganda unless it is corroborated by independent source, which Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a reliable source in many cases, especially political. For example, the NYPD was recently forced to admit that Wikipedia on the . It's picture of the Honduran coup is totally ridiculous, for example.
There was just a big stink over the NYPD editing the Wikipedia page on the Garner incident. The NYPD admits that the IP addresses are traceable to its computers and has found who did but Bratton said they won't be punished for it.
I believe zero of what I read in the US media that is at all controversial unless I can check it against some independent sources.
Well Tom a complete breakdown in a nation of 30m at the north tip of SA would be a threat to US national security imo.... we're not going to shell refugee boats...
This is the southcom mission area and they are probably concerned. .. there is so much corruption down there the whole thing could unravel... look at Petrobras now...
They were getting by at $100 oil but it remains to be seen how this is going to work out long term if oil stays down below 50... Mexico too...
This is what foreign policy and foreign intelligence is used for down there... no oil company will go back down there for 50 years we're drowning in oil and gas... we actually want the Keystone to be able to export oil...
Rsp
Matt, now that relations are warming with Cuba, the legal proceedings have already begun to reacquire property nationalized in the revolution.
Moreover, I don't buy any argument that makes a potential refugee problem a national security reason to intervene in other sovereign nations. On that argument, the US should have intervened in Mexico long before this to stem the flow of illegal entrants who are really refugees from dire conditions in Central and Latin America, not only Mexico.
That argument is patently absurd. A nation has a right to protect its borders but not to cross borders to protect them unless defensively against aggression with out a UN mandate. Do to so violates the UN charter and constitutes aggression, a crime under international law.
Why is Mexico not considered a threat? A corrupt, poverty-stricken, violence-ridden country right on your doorstep.
Well, in fairness, the right does think that Mexico is a threat and wants to build a giant impenetrable wall along the border, just as the right in Ukraine wants to do on the Russian border. I guess they've forgotten about the Maginot Line.
Post a Comment