US and the Venezuelan Coup Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit source - pzdavis@hotmail.com (Pat) The Blade - April 21, 2002 Divisions over Venezuela: Flip-flop pits dislike for Chavez, issue of democracy by Frida Ghitis SPECIAL TO THE BLADE WASHINGTON - The news from Venezuela blew like a cool breeze on a sweltering summer day for U.S. leaders in Washington following those developments. Administration officials, tense and tired from watching the unraveling of the Middle East; edgy from suddenly facing domestic criticism that Bush's policies on terrorism were losing their moral clarity with his call for Israel to stop its actions against Palestinians; weary from threats by Muslim oil producers to suspend oil shipments if the United States didn't get Israel to stop attacking Palestinians, suddenly found reason to rejoice. The word from Venezuela brought a welcome bit of news. The troublesome, often irritating president of the South American country, had moved aside. A new president was taking over. At last, some good news! Not so fast. What occurred in Venezuela and, more importantly, the way Washington reacted to it, has become a major embarrassment for the Bush administration, which found itself on the defensive, denying charges that, at the very least, it knew about the coup before it happened. Even if those charges are proved to be false, Washington's rejoicing over a bungled coup that kept the Venezuelan out of office for only 48 hours, leaving the administration open to charges that it turned its back on democracy. Most think of the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, as the principal source of America's oil. But Venezuela, on the northeastern corner of South America, is one of the world's major oil producers. The country is the third largest provider of oil to the United States, exporting about 1.5 million barrels to America every day. Venezuela, a member of OPEC, long had been one of the organization's least disciplined members, going over its quota frequently and thus making it almost impossible for the oil cartel to control prices. That all changed when the colorful Hugo Chavez came to power. Mr. Chavez, a former paratrooper who had once led a failed military coup of his own, was elected president democratically with promises of bringing radical change to a country that, although awash in petroleum, suffers from horrific poverty. Just months before he took power in Caracas, a barrel of oil was selling for about $10, less than half today's price. President Chavez immediately set to transform his country, and to revitalize the oil cartel. Enjoying enormous popular support, Mr. Chavez tore down and then rebuilt government institutions. He had a new constitution written after his chosen delegates were approved as the drafters of the document. He gained control of the judiciary and the legislature, and he stacked just about every part of government with his supporters, many of them military men. In the process, Mr. Chavez managed to insult the church, calling priests "devils in vestments." He routinely attacked the rich, calling them oligarchs who should move to Miami. Most observers agreed, Mr. Chavez was concentrating powers into his own hands, severely crippling democratic institutions in his country. But he did it all within the law. Then Mr. Chavez set out to work on the world oil markets. He paid visits to Muammar Kaddafi of Libya, to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, while continuing to develop a deeply personal friendship with Fidel Castro of Cuba, constantly irritating Washington. Mr. Chavez helped OPEC set production quotas and stick to them. He was instrumental in producing a tightening of oil supplies that brought oil prices to new levels. It's not surprising then, that when Venezuela announced a few days ago that Hugo Chavez was no longer its president, oil prices took a sudden drop - about 6 percent (They went back up after he was reinstated). The timing, for the United States and many others, could not have been better. Oil prices had gone up 25 percent this year alone, as the American economy picks up steam, and as tensions in the Middle East continue to mount. Only recently, Saddam announced that he was stopping shipments of oil as a gesture of support for the Palestinians, and Iranian President Mohammed Khatami (the "moderate" Iranian) reiterated his country's call for Muslim countries to stop selling oil for 30 days, also in support of the Palestinians. What superb timing by the masses in Caracas! On April 11, a large protest by Venezuelan workers, angry over Chavez' installation of a new board of directors of the traditionally independent national oil company, spun out of control. Tensions had been building for months. The country is sharply divided, with Mr. Chavez's populist rhetoric intensifying class differences. Major military figures had come forth calling for his resignation, and what was once a sky-high approval rating had dipped to about 30 percent. When the protesters were met with gunfire from Chavez supporters, the military stepped in and took over. They installed Pedro Carmona Estanga, a business leader who didn't last long. The head of the country's largest business association was declared president, with an announcement that Mr. Chavez had resigned. But Chavez supporters refused to believe their man had folded. A top executive at the oil company said the country would start pumping more oil, probably exceeding its OPEC quota. It is unlikely that a single Latin American president felt that Mr. Chavez really would be missed. And yet, the Organization of American States condemned the Venezuelan coup. Almost all democratically elected leaders in the Americas made it clear that, like him or not, Mr. Chavez legally, democratically had been elected president. Removing him constituted an affront against the principle of democracy, a principle worth preserving, even when one disagrees with the outcome of the process. The president of Mexico declared that he would not recognize the new government. Statements throughout the hemisphere condemned what appeared to be a coup. The United States, however, did not speak out against the overthrow of a democratically elected president. American officials stated that Mr. Chavez himself was responsible for the events that lead to his ouster. The United States did itself enormous damage. Latin America and, for that matter, much of the Third World, where the image of America as a nation that supported despotic regimes that suited its goals during the Cold War has been changing very slowly. When the United States sent troops to Haiti to "restore democracy" many in the hemisphere believed perhaps America was truly standing up for the democracy it claimed to hold so dear. That image now has been set back. Worse yet, many in Latin America believe that the Bush administration, with a sharp focus on controlling oil markets, played an important part in the failed coup. Washington is denying it ever lent even tacit support to plotters, although it admits that Chavez adversaries did seek support, and that the man who took office for a short time after deposing Mr. Chavez was, in fact, in contact with Otto J. Reich at the State Department. Mr. Reich is in charge of Inter-American affairs at the State Department. The government says the United States did nothing to encourage the assault on democracy. And yet, it is guilty, at the very least, of badly mishandling the crisis in Caracas. The mistakes of mid-April may take years to repair [Frida Ghitis is an international journalist and author. Her latest book is "The End of Revolution: a Changing World in the Age of Live Television."] ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= nytcari-04.26.02-02:43:55-19051