The Mainstream Press & the Caracas Coup Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit The Media and the Caracas Coup [Two bits of mainstream press coverage over the weekend actually bucked the US Line -- an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, and coverage by The New York Times' intelligence reporter, Tim Weiner. Both suffer from the usual delusion that "the USA supports democracy," and the tendency to accept what is said by the current incarnation of the US Government of World Domination about the crisis of the moment. If anything such articles tend to reinforce the myth of a "free press" -- that is part of their function. Tim Weiner's piece is especially interesting because it highlights the diverging institutional interests and separate fiefdoms within the "newspaper paper of record." While the Times editorial board embarrassed itself with a most ignorant and foolish editorial extolling the pverthrow of the "dictator" Chavez, their own correspondent produced a litany of the CIA's prior crimes in Latin America. The San Francisco Chronicle, in contrast, ran a scolding editorial calling a coup a coup, but at the end fell into the usual trap, wagging their fingers at Bush and telling him to "stay true to American principles," as if overthrowing popularly elected governments isn't what American principles are all about.--NY Transfer] The New York Times - Saturday night, April 13/14 2002 (published in the midst of the collapse of the CIA's Caracas coup, and obviously written earlier) source - JosePertierra@aol.com The New York Times - April 14, 2002 A Coup by Any Other Name by Tim Weiner MEXICO CITY -- When is a coup not a coup? When the United States says so, it seems -- especially if the fallen leader is no friend to American interests. What else to call the fall on Friday of Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez? An armed transition of power? By any other name, though its European and Latin American allies deplored it, it was a consummation devoutly wished for by the White House. "The actions encouraged by the Chavez government provoked a crisis," the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said on Friday. That sentence was spring-loaded, given the history of Latin American coups tacitly encouraged or covertly supported by the United States. For Washington, the real crisis in Caracas was Mr. Chavez. It ended with his leaving office at gunpoint. Now 1.5 million barrels of Venezuelan oil a day will keep flowing to the United States. And none will go to Fidel Castro's Cuba -- Venezuela's new leader, an oil man, immediately declared that tap shut. In Latin America, the United States has long preferred friendly faces in presidential palaces, playing reliable roles, whether or not they are wearing uniforms. It supported authoritarian regimes throughout Central and South America during and after the cold war in defense of its economic and political interests. In tiny Guatemala, the Central Intelligence Agency mounted a coup overthrowing the democratically elected government in 1954, and it backed subsequent right-wing governments against small leftist rebel groups for four decades. Roughly 200,000 civilians died. In Chile, a C.I.A.-supported coup helped put Gen. Augusto Pinochet in power from 1973 to 1990. In Peru, a fragile democratic government is still unraveling the agency's role in a decade of support for the now-deposed and disgraced president, Alberto K. Fujimori, and his disreputable spy chief, Vladimiro L. Montesinos. The United States had to invade Panama in 1989 to topple its narco-dictator, Manuel A. Noriega, who, for almost 20 years, was a valued informant for American intelligence. And the struggle to mount an armed opposition against Nicaragua's leftists in the 1980's by any means necessary, including selling arms to Iran for cold cash, led to indictments against senior Reagan administration officials. Among those investigated back then was Otto J. Reich, a veteran of Latin American struggles. No charges were ever filed against Mr. Reich. He later became United States ambassador to Venezuela and now serves as assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs by presidential appointment. The fall of Mr. Chavez is a feather in his cap. THERE is so far no evidence that the United States covertly undermined Mr. Chavez. He did a decent job destabilizing himself. But the open White House embrace of his overthrow will not be lost on Latin American leaders who dare thumb their noses at the United States, as did Mr. Chavez. Yes, he was freely and democratically elected, and his starry-eyed visions of a united South America unshackled from the dominance of Washington's power did not bother the administration much. But his selling oil to Mr. Castro? His alliances with his brothers in petroleum production, Saddam Hussein and Muammar el-Qaddafi? His not-so-tacit support for the Colombian rebels? And the potential threat he posed to thousands of American gas stations? Above all, the United States wants stability in its backyard. Mr. Chavez did not fit in with President Bush's vision of "the century of the Americas" in "a hemisphere of liberty." The Organization of American States, the most venerable alliance in the Americas, has a new Democracy Charter, signed by every one of its members, including the United States, on Sept. 11. It requires strong action against military coups. Yet, in all likelihood, it will be ignored in Venezuela's case, because Washington wanted Mr. Chavez gone. Today, armed dictatorships cannot flourish as easily as they did in the cold war. Ideologies have little power left in Latin America. But civil institutions have less. Laws, legislatures and legal mechanisms have been starved by strong armies and weak democracies. The promised land of political empowerment pledged by free traders still seems far away. And in Venezuela, despite its oil, more than 85 percent of the people are still dirt poor. "Venezuela has been in and out of crises like this for 50 years, with arrogant elites overthrown by popular uprisings whose leaders become arrogant elites," said David J. Rothkopf, chairman of Intellibridge, a Washington consulting firm run by former senior intelligence and foreign policy officials. "The only cure would be to extract all the oil from Venezuela at once." The cure for Washington was the army's extracting Mr. Chavez. Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company The San Francisco Chronicle, Saturday morning, April 13, 2002 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/04/13/ED69251.DTL Gunpoint democracy CONSIDERING HOW loudly the United States has preached democracy to Latin America in recent decades, you might think that the Bush administration would condemn yesterday's military coup in Venezuela. But the Bush administration yesterday gave not-so-veiled praise to the overthrow of democratically elected President Hugo Chavez, blaming the coup on "undemocratic actions committed or encouraged by the Chavez administration." Although many crucial details remained unclear yesterday, it appeared that the only true undemocratic actions were by the military-civilian junta that overthrew Venezuela's entire legal order. The junta claimed that Chavez had resigned after sacking his entire Cabinet. As of late yesterday, however, no proof of his resignation had been given, and Chavez aides and his family said that he had refused to sign the resignation papers given him by the army brass. Leading the junta is Pedro Carmona, leader of the nation's business lobby. With no apparent legal authority, he dismissed the entire Congress and Supreme Court, abolished the constitution and claimed the right to fire any elected state or municipal leaders. Chavez, a radical populist, was a sworn enemy of conservatives in Venezuela and Washington. He railed against Venezuela's establishment -- big business, the Catholic Church, labor unions, media -- and made friends with Fidel Castro. He also revitalized the international oil producers' cartel, OPEC, ending Venezuela's historic role as quota-buster and championing a system of regulated, higher prices. Chavez's overthrow is a shocking return to the banana-republic days of Latin America's past, when conservative, U.S.-allied military and business elites routinely overthrew elected presidents whenever they strayed over the ideological line into left-of-center territory. Chavez was certainly a blowhard, occasionally a bully. But he repeatedly won democratic elections. The United States must stay true to its principles and condemn his overthrow. ================================================================= 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 ================================================================= nytmed-04.14.02-14:16:19-19109