US accused of bid to oust Chávez with secret funds
The United States has been actively working to undermine the government of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez by funding anonymous groups via it's international aid agency.
Millions of dollars are being spent in a "pro-democracy" programme that is really a disguise for an attempt to oust the popular Venezuelan leader.
The money is being provided by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) through its Office of Transition Initiatives. The row follows the recent announcement that the US had made $80m (£42m) available for groups seeking to bring about change in Cuba, whose leader, Fidel Castro, is a close ally of Mr Chávez.It's fascinating that a country that complains so often about Iran and Syria interfering in their affairs in Iraq will be so brazen about it's interfering in the affairs of another nation.
Information about the grants has been obtained following a Freedom of Information request by the Associated Press. USAID released copies of 132 contracts but obscured the names and other identifying details of nearly half the organisations.
The Office of Transition Initiatives, which also works in such "priority countries" as Iraq, Afghanistan, Bolivia and Haiti, has overseen more than $26m in grants to groups in Venezuela since 2002.
Among the grants detailed in the information are: one for $47,459 for a "democratic leadership campaign"; $37,614 for citizen meetings to discuss a "shared vision" for society; and one of $56,124 to analyse Venezuela's new constitution.
"What this indicates is that there is a great deal of money, a great deal of concern to oust or neutralise Chávez," said Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Coha) in Washington yesterday. "The US is waging diplomatic warfare against Venezuela."
Yesterday, they launched their defence of their actions:
This is the same "Freedom agenda" that, as I pointed out yesterday, sees no hypocrisy in inviting President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan to Washington, a man who does not allow political opposition and routinely silences his own press.USAID officials denied any suggestion the money had any political aim and said the reason for anonymity for some groups was to protect them from potential harassment.
"The goal of the programme is to strengthen democracy, which is consistent with President Bush's 'Freedom Agenda'," said a USAID official yesterday. "A strong civil society is a critical part of any healthy democracy, just as it is in the United States, England or anywhere else in the world."
There is no consistency to the Cheney administration position, and often naked political manoeuvering is dressed in some high moral framework - such as a "Freedom agenda" - when in reality they are simply engaging in the grubby politics of the gutter.
It is the huge difference between their rhetoric and the reality of what they are actually doing that most of us find so stomach-turning and hypocritical.
When the US accuse Iran of interfering, most of us accept that they probably have a point - certainly where it recently regarded Iran and the arming of Hizbulah.
However, when the US interferes, it tries to sell it's interference as some noble cause that benefits the whole of humanity. It's the fact that they employ this rhetoric, which implies that the world should be grateful and is somehow a beneficiary of US actions, that undermines any chance of genuine US beneficence being taken remotely seriously.
A word to the US. Enough liberating, really...
We can take no more of your kindness.
Click title for full article.
2 comments:
Kel,
I will respectfully disagree with your statement that there is "no consistency to the Cheney administration position." There is very much a consistency and, as Chomsky has said, there is no interest in a democracy when it does not suit US interests. That is the consistency, with one notable exception: Israel. US support of Israel makes no geopolitical sense at all, but the rest of US covert actions in subverting democracies and diplomatic ties to ruthless regimes is generally very consistent. What is not consistent is the obvious disconnect of the rhetoric that surrounds White House calls for "democracy." But the world knows Washington talks out of its ass when it comes to "feedom and democracy."
USAID had been in this business for quite awhile. Reagan used USAID to fund various Central American covert ops there, and, more recently, USAID money helped fund the band of murderous thugs that orchestrated the coup in Haiti. And there are or have been other such organisations, like NED (National Endowment for Democracy) and Project Democracy, which was run by neo-con warhorses Oliver North and Elliot Abrams for running Nicaragua into the ground.
Most Latin Americans are well aware of these coups and coup attempts just as they are well aware of who is funding them. The recent leftward swing of Latin American is no surprise in this context nor should it surprise that Chavez is leading the charge to consolodate Latin American economic power in effort to resist American corporate hegemony in the region.
This is really why the Bushies don't want him there. Not only does he have economic clout and lots of oil -- something alone that would call for a coup -- but he is furthering the leftward push and has so far been very successful. Is it any wonder why Chavez has been making nice with China and Russia?
Bhc,
I take your point regarding the consistency of the Cheney administration, it was the consistency within the rhetoric as it relates to the reality that I was addressing.
It's all that dreadful bilge about promoting democracy that makes me barf.
And I agree Chavez has been very successful at unifying the left in southern America in a way that must drive the Bushites mad.
And yes, when one thinks back to Nicaragua and Reagan's behaviour in the eighties towards El Salvador and others, it is pretty much par for the course.
However, I still wanted to point out the hypocrisy for what it is.
Post a Comment