Skip to main content

Creating a coup climate: the historical roots of US foreign policy towards Venezuela

by Wouter Hoenderdaal

U.S. foreign policy tends to follow a highly rational and well-calculated pattern. This makes it effective, and also ruthless. The U.S. government’s hostile attitude towards leaders like Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro certainly fits this pattern, and time will tell whether the failed assassination attempt on President Maduro on August 4 is a part of this. While many news reports now focus on what exactly happened that day, it can enlightening to step back for a moment and put this event in a much broader context. Such an exercise reveals the origins, consistency, effectiveness and, perhaps in a somewhat sinister way, the beauty of U.S. foreign policy planning and execution in the Western Hemisphere.

A good place to start is WWII. Even before Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan had been defeated, U.S. strategic planners realized the United States would emerge from the war as a global superpower. They subsequently laid out plans for a new world order in which the United States would wield “unquestioned power”. U.S. planners created the concept of the “Grand Area”, a region under U.S. control that consisted of Western Europe, East Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.

Within the Grand Area every country was given a “function”. East Asia’s function was to be a “cheap source of vital raw materials”, an “economic and strategic prize”. The oil reserves of the Middle East were not only regarded as “one of the greatest material prizes in world history”, but also, if the U.S. managed to control it, as a “stupendous source of strategic power”, something that has guided U.S. policy towards the Arab world ever since. In the case of Latin America, George Kennan, one of the leading architects of the post WWII world order, simply described its resources as “ours”. Besides control over resources, other important functions were to provide markets and cheap sources of labor for U.S. corporations and investors. Because industrial development and modernization was not among the functions of the Third World, U.S. planners anticipated popular resistance, and invented ways to deal with it.

Resistance from the Latin American population was described by the State Department as the “philosophy of the New Nationalism”. This sentiment of economic nationalism emphasized that “the first beneficiaries of the development of a country’s resources should be the people of that country” – not U.S. corporations. To deal with this threat, Washington responded in February 1945 by declaring a New Economic Charter of the Americas. One of its expressed goals was the “elimination of economic nationalism in all its forms.” And although the methods used might by “unpleasant”, George Kennan stated, they are necessary to ensure that Latin America’s resources remain “ours”. What followed was a series of U.S. interventions that continue until this day, Venezuela being just one case on a by now long list.

Interestingly, U.S.-Venezuela relations used to be good. For instance, Marcos Pérez Jiménez, who ruled Venezuela as a military dictator between 1950-1958, ensured his country carried out its function. For this loyalty, he was awarded the Legion of Merit by President Eisenhower in 1954. In the 40 years following the overthrow of Pérez, subsequent Venezuelan governments kept conforming to U.S. political and economic interests. Venezuela, for instance, accepted Washington’s Neoliberal agenda of the 1980s and 1990s and provided lucrative contracts to U.S. oil corporations. The election of Hugo Chavez in 1998, however, was a game changer.

Chavez, who together with Maduro won 15 out of 18 major democratic elections, attempted to bring more economic benefits to his supporters, which mainly consisted of the working class and the poor. This not only gave him continued strong support from large sectors of the population, it also resulted in Venezuela’s rise in the UN’s Human Development Index score between 2000 and 2012. In the process, however, Chavez went after U.S. oil concessions, rejected the Neoliberal agenda and expressed his disapproval of the way the U.S. responded after 9/11, such as the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. After Chavez’s death, Maduro was democratically elected to continue these kind of policies. When considering U.S. Grand Area planning, Chavez and Maduro pose an obvious threat, for two simple reasons.

The first reason has everything to do with Venezuela having the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Just like in the Middle East, this enormous amount of oil is a great “material prize”. U.S. corporations and investors want themselves to be the “first beneficiaries”, something that Chavez, Maduro and their supporters try to prevent.

The second reason has everything to do with the demonstration effect, sometimes called the “domino theory”. Anyone who understands power will quickly realize that if the U.S. stands by quietly and allows one disobedient government to remain in power, one that does not carry out its function, it may motivate other populations and governments to try the same. Therefore, no matter how insignificant a country, the U.S. has to make it suffer and try to remove its government in order to demonstrate to the rest of the world what happens to disobedience.

Among the “unpleasant” methods the U.S. has employed on numerous occasions to overthrow a government (called “regime change” in Western propaganda) are military coups that bring into power a more obedient leadership, economic sanctions and assassinations. Allende’s Chile provides a good example of how this can play out. Economic mismanagement by Allende laid the basis for an economic crises that was purposefully exacerbated by U.S. economic sanctions aimed to, as Richard Nixon put it, make the Chilean economy “scream”. The logic behind this is easy to understand. Economic misery most likely will result in public dissatisfaction with the government, which helps to create what the CIA calls a “coup climate”. In this context, U.S. encouragement of the Chilean military to get rid of Allende resulted in a military coup, the death of Allende and the rule of the dictator General Pinochet, who proved to be everything U.S. leaders had hoped for.

Venezuela’s economy, due to a period of low oil prices and Maduro’s mismanagement, has been screaming for a while, and the economic sanctions that President Trump has implemented, have made the economy scream some more. Perhaps, although there is no conclusive evidence so far, U.S. officials judged that the “coup climate” was sufficiently advanced enough to attempt a military takeover. U.S. officials have already admitted to have secretly met with Venezuelan military officers who were plotting a coup. What followed was a failed assassination attempt aimed at Maduro using two commercial drones armed with explosives. It is to early to tell whether, and if so to what extent, the U.S. government was involved. Considering the pattern of U.S. actions in Latin America from 1945 onwards, however, it would fit in nicely, just as the failed U.S. supported coup to oust Chavez in 2002 is consistent with the way the United States government tends to act.

One could actually go further back in time than WWII in order to shed light on U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America. In the early years of the United States existence, a time when Latin America was still a Spanish and Portuguese colony, Thomas Jefferson already expressed his vision, or perhaps his hopes, that as the U.S. would continue to grow stronger, it would eventually be in a position strong enough to take Latin America away from Spain “piece by piece”. In 1898, the U.S. seized the opportunity to first assist Cuba in its liberation struggle against Spain, only to then occupy the island and turn it into a defacto U.S. colony.

In the following decades, the U.S. Marine Corps spread U.S. dominance across the Caribbean and into Central America through a multitude of invasions and occupations. The overall goal was, besides projecting U.S. power into the region, to facilitate the rise of pro-U.S. leaders who would create conditions favorable to U.S. corporations and investors. What this meant for the Caribbean and Central American population was mostly a continuation of colonial-style economic systems, such as Cuba’s plantation economy that became mostly owned by U.S. businesses.

The biggest threat to these practises was the usual, namely economic nationalism. In order to suppress nationalist movements, one of the techniques U.S. strategic planners eventually came up with was the establishment of military rulers supported by national guards. U.S. government officials referred to this process as bringing “order and stability”, a description obediently taken over by the media. Substitute these words with “democracy and freedom”, and one has a fairly accurate picture of today’s propaganda.

During this pre-WWII period, Venezuela was praised by the United States as a role model other countries in the region ought to follow. Venezuela’s dictator Juan Vicente Gomez not only ruled his country with an iron fist and an ideology expressed in the phrase “Gomez unico” (Gomez alone, nothing but Gomez), but he also opened up the economy to U.S. investors and gave U.S. corporations access to Venezuela’s rich oil supplies. All in all, Gomez provided a “strong and stable government, one which maintains order”, according to a U.S. representative.

It is possible to go back even further in time, all the way to the age of colonialism, to gain more insight into the origins of today’s Latin America and its relation to the West. European colonialism, as elsewhere, created an underdeveloped economy based on the production and export of raw materials and agricultural goods. Within this economy a small group of native local elites, who collaborated with the Spanish and Portuguese colonists, prospered. This landowner and merchant elite, to further their own interests, organized the movement for independence in the 1820’s and then, while Western countries industrialized, continued to run colonial-style economic policies based on agriculture and raw materials.

The superpower of the time, Britain, was very pleased with this development. British manufactures and investors did not want an independent Latin America to industrialize and turn into a powerful competitor. They wanted the local elites to keep things as they were. It resulted in a mutually beneficial relationship. Latin American large landowners and merchants who dominated the political scene would continue to focus on producing and trading agricultural goods and raw materials; and they would open up their markets to the West. This allowed British businesses, merchant houses and investors to own many of the valuable export trades, be it in Brazilian coffee, Chilean nitrates or Argentinian beef. It firmly kept Latin America in its Third World position. Later the U.S. simply replaced Britain as the dominant foreign power and established the same sort of relationship with the Latin American elites. The result was a continuation of similar colonial-style economic policies, leaving similar consequences.

The obvious conclusion based on the history discussed above, one that is not allowed to enter the mainstream media, is that the U.S. does not care what kind of government is in power, as long as it is obedient and subordinate. The U.S. has worked with democratic leaders and with dictators, and the U.S. has overthrown democratic governments and dictatorships. Overall, however, because of the sentiment of economic nationalism among the Latin America people, the U.S. has usually prefered authoritarian military rulers. If Maduro would succumb to a military coup, or if Maduro’s failing economic policies and his increased authoritarianism alienate his supporters, it is not at all unlikely that his successor will be a pro-U.S. right wing authoritarian, perhaps related to the military, someone who knows how to bring back “order and stability” to Venezuela, or as is said nowadays, “democracy and freedom”.

Source:


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Greece is about to become the blueprint for modern feudalism

globinfo freexchange
After almost ten years of an unprecedented crisis, Greece has been trapped into an ongoing, slow motion recession. The economy still struggling hard to recover, with unemployment and national debt being permanently in a red alarm mode.
As has been already pointed out, the result of the recent Greek national elections could be characterized "paradoxical" mainly for two reasons: 
First, the voters gave a clear governmental order to one of the traditional powers of the old political system, which are highly responsible for the Greek crisis that erupted in 2010. Several top names of the new government, and even New Democracy leader, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, have been accused of being involved in various corruption scandals, in the not so distant past.

Second, the fact that the voters elected perhaps the most fanatically neoliberal government ever. This means that Mitsotakis administration is expected to implement the brutal neoliberal policies imposed by Greece&…

How Joe Biden’s privatization plans helped doom Latin America and fuel the migration crisis

On the campaign trail, Joe Biden has boasted of his role in transforming Colombia and Central America through ambitious economic and security programs. Colombians and Hondurans tell The Grayzone about the damage his plans did to their societies.
by Max Blumenthal
Part 8 - Gutting public healthcare, driving more migration
The Alliance for Prosperity also commissioned the privatization of health services through a deceptively named program called the Social Protection Framework Law, or la Ley Marco de Protección Social.

Promoted by Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández as a needed reform, the scheme was advanced through a classic shock doctrine-style episode: In 2015, close associates of Hernández siphoned some $300 million from the Honduran Institute for Social Services (IHSS) into private businesses, starving hospitals of supplies and causing several thousand excess deaths, mostly among the poor.
With the medical sector in shambles, Hondurans were then forced to seek healthcare from …

As Boris Johnson unleashes ultimate threat against Bremain capitalist faction, the British working class is suddenly in front of a unique opportunity

globinfo freexchange

In the merciless endo-capitalist war around Brexit, Boris Johnson decided to unleash the ultimate threat against Bremain capitalist faction. That is, a snap election with the 'danger' of a Labour victory under Jeremy Corbyn, which would be neoliberal capitalists' worst nightmare.
As already pointed out, despite the capitalist civil war, both major factions of the British capital remain deeply neoliberal in their ideological core. And therefore, both factions see a potential Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn, as a major threat.
Indeed, as ZeroHedgereported
As Prime Minister Boris Johnson faces the prospect of his rule being cut short, wealthy Britons have a message for Johnson's most likely successor: A 'no deal' Brexit makes no difference to them. But if Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM, they will flee in droves, taking their money with them

[...]

The chairman of one Swiss asset manager who helps wealthy Britons shield th…

Tucker Carlson accidentally promotes one of the most anti-capitalist, real-Left positions!

globinfo freexchange 
We wouldn't believe it if we wouldn't have seen it and hear it with our own eyes and ears, but the following phrase came out from Tucker Carlson's mouth:

                    Every minute you are angry about race, is a minute you are not thinking about class, which, of course, is the real divide in this country. Working class people of all colors have a lot more in common - infinitely more in common with each other, than they do with some overpaid MSNBC anchor. And if you are allowed to think about that for long enough, you might start get unauthorized ideas about economics. And that would be disruptive to a very lucrative status quo. So, they whip you into a frenzy of racial fear so that it never enters your mind. It's a diversion. Everyone hates each other, they get to keep their money.
Here's why they're pushing racial division: so you won't notice the real divide, which is economic. pic.twitter.com/ZVLvQn2u9O — Tucker Carlson (@Tuck…

Roger Waters for Julian Assange

globinfo freexchange
On Monday, 3 Sept, Roger Waters of Pink Floyd will perform his classic 'Wish You Here' for Julian Assange outside the Home Office (interior ministry) in Marsham Street in the heart of London. John Pilger will be speaking. Join us at 6pm in solidarity with Britain's political prisoner.

On Monday, 3 Sept, Roger Waters of Pink Floyd will perform his classic 'Wish You Here' for Julian #Assange outside the Home Office (interior ministry) in Marsham Street in the heart of London. I will be speaking. Join us at 6pm in solidarity with Britain's political prisoner. pic.twitter.com/Lytg2GCZVQ — John Pilger (@johnpilger) August 30, 2019


Καταιγίδα επιχειρήσεων αποπροσανατολισμού από το Μητσοτακικό καθεστώς με τη βοήθεια της τραπεζομιντιακής χούντας

globinfo freexchange

Ο μηχανισμός του εγχώριου νεοφιλελεύθερου καθεστώτος επιδόθηκε τις τελευταίες μέρες σε έναν καταιγισμό επιχειρήσεων αποπροσανατολισμού προς τέρψιν του πόπολου, το οποίο έδωσε αυτοδυναμία στην πολιτική του συνιστώσα. Δηλαδή, στη χειρότερη δεξιά της μεταπολίτευσης.
Μετά το ταξίδι Μητσοτάκη στη Γαλλία, όπου είδαμε ένα χιλιοπαιγμένο έργο, το σόου του αποπροσανατολισμού ξεκίνησε από το Μάτι. Εκεί είχαμε ένα διπλό χτύπημα. Από τη μια τον Μητσοτάκη να ποζάρει στα καμμένα, διατυμπανίζοντας τη δήθεν αποτελεσματική του κυβέρνηση. Από την άλλη, την διαφήμιση των "καλών ιδιωτών", οι οποίοι ως καλοί Σαμαρείτες, ανέλαβαν δήθεν αφιλοκερδώς (Αφιλοκερδώς ΑΕ, όπως έλεγε και ο αξέχαστος Τζιμάκος), να καθαρίσουν την περιοχή από την επικίνδυνη καύσιμη ύλη.
Αμέσως μετά, απολαύσαμε άλλη μια κωμωδία από τις δυνάμεις καταστολής που έκαναν έφοδο στα Εξάρχεια για να τα "καθαρίσουν" από τους μετανάστες. Οι νεοφιλέλεδες της δεξιάς και τα ακροδεξιά δεκανίκια τους είναι μανο…

Citibank blocks funds for insulin: more than 450,000 Venezuelans affected

The US bank Citibank blocked, in August this year, part of the funds destined to import 300 thousand doses of insulin, a criminal act that affects more than 450 thousand patients, the Venezuelan Ministry of Economy and Finance reported.

On the other hand, the BSN Medical laboratory, based in Colombia, after receiving payment for the purchase of 2 million units of antimalarial treatment, denied the clearance of the drugs.
The ministry indicated that this fact caused the Swiss bank UBS AG to block the transactions made by the country with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), destined for the purchase of vaccines for the immunization program.
Given this circumstance, Venezuela and PAHO sought alternatives with banks from other countries, although this situation led to a 4 month delay in the immunization program.

The national government also revealed that other pharmaceutical transnationals such as Pfizer and Novartis refuse to sell medicines, reagents and supplies to Venezuela.
F…

The untold Socialist history of the United States

globinfo freexchange

Abby Martin spoke with renowned Marxist Economist Richard Wolff to discuss the growing popularity of Socialism under Trump and its historical roots in America, misconceptions about Russia and China’s economic success and Marx’s theory of alienation and monopoly capitalism.

Wolff explains:

A hundred years ago, 1916 to be precise, was the first time that the Socialist Party of America put forward a candidate for president. His name was Allan Benson and he ran for president a hundred years ago and he got 600,000 votes in the United States. That worked out to three percent of the vote.
The Socialist Party thought that was a good beginning, so they ran again four years later, in 1920, little less than a hundred years ago, and they had a different candidate. A man named Eugene Victor Debs, a head of the railway Workers Union, very good orator. And he did better. He got 900,000 votes. That's a 50% increase in four years, four percent of the total vote.
Four yea…

US sanctions on Venezuela are 'sociopathic'

The Grayzone
The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal discusses his heated exchange with a former Obama official and a member of Venezuela's far-right opposition over the basis for crippling US sanctions on Venezuela. Max also recounts his recent reporting trip to Venezuela, where he witnessed the impact of US economic warfare and the Venezuelan people's defiant resistance. 

Ο πραγματικός λόγος που ο Μπόρις Τζόνσον πιέζει για Brexit χωρίς συμφωνία

globinfo freexchange

Το Βρετανικό πολιτικό τοπίο μοιάζει να γίνεται όλο και πιο χαοτικό όσο πλησιάζουμε την 31η Οκτωβρίου, ημερομηνία-τελεσίγραφο που έχει ορίσει ο τωρινός Βρετανός πρωθυπουργός, Μπόρις Τζόνσον, ο οποίος μάλιστα απειλεί με ένα Brexit χωρίς συμφωνία. Ολόκληρη η χώρα φαίνεται να βρίσκεται υπό το καθεστώς μιας γενικής νευρικής κρίσης, με τα διάφορα στρατόπεδα υπέρ και κατά του Brexix, το καθένα για τους δικούς του λόγους, να έχουν λάβει θέσεις μάχης σε μια "όλοι εναντίον όλων" κατάσταση. 
Όπως ανέφερε η Εφημερίδα των Συντακτών:  
«Στις Βρυξέλλες και στο Λονδίνο ένα ερώτημα ακούγεται όλο και πιο δυνατά: Mπορεί να αναχαιτιστεί ο Μπόρις Τζόνσον;»… Καυτή και εύλογη η απορία που μετέφερε χθες το πρακτορείο Associated Press, καθώς εντείνεται ραγδαία η ανησυχία και στις δύο πλευρές της Μάγχης πως ο νέος, σκληροπυρηνικός μπρεξιστής, πρωθυπουργός του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου όχι μόνο δεν μπλοφάρει επιμένοντας πως θα βγάλει τη χώρα από την Ε.Ε. στις 31 Οκτωβρίου με ή χωρ…