http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=47596

How the Bush administration is losing the Global War of influence to Venezuela

VHeadline.com guest commentarist Devin S. Waugh writes: The sordid history of the Western Hemisphere can be simply divided, historically, into two main groups or categories. Since its discovery by the more technologically advanced Europeans more than a half a millennium ago, the Western Hemisphere has been clearly divided into these two camps, the Rich and the Poor.

The Rich are represented by the capitalistic and free enterprising North who traditionally have had their way in the less viable and less developed South.

Today, however, a “Pink Curtain� is being lowered from the Tropic of Cancer by a Bolivarian revolutionary turned President, and his influence is challenging the historical status quo of the Western Hemisphere. Tradition, international legitimacy and self-importance are suddenly all on the line for the United States as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is actively uniting South Americans against neoconservative ideals, free trade liberalism and as is serving as the direct counterbalance of President Bush’s Grand Strategy.

While it is true that decades of manipulation, exploitation and un-fair business practices by the North would have inevitably driven South Americans to react en masse at some future point, the antagonistic practices and subversive political methodologies used by the Bush administration since 2000 have acted as a catalyst for Latin American anti-American movements.

What does this US administration have to gain by taking such an aggressive stance against Venezuela and/or their President?

Why is the Bush Administration being so hostile in the international and domestic media toward a country that has a nine time democratically elected leader while already struggling to gain Latin support for the anemic Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) proposal?

US-Venezuelan Relations

The current dynamics can be charted through the history that keystones the relationship between the US and Venezuela. This relationship can be traced back to European migrations at both ends of the Americas. From that day to this, US driven 'Realist' ideologies have ruled in the Western Hemisphere and have posited Hispanics cultures as some transmutation of democracy and feudalism.

Power and influence on this side of the globe have been wielded by the highly industrialized United States, while the less technological, less educated and less politically established Southern countries, like Venezuela, have complied in order to keep their independence, their international legitimacy and some semblance of national economy.

This was the uneven playing field of North and South America ... this was the status quo.

This international playing field, used until just a few years ago, was shaped by imperialistic Europeans just as the fledgling government of Venezuela was enjoying its second year of liberation from Spain. In that year, the year 1823, US president Monroe declared his doctrine of “ownership� over the Western Hemisphere and established a precedent allowing for perceived US possession of South America. This is a paradigm that has sustained to this day. Still, almost 200 years later, anything south of the Rio Grande is referred to by the members of Congress and the Bush Administration, as simply, “our backyard�.

In the years following Venezuelan “independence," the South American country was principally immersed with internal and regional stability issues, most of which were ignored by late19th century US presidents. However, with the development of the automobile and beginning of the industrial revolution in the US, a new dynamic was set in motion in the Western Hemisphere. Newly-invented machines needed oil and gas, and when the US discovered that Venezuela had some in 1921, America decided to become much more participative in South America.

* The subsequent period of history in Venezuelan and US relations can be defined by any basic power model ... Venezuela was run by authoritarian dictators friendly with the US, or US-backed figurehead governments.

For decades this ensured the United States would be provided Venezuelan oil at a minimum cost and maximum gain for the Americans. In return, the US would provide military protection, most of which protected the illegitimate US-backed officials from their own people.

American ownership of Venezuela also inadvertently provided the small country with some very important cornerstones in building international legitimacy. Victims of economic occupation and a one resource national economy, the lives and cultures of Venezuelans were dictated by the ebbs and flow of the oil market in the States. With the important element of domestic stability missing, Venezuela was bound to US supply and demand.

Due to loan repayment schedules to institutions like the IMF, and the importance of foreign investment in the Venezuelan economy, a social infrastructure eluded the country and did not provide any recognizable benefits to Venezuelan citizens.

Since 1921, US policy has easily pushed to fruition its trade liberalization goals in the politically pliable nation. In addition to profits from oil, American corporations used trade liberalization and privatization policies to commandeer the essential public services of Venezuela. These US politics by proxy have allowed foreign investors and multinational corporations to flourish for ninety years. However, the path of this history shifted direction in 1999, one year before George W. Bush was elected the American president.

Hugo Chavez Frias

In February 1999, Hugo Chavez Frias, a former military commando and survivor of his own previously failed 1992 coup attempt, took office as the democratically elected President of Venezuela. On the heels of the 1989 IMF protests that left hundreds of Venezuelans dead, Chavez gained the presidency by opposing trade liberalism and US economic imperialism.

Signaling his distrust for America even in the earliest days of his administration, Chavez refused US military assistance, even US bulldozers and aid workers, for recovery efforts from the fatal floods that occurred during his election year. He confessed openly that his refusal was due to fears of ulterior US motives.

Also in that first year as President, Chavez goaded the Clinton administration by rewriting the nation’s Constitution and increasing Venezuelan oil royalties from the US to pay for his long overdue domestic social programs.

Bad experiences with international issues and problems with previous peacekeeping operations abroad, made Clinton impotent against confronting Marxist-Leftist ideologies developing in Venezuela.

Through the remainder of the outgoing Clinton administration, Chavez openly promoted restructuring the taxes on foreign oil, designing massive land reforms, planning social programs for poverty reduction and also created South American multi-national institutions like Petrosur (integrated energy), Telesur (continental media) and Merscosur (trade). These actions drew many cynical responses from international financial organizations like the IMF and World Bank.

Criticism also flowed from the new Bush administration and central banks throughout South America yearning for more foreign investment dollars.

Other acts of hemispheric dissent include Venezuelan goals of accessing oil consumer markets in Asia where densely populated China and India have publicized emerging demand. These actions have been viewed and advertised by the Bush Administration as subversive efforts that escalate instability in the Middle East.

The Bush administration getting started

When George W. Bush was elected to the US presidency in 2000, one of his first orders of business was to quadruple US dollars sent to the anti-Chavistas, South American neo-conservatives who oppose President Chavez and his socialistic policies inside Venezuela.

* In the short interim period between the 2000 US Presidential election and the attacks of 9/11, hatchling president George Bush had emphasized his commitment to addressing the United States’ energy problems.

The previous year of 1999 had brought the US energy market dramatic shortages of oil and natural gas that produced detrimental effects for large portion of America. The national population suffered additional anxiety with a plague of power outages throughout California. At a time when over 50% of the United States' oil consumption was being imported ... a first in US history ... the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecast that in 20 years, the United States will be importing closer to 60-70% of its oil from foreign countries. This reliance on foreign governments generated numerous questions, and fears, on long term plans for American energy.

Bush comforted his constituency by asserting that addressing the “energy crisis� was his top priority as the newly elected president and moved swiftly to boast his clout by collecting the necessary supporting rhetoric from representatives like the Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham.

In March of 2001, it was Abrahams that stated “America faces a major energy supply crisis over the next two decades, and that failure to meet this challenge will threaten our nation’s economic prosperity, compromise our national security, and literally alter the way we lead our lives.�

The second step the Bush administration took was to form a task force. This also occurred expeditiously and the task force was formed before the end of March, 2001. The sole mission of the task force was to outline out how to actualize the president’s already-made energy promises. This organization, manned with experienced, predominantly Republican government representatives was deemed the National Energy Policy Development Group (or NEPDG).

The importance of the domestic Energy Policy on Foreign Policy

By May of 2001, the NEPDG had devised a strategy for long term energy and submitted it for the President Bush’s approval. The report was creatively designated the “National Energy Policy� and was divided into two main components, the reduction in foreign oil reliance and the supplementation of oil production domestically. Reduction would be the responsibility of the people and supplementation could be achieved through drilling new oil reserves inside the United States, like those then projected for the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado.

The policy put forth by the NEPDG was accepted by Bush on May 17, 2001, despite strong opposition from Vice President Cheney, who had manifested his own report on the energy topic. Cheney stated his concerns about the realities of consumer reduction. Cheney believed that increased access and reliance on foreign oil was the true path to success. In the post-9/11 administration, the idea of consumer reduction was abandon due to new priorities, timelines and fuel demands in support of our war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The post-9/11 National Energy Report eliminated consumer reduction ideals and adopted Vice President Cheney’s initiative on accessing foreign oil. This opened the door for new assessments of the Middle East and marked the beginning of anti-Iraq oratories and press. Driven to accommodate his energy promises, the president has evolved his domestic energy policy into the foundation of an aggressive and assertive “Grand Strategy� focused on bringing democracy and trade liberalization to oil rich nations worldwide.

In light of all this history, it becomes much easier to understand the Bush administration’s motives when he is addressing President Chavez and Venezuela.

The US-backed Coup attempt -- Overview

For citizens of the United States, a story based on a handful of military officers overthrowing the government, hijacking the President, dissolving the Congress, disbanding the federal Supreme Court and finally abolishing the national Constitution ... all in thirty-six hours would require a US$7 movie ticket, a bucket of popcorn and the promise of seeing Bruce Willis and maybe even a cameo of Tom Cruise.

Unfortunately for Venezuela, the movie was imagined ... but the script was real.

In the shadow of revised American goals, these were the actual events that occurred in Venezuela in April 2002, and in the real version, this epic was written, produced and directed by the Bush administration.

Below is a CIA report outlining the coup game plan.

A CIA Senior Intelligence Briefing
dated April 6, 2002.

The Pre Coup Media War - Phase I

In order for the Bush Administration to extract a democratically elected leader, the American and Venezuelan liberals needed to be “tenderized� to the idea of regime change. During this preparation process in early 2002, the same year Cheney’s energy proposal was accepted by George Bush, the conservative media and press began directing a steady torrent of Anti-Chavez dialect through the airways and newspapers. With the support of Venezuelan media firms who were intimately united with Chavez oppositionists, and fortuitously, Spanish speaking, the conservative news began campaigning against the non-conformist attitudes of President Chavez from Caracas to Miami.

Simultaneously back in the States, the national media, big city press and politicians teamed up to destabilize Venezuela, both domestically and transnationally, through organizations like the CNN, Fox News, the Tribune newspaper in Chicago, the Times of New York and L.A. and of course D.C.s hometown Washington Post. Inflammatory editorials and negative quotations from the Administration generated little awareness of the situation in Venezuela, but effectively raised high emotions over the “authoritarian dictatorship� happening right “in our own backyard�. By stimulating the American public’s fears over loosing our fifth largest oil supplier, increasing crude oil prices and the dwindling production of Venezuelan’s state owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the White House had successfully painted its own picture of Venezuela. Shortly after the original saturation, President Bush began making official announcements about the dire need for a change in Venezuela. As early as December 2001, the White House proclaimed “The only peaceful and politically viable path to moving out of the (Venezuelan leadership) crisis is through the holding of early elections.�

Non Media Pre Coup Actions

In contrast to these high profile maneuvers, more covert elements took place behind the scenes during meetings between Assistant Secretary for the Western Hemisphere, Otto Reich, and chief of the country’s big business association and Venezuelan coup quarterback, Pedro Carmona Estanga. Funds to mobilize the pending coup effort where also quietly being distributed in 2001 and 2002 by the National Endowment for Democracy ... an organization funded heavily by the AFL-CIO who desired the re-privatization of the Venezuelan oil industry.

* Hundreds of thousands of such funds were being filtered to conservative grass root organizations inside Venezuela to finance mobilization against the serving government.

The final element of the pre-coup plan involved the US. Navy. Retired intelligence officer, Wayne Madsen, stated in an interview with the Guardian newspaper after the attempt had failed, that he had met with Venezuelan military leaders to assess (before April 11, 2002) the possibility of a coup attempt. The navy’s role in the coup, as he explained it, was to provide intelligence to Venezuelan forces and to provide jamming efforts between the Chavez administration and his close allies in Cuba.

April 12, 2002 - Phase II

As previously outlined, on April 12, 2002 a handful of military officers overthrew the government in Caracas; hijacked the President, dissolved the Congress, disbanded the Venezuelan Supreme Court and abolished the national Constitution.

With kudos from the American mainstream press, celebration among multinational oil companies, praise from American politicians and even the immediate approval of loans for the “new transitional government� offered by the IMF, the Venezuelan coup was underway.

White collar managers, business owners and anti-unionist elites locked down the businesses throughout the country to break the spirits of the national laborers. These actions ultimately sparked massive mobilization of peasants and state workers. Protests began nationwide with Chavistas demanding the return of the President.

* In a manner soon to be duplicated in Georgia, the Ukraine and Lebanon, the masses of Venezuela held fast in there resolve against the new regime.

The coup ended less than 48 hours later, when the United States began to feel the repercussions of losing one of their largest oil sources and replacing it with near universal admonishment from other South American countries like Brazil and Argentina.

Chavez was re-instated on April 14, 2002 with a hero’s welcome and millions of new followers in his Bolivarian Revolution.

The Aftermath of Poor Decision-Making

The Bush administration has never recovered from the poor decision it made on April 12, 2002. Since that date, the Administration has not only failed to secure finalization for the FTAA, but numerous countries like Ecuador, Chile, Peru and Bolivia have been following in the footsteps of Bush’s South American nemesis, Hugo Chavez.

With glaring similarities to the actions in modern day Iraq, the Bush administration seems blatantly and painfully overly optimistic about its foreign policies and interactions.

In spite of winning a second term in the United States, Bush’s popularity at home is dropping to international lows. By taking such aggressive and extreme actions against Iraq and Venezuela in his first tenure, and defining his “Grand Strategy� as virtual forced international compliance to neo-conservative ideologies in his second, the actions of the Bush White House are synonymous with a child wielding a baseball bat against a hornet’s nest.

* American legitimacy is down, terrorist activities and accountability are at new highs and the Pink curtain no longer rests on the Tropic of Cancer.

With Leftist Mexico City mayor, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, successfully gaining momentum in pursuit of that country’s highest office, America’s backyard may soon be reduced to southern Texas.

While the popularity of socialist parties and Leftist organizations continue to gain ground, the Bush administration has perpetuated disenfranchisement of the rest of the Hemisphere though the promotion of John Negroponte to Director of Intelligence, and Otto Reich, who served as the Bush administration's assistant secretary of state in Latin America.

Both Negroponte and Reich are perceived as enemies of South America for their actions in the Contra scandal during the 1980s. This seems very much like throwing gas on a bonfire. Continuing negative rhetoric from new Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, the IMF and the American media focused on Venezuela and other South American leaders is producing the same effect.

Conclusion

Middle Eastern philosopher and poet Ahmad Faraz once wrote, that "the army or the dictator wants the status quo and doesn't want any compromises with their privileges and power." This statement seems to encompass the trend leading to the conflicts in the West.

The past is gone and out of the hands of the United States ... the Bush administration needs to surrender its hopes to contain or isolate Venezuela or subvert the democratic process of that country.

Future interactions in South America will continue to be fruitless without compromising to some degree. The US could easily provide a leadership position in promoting civil society, had it not put Cuba in that role already.

In the coming years, natural resources like oil and water will increase in value around the world, unless the United States is prepared to take military actions against numerous countries at once, new policies and new rhetoric need to be implemented in Venezuela, South America and in the global community.

Devin S. Waugh
dwaugh@sunflower.com