“I’m not going to detail what we’re planning and what we’re doing, but we’re ready to implement policy decisions, and we’re ready to act …
The United States Navy is the most powerful navy in the world. …
If there is a political decision to deploy the Navy, I am confident that we will be able to do whatever is necessary, …
The two-week maritime operation off the coast of Brazil, involving more than 3,300 military personnel, “sends a message to Maduro and other partners that don’t share the same values, …
Naval exercises send a message to the world of what democracies that work together can do across a range of complex threats,”
Trump subsequently intensified sanctions on Venezuela this month, ordering a freeze on all government assets in the United States and barred transactions with its authorities.
Faller said US sanctions against Maduro’s socialist regime were working and that the Venezuelan leader was isolated.
“The US government focus continues to be to place focused and targeted pressure on an illegitimate regime to ensure there’s a transition to a legitimate, democratic government,” Faller said.
“Part of that focus is to ensure that the right humanitarian assistance is allowed to get to the people who need it,” he added.
Asked how he thought Maduro would react to the exercises, Faller said:
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: U.S. Navy Adm. Craig Faller, U.S. Southern Command commander, speaks to 12th Air Force (Air Force Southern) Airmen at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., Jan. 9, 2019. U.S. Southern Command is responsible for all Department of Defense security cooperation in the 45 nations and territories of Caribbean and Central and South America. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Angela Ruiz)
The original source of this article is Global Research
America is a bully, or so it appears to those who live beyond our shores.
Nobody likes a bully, whether he operates in the schoolyard or in the international arena. Those who support a bully do so out of fear. Hence, bullies never have any real friends. They have followers who are intimidated by the arrogance and power of the tormenter. There are many nations, which appear to be friendly to America, yet they wait patiently with hope in their hearts that one-day the bully will meet his match. Meanwhile, they pay homage to the bully in order that they may avoid his wrath.
To the world outside America's borders it appears that Bin Laden strides into the schoolyard, confronts the bully and slaps his face before his tormented schoolmates. Around the globe, good people who have watched the bully in his conceit, speak of justice and democracy as if he was their inventor and the only person worthy of their benefits, are appalled to find that their horror of the event is accompanied with an inward sense of satisfaction. At last, "the bully got what was coming to him".
In the aftermath of 9/11, America’s citizens are scared. Awakened from a dream of rampant consumerism and ignorance of world affairs, we find ourselves confused and uncertain. How could such a thing have happened? It happened because America's democracy has been subverted, not by communists or terrorists, but by our choices. The great majority of America's people choose to close our eyes or look away when the bully treated the people of other nations in a manner which would sicken them, had it occurred to one of their own family.
Franklin D Roosevelt said " Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all of our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small." If this were ever true, it certainly has not been reflected in recent U.S. foreign policy. We are pleased to bathe in the waters of prosperity and do not find it deplorable that we expect others to cleanse themselves in our dirty water.
It is deplorable that a mind set exists which allows us to think, that simply because we were born within these borders, we are somehow entitled to a enjoy a greater degree of respect and dignity than we are prepared to acknowledge are the birthright of all the world's people. Were we to reflect a "decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small" we would demanded that our government mirror in its foreign policy those things, which we most value in our own personal and political lives.
The issue is not terrorism. It is injustice! America has been unjust and dishonest in its dealings with other nations. John F Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable".
What is it, about the American psyche that leads us to believe that we have the right to install and support unjust, puppet governments throughout the world? Why do we think that we can impose our economic interests, over those of the populations of these countries? We are insane to think that we can engage in the support and sponsorship of these regimes without expecting that they would wish to retaliate.
I am not aware of one instance where "terrorism" has ever been defeated at the barrel of a gun. Northern Ireland, Israel and a host of other conflicts throughout the last century have demonstrated that these conflicts will only be resolved when each party acknowledges that the other party's position has some validity. Discussion and compromise are the only weapons that have the capacity to defeat terrorism.
A recent Gallop poll indicated that a large portion of the people of the world perceive America as being arrogant and a bully. Yet, rather than providing insight as the possible causes of "terrorism" this poll has been used exclusively to portray its participants as unbalanced and deranged. Rather than looking at the information, it provides and reflecting on the mere possibility that it may contain some nugget of truth, it is cast aside.
Our inability to look at ourselves and to contemplate that our foreign policy may be part of the problem is beyond the grasp of many of us, and those who would dare to suggest such action are immediately deemed to be subversive or supporters of "terrorism"
The inevitable consequence of our choices will be airlifted to grieving families, who will not dare to pull the zipper on the body bag which houses their loved one. Their grief will demand vengeance. Further orders will be placed with America’s industrial war machine to better equip our poor, uneducated citizens who have been duped into believing that they are about to die for our freedoms. Our President will raise his fist and talk about how "They hate our Democracy" and "This is a war against evil" a "Just cause" as he prepares the soil to grow another generation of "terrorists".
Peace is not just the absence of conflict but also the presence of justice, for in our world's history, peace has never prevailed where justice was absent.
Injustice is the garden that nourishes terrorism.
A great many of us choose to engage ourselves in rampant consumerism and ignorance of world affairs. After all, who cares what is happening "over there"?
9/11 has taught us nothing. We have become narcissistic and self centered; like the drug addict who refuses to look at himself, we rage on about how everyone is against us, and use our denial to continue our self destructive behavior. In search of another fix we roar across the world dropping bombs on anyone who may try to point out that our sickness is self-imposed.
If America is addicted to power, who then are its friends ? The pushers who feed the habit or those who call to its attention the destruction it brings on its own family?
August 19, 2019 "Information Clearing House" -American capitalism is based on plunder. With the continental USA plundered, American capitalism hoped to continue enriching itself by plundering Russia as it did under Yeltsin, carefully including the Russian “Atlanticist Integrationists” in the spoils in order to have support from the liberal, progressive forces in Russia for stripping Russia of its assets. But Putin more or less put a halt to the American/Israeli rape of Russia, although it still continues through the neoliberal economics that Harvard brainwashed into the Russian central bank and economics profession. Brainwashed Russian economists are the main reason Washington is able to punish a powerful country such as Russia with economic sanctions.
The dependency of American capitalism on plunder is the reason Washington seeks to overthrow the people’s government of Venezuela. Chavez established a reformist government in Venezuela, one continued by Maduro. The reformist government nationalized Venezuela’s oil reserves. Instead of the profits being carted off by the American oil companies, they were kept at home where they raised the literacy rate and lowered the poverty rate. American capitalism wants the revenues back. Thus Washington’s attack on Venezuela.
The same for Iran. The Iranians were the first and most successful in throwing off the yoke of American imperialism. They overthrew the American puppet, the Shah in 1979, and used the oil revenues for the development of Iran instead of the purchase of arms from the US military/security complex. All of the propaganda against Iran is part of the effort, supplemented by sanctions, to regain control of Iranl’s oil wealth and to shut down Iran as a supplier of the Hezbolah militia that has prevented Israel’s occupation of Southern Lebanon.
The Pultin government’s toleration of American-paid traitors resulted in the recent riots and protests that the Russian police were pressed to control. The Russian government investigated not the protesters and their American financiers, but the police for protecting public order in Russia! The Russian police were criticized for being “too brutal” in the Russian government’s view in putting down the American organized attack on the Russian government. A government this confused has a low survival rate. Perhaps the situation is different inside Russia from how it is presented in the US media, but the way it is presented in the US is the way the world sees it. And it is not to Russia’s advantage.Russia and China are also targeted, and the governments of both countries continue in their gullibility to play into Washington’s hands. Both governments permit American-financed Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate in their countries in open treasonous activities against the governments. The ongoing street protests in Hong Kong are a Washington operation directed at undermining the reputation and stability of the Chinese government. One must wonder why the Chinese government sets itself up as a target for Washington.
Little wonder Washington regards Putin and the Chinese leadership as politiians who can be trifled with.
Perhaps Russia and China are so desperate for Western approval that they prove how democratic they are by permitting foreign orchestrated insurrection. The Hong Kong youth waving American flags must be unaware that the US is ruled by a smaller and worse oligarchy than China.
The US allows no foreign countries other than Israel to finance NGOs dedicated to influencing the United States Government. I am unaware of any Russian, Chinese, Iranian, or Venezuelan NGOs that are permitted to operate in the US. Who can imagine Israel permitting Palestinian NGOs to operate in Israel and stage street demonstrations and riots. In the United States the President is not even permitted to communicate with Russia without being accused of being a “Putin stooge” involved in a conspiracy to sell out America to Russia.
Russia has one economist who understands economics. His name is Sergei Glazyev. Glazyev, the most competent economist in Russia, understands that Russia’s economic development does not depend on foreign loans and capital from abroad. Loans from the West are simply a way of ensnaring Russia in the hands of external creditors, as happened to Greece. According to a recent report, Glazyev has been removed from his position as an adviser to Putin. It seems as if the pro-American Atlanticist Integrationists are going to keep Russia down until Russia has to submit to Washington for a bailout.
Awaiting the chance to resume explotaition of Russia, Iran, Venezuela and China, American capitalism in the meantime is going to plunder what is left of the public’s lands—the national forests, parks, monuments and wildlife refuges. You can read about it below.
Trump Regime Opens US National Forests to Plunder by Private Timber Companies
If a proposed change in federal land use rules goes through, the 90,000 acres of Green Mountain National Forest that fall within Addison County could see a lot more commercial logging, road building and utility corridors — all without environmental review or public input.
“Basically, the rules would take the ‘public’ out of public land management,” said Jamey Fidel, Forest and Wildlife Program Director for the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC).
At issue is a proposal by the United States Forest Service (USFS) to revise the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is the foundation of environmental policy making in the United States. It requires agencies like the USFS to analyze the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions.
The USFS proposal would drastically alter those requirements by greatly expanding the number and type of projects that would count as “categorical exclusions,” which can be approved without environmental assessments or impact statements.
Projects the USFS would reclassify as “categorical exclusions” include:
• Commercial logging, including clear cutting, on areas up to 4,200 acres at a time. • Building new roads through the forest up to five miles at a time. • Reconstructing old roads through the forest up to 10 miles a time. • Bulldozing up to four miles of pipeline and utility rights-of-way through the forest. • Closing roads and trails used for recreational purposes. Adding illegally built roads and trails to the official USFS road and trail system.
New rules would also allow the USFS to bypass public input on nearly every project decision. According to estimates from a number of forestry and environmental organizations, the proposal would eliminate public and environmental review from more than 90 percent of all USFS projects. The Forest Service says it needs to do this because, among other things, the agency has a backlog of “special use permits or renewals” that “are awaiting environmental analysis and decision affecting more than 7,000 businesses and 120,000 jobs.” [The jobs are not needed if in fact the US has a full employment rate of 3.5% unemployment. ]
In addition, such challenges as the recent increase in wildfires are taking up more and more of the agency’s resources and personnel. [In other words, global warming is using up the agency’s budget fighting fires.]
What the USFS does not mention, however, is that according to the Congressional Research Service, the Trump administration has proposed cutting Forest Service spending by nearly $1 billion for fiscal year 2020, including a $654.4 million cut in Wildland Fire Management.
“This (proposed change to NEPA) is happening at a time when the Forest Service is slashing its own budget, and lacks the resources to evaluate what it’s doing,” wrote Sam Evans in The New York Times. Evans, who works in the Southern Appalachian national forests, went on to call the USFS proposal “an attack on the very idea” of public lands.
“If the Forest Service has its way, visitors won’t know what’s coming until logging trucks show up at their favorite trailheads or a path for a gas pipeline is cleared below a scenic vista.” The USFS insists that the changes “meet both the spirit and intention of the NEPA,” but critics see the recent proposal as part of a larger trend.
Last December, after revoking permits that would have allowed the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to build through parts of the George Washington and Monongahela national forests, as well as across the Appalachian Trail, the 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals rebuked the Forest Service for granting permits that violated both the National Forest Management Act and NEPA.
The three-judge panel concluded that the agency had “abdicated its responsibility to preserve national forest resources.” Of particular note was the way the Forest Service’s “environmental concerns … were suddenly, and mysteriously, assuaged in time to meet a private pipeline company’s deadlines.”
IN THE GREEN MOUNTAINS
In Vermont, recent USFS projects in the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) have sparked concern among a number of environmental organizations, including the VNRC.
“In the past, when the Forest Service has undertaken major projects on the GMNF there has been ample opportunity (in accordance with the NEPA) for public comment and involvement,” wrote VNRC officials in a May 3 blog post. “VNRC has participated in these opportunities and we have enjoyed a collaborative relationship with the GMNF.”
But starting in the second half of 2018, the USFS began limiting public comment on projects — one to conduct even-aged timber harvesting on 15,000 acres in the southern half of the forest, and another that would require dozens of miles of new roads to implement 9,630 acres of timber harvesting. Altogether, according to the VNRC, “the Forest Service is planning to construct 84 miles of road (57 miles of new and temporary roads and 26.7 miles of reconstructed roads over the next 15 years) with no opportunity for public comment on the environmental impacts of these activities.”
The Green Mountain National Forest is one of only two national forests in New England. It was established in 1932 in response to excess logging, fire and flooding. As of 2011, the GMNF covered 821,040 acres, nearly half of which was federally owned.
More than 18 percent of Addison County lies within the forest.
The Independent was unable to reach GMNF officials for comment in time for this story. Supporters of public and environmental review see the proposed NEPA changes as an attempt by the Trump administration to codify the Forest Service’s recent practices. And many of them are fighting back.
Organizations ranging from the National Audubon Society to the Sierra Club to the National Parks Conservation Association are urging concerned citizens to submit a public comment on the proposed rule changes.
The deadline for commenting is Aug. 26.
“Please make your comments specific and unique to your concerns and relate your comments to a particular national forest, like the Green Mountain National Forest,” wrote VNRC officials on July 25. “The Forest Service will lump together (similar comments) and count them as one comment, so please make your comments unique to be counted.”
According to the Forest Service website, comments may be submitted: • online via https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FS-2019-0010-0001 (Note: This info has been updated from the print version of this article.) • or by mail to NEPA Services Group, c/o Amy Barker, USDA Forest Service, 125 South State St., Ste. 1705, Salt Lake City, UT 84138. • or by email to nepa-procedures-revision@fs.fed.us. (Note: This info has been updated from the print version of this article.) Reach Christopher Ross at christopherr@addisonindependent.com .
The US Empire is not a term you will commonly hear when people refer to the United States of America. Nor is the Greater United States, American Empire or even just Empire. There is something of a taboo quality to using the word empire to refer to the US. Yet, that is precisely what it is. With numerous territories and land acquisitions, around 1000+ military bases worldwide and the ability to project its power to influence and coerce foreign territories and nations, the USA is the biggest empire the world has ever known. Countless foreign nations, victims of US aggression and invasion, have denounced the US for its imperialism, a word with the same etymological root as empire. So why is it so strange to describe it as the US Empire?
USA: From Republic to Empire
It is a telling example that the American experiment in self-governance has turned out like this. What began as an attempt to set up one of the most limited, constrained and decentralized governments ever has transmogrified into a sprawling empire whose breadth, power and influence is unprecedented in world history. Those who believe humanity should run society without government (anarchists) based only on voluntary cooperation (voluntaryists) point to the results of the American experiment as proof that government by its very nature grows out of control. The results, they say, show that no matter what limits you attempt to put on government, they can always be undone, because politicians can simply change laws and find way to bypass constitutions once they are in power. For one example of many, look at how the US bypassed many privacy and surveillance laws in the Bill of Rights by dreaming up a new idea (terrorism), defining it in law (first international terrorists, then domestic terrorists), changing the definition to describe their political enemies (gun carriers, conspiracy theorists), then applying that by name-calling its citizens. Suddenly, the usual rules don’t apply when terrorism and the fake war on terror are invoked. All of this is gives credence to the idea that no government is better than small government in the anarchy vs minarchy debate.
The actual Greater United States. Image credit: Daniel Immerwahr
US Empire Land Acquisition
Right from the start, the US has always looked west. The original 13 colonies soon expanded. Just to name a few highlights, the US Republic bought Louisiana from the French in 1803, annexed Texas in 1845 and took California away from Mexico in 1848 (at the conclusion of the Mexican-American War). The US then expanded further, such that it then had a mainland of 48 contiguous states and territory beyond that. It bought Alaska from Russia in 1867 and it conquered Hawaii in 1893 after a coup by a small group of rich landowners put a gun to the head of Hawaiian Queen Liliuokalani. A watershed moment in the history of the US Empire, and its land and territory acquisition, came in 1898. At that time, the Spanish colonial Empire was falling, and Spain was having problems quelling dissent in its colonies such as Cuba. Through a false flag operation revolving around the USS Maine, the USA entered the conflict (named the Spanish-American War), defeated Spain and established itself as a new colonial and imperial power. While it was at it, it either purchased or annexed the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and Wake Island. Thus, by end of the 19th century, the US had already transformed itself into the US Empire. In this video and in his book, Daniel Immerwahr makes the point that around this time, Americans began to redraw their maps and take pride in their new status; however later on, they sought more to play down and hide their power, figuring it would serve them better to keep it concealed. At one point in the video clip, Immerwahr tells the story of an American GI soldier in the Philippines during WW2, who was told by a Filipino that the US had colonized the Philippines, but didn’t realize it. “What?” he said, thinking he was fighting in a foreign country not on US territory, “We colonized you?”
Fast forward around 120 years, and just look at the state of affairs. The US emerged as the sole world superpower after WW2, but unlike the British Empire, it decided not to outright conquer or annex territory, but rather to build military installations on virtually every continent. The US hides the official number of its military bases so as to conceal the true extent of its imperial reach, however based on the research of people like Chalmers Johnson and Nick Turse, we know that it is at least 1000 bases, and quite probably more. Johnson died in 2010, but in a talk now removed from YouTube claims that in 2004, the Pentagon’s official number was 725 (as published in the Base Structure Report). However, he acknowledged that the Pentagon disguised many of its bases and had 300+ unacknowledged ones. Turse has written many articles and books on the topic of US military bases including this 2019 one Bases, Bases, Everwhere … Except in the Pentagon’s Report:
“Officially, the Department of Defense (DoD) maintains 4,775 “sites,” spread across all 50 states, eight U.S. territories, and 45 foreign countries. A total of 514 of these outposts are located overseas, according to the Pentagon’s worldwide property portfolio. Just to start down a long list, these include bases on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa, as well as in Peru and Portugal, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. But the most recent version of that portfolio, issued in early 2018 and known as the Base Structure Report (BSR), doesn’t include any mention of al-Tanf. Or, for that matter, any other base in Syria. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Niger. Or Tunisia. Or Cameroon. Or Somalia. Or any number of locales where such military outposts are known to exist and even, unlike in Syria, to be expanding.”
To put this number in perspective, the emerging rivals to the US Empire have barely any foreign military bases: Russia has 21 (according to this source) and China has 2.
Hallmark of the US Empire: The Projection of Power without Annexation of Territory
The rulers of the United States Inc. have done a very good job of concealing the power and reach of the US Empire. Through domestic propaganda, they have obscured the reality of the empire such that not many Americans make the connection. They have also avoided colonizing too many weaker nations, instead preferring to project power without actually annexing land. This is achieved through economic warfare such as forcing smaller nations to buy US products, or the infamous use of sanctions as accelerated by Trump against nations like Venezuela and Iran. Then there is also the method described by former economic hitman John Perkins.
But, but … the US is a Republic, Right?
Some people at this point may say, “Well, the US may be an Empire, but its form of government is still a Constitutional Republic. Therefore, the US is a Republic.” Yes, the US is a republic in the sense that it has (highly controlled) elections where (s)elected individuals ascend to power, however, despite this form of governance, the US still behaves as an imperial bully, aggressor and invader to nations outside of it. That behavior is what defines it as an empire. In this context, the word “republic” means nothing. Have you noticed the irony with which nations around the world use the word republic in their official country titles? Both of the communist totalitarian nations of China and North Korea are “republics” since they are called People’s Republic of China and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea respectively. Never mind the censorship and control via social credit. In the so-called “free” West, in the Federal Republic of Germany, if you investigate the truth about the Holocaust you can be fined or imprisoned. In the French Republic, people are so taxed to the hilt they donned yellow vests to spark a worldwide protest movement. Republic means “a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives.” Do you really think the people hold the supreme power in the US, China, North Korea, Germany or France?
Conclusion
Words have power. Propagandists and magicians alike know this, since they know words help to mold perception and create reality. This is why you “spell” words, since uttered words are like a (magic) spell. The power of the US Empire lies in its narrative control and perception control. Whoever controls words, controls narrative; whoever controls narrative, controls perception. It’s a simple formula. Orwell’s great work 1984 showed what can come from word control. The question we must ask ourselves here is this: why is it so strange, uncomfortable and unfamiliar to call a spade a spade, and to admit internally to ourselves and externally to others that the USA is an empire? Surely this uncomfortability itself is evidence of the magic of word control and propaganda. Are we so programmed and conditioned with ideas of “USA = freedom and democracy” that we can’t fathom the idea of a US Empire? If so, then it is more crucial than ever that people begin to use terms like US Empire and Greater United States to take a small yet bold step of breaking the conditioning that holds them in chains.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
“Racism is one of the main engines and expressions of the current counter-revolution. In Venezuela the revolutionary struggle to end white supremacy and for self-determination is slow, and complicated by white elites, backed by US imperialism, and by the denial of many that racism persists.” Quote from Venezuelanalysis.com, “Racism Without Shame in the Venezuelan Counter-Revolution”
The US and Canada are not supporting “the return of democracy” in Venezuela as they claim. Instead, they are following in their histories of colonialism, imperialism, exploitation, illegal wars of aggression, and overthrowing governments. They are crushing democracy in Venezuela by exploiting class and race warfare, being carried out by an elite white-supremacist minority against the poor, Afro-Indigenous, and other Venezuelans of color.
A white-minority has dominated commerce and politics in Venezuela since the days of slavery in the 19th century. Venezuela had slavery, just as did the rest of the Caribbean and Latin America. Slavery went back to the early 16th century Spanish conquistadors. More abducted Africans were trafficked to the Caribbean and Latin America, than to the USA.
Slavery was officially abolished in all of the Americas in the 19th century. The history of slavery in the Caribbean and Latin America has left a legacy of prejudice, discrimination and class conflict, which has largely gone unresolved.
Different skin complexions of Latin Americans are due mostly to various mixtures of European, Spanish and Indigenous bloodlines. The darker the skin color, along with other ethnic features, the more there is of discrimination in education, employment, and opportunity. Discrimination against blacks and people of color perpetuates poverty and class conflict. In Venezuela, as elsewhere in the Caribbean and Latin America, political power, commerce and wealth is largely in the hands of a minority of upper-class elites, whom are mostly whiter and lighter than those with darker skin complexion.
One can get a sense of how much class and race affect Latin American society by watching Spanish language movies and soap operas. Here are just two examples below: the setting for the TV series “The White Slave” is 19th century Colombia; and the setting for “Teresa” is contemporary Mexico.
[One can get a sense of how much class and race affect Latin America society by watching Spanish language movies and soap operas. The setting for “La Esclava Blanca” is 19th century Colombia. The setting for “Teresa” is contemporary Mexico. Photos Wikipedia.]
Hugo Chavez and his successor Maduro are exuberantly despised by the elite white-supremacist minority. They still call Chavez negro, savage, monkey and ape. Maduro gets the same; and the media never fails to remind the public that he was a former bus driver, which is code for “low-class”. Maduro is proud of his humble beginning as a bus driver and his Afro-Indigenous ethnicity. Chavez was proud of his poor Afro-Indigenous background too, and his final resting place is in the barrio where he and Maduro came from.
In 1998 the elite white minority was voted out of the presidential residence Miraflores Palace. Instead of being purged by Chavez, as an authoritarian dictator would have done, the elites maintained their political power base, dominance in commerce, and control of the media. They have been trying to get back the Miraflores Palace, and indignantly consider it their birthright. They have used every means at their command, and even invited the US to invade the country, which would result in thousands of deaths.
In April 2002 the elite white minority tried a coup against Chavez, backed and financed by the US, which failed. In December 2002 they tried a strike by the management at the Venezuelan oil company Petróleos de Venezuela. They tried a recall referendum against Chavez in 2004, and lost at the polls. They tried to unify the opposition political parties with the sole purpose of defeating Maduro in 2013, and failed. They tried to delegitimize the 2018 presidential election by organizing a boycott. They tried to assassinate Maduro with a drone in 2018. Their attempts have failed.
The white elites have sabotaged the economy, used mass demonstrations, and organizeD violence. The self-appointed Juan Guaido declared himself the interim president, and called for a military coup d’etat, that failed miserably. Even with their control of the media and commerce they have failed to oust Maduro.
The elite upper class has millions of dollars of financial support from the US and Canada. Some of the EU countries, following pressure from the US, have thrown their support for the Guaido coup plotters too. The UK froze $1.2 billion of Venezuela’s much needed reserves for life-saving food and medicine. Spain turned its back on the people of Venezuela.
”In Venezuela, the revolutionary struggle to end white supremacy and for self-determination is a slow slog, complicated by two forces: One, the white elites, backed by U.S. imperialism, and many of the middle class who support them, cling tenaciously to their power and privilege. Two, the denial by whites, and nearly everyone else that racism persists.”
Above is a caricature of Nicolas Maduro as a donkey, which is a racist slur. Animalization of black and brown people is a common theme in the white media. Maduro is pictured as a dumb animal being driven by a white Cuban. Ironically, one of the early achievements of the Cuban Revolution was to pass strong antidiscrimination laws, and largely end the racial divide in Cuba.
The US and Canada have opposed the government of Venezuela since the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998. Chavez won the election by a landslide on his platform of participatory democracy, local governance, frequent elections, rewriting the constitution, social reforms, healthcare for all, free education, adult literacy programs, and other basic economic freedoms. He called his platform the Bolivarian Revolution, his movement is called Chavismo, his followers are called Chavistas and they are fiercely loyal to Maduro. Maduro is fiercely loyal to Chavez’s memory, and the Bolivarian process. The country is renamed The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, after el libertador Simon Bolivar.
The Bolivarian process has had dramatic success in reducing inequality, cutting poverty in half, providing adequate housing, fighting child malnutrition, improving public education, practically eliminating adult illiteracy, reducing unemployment, and providing social security. (See appendix A for economic charts of the success of the Bolivarian Revolution, or click the link HERE.) The US and Canada are trying to destroy the successes of the Bolivarian process with an illegal economic blockade and violent subversion.
Before his death, Chavez endorsed his Vice President Nicolas Maduro as his successor. Chavez died in March of 2013, and a new election as required by the constitution was held in April. Maduro won by a surprisingly small margin of 1.5% against the pro-business opponent Henrique Capriles. The opposition cried foul as they always do when they lose.
Venezuela has a voting system with both an electronic ballot and a hard copy, which Jimmy Carter called the best voting technology in the world in 2012. In that election, which Carter monitored, Chavez beat Capriles by a landslide, 55.1% to 44.3%. Still, the US and the mainstream media called Chavez a dictator. Now they call Maduro a dictator.
In the 2018 presidential election Maduro won easily with 67.8% of the vote against his two opponents Henri Falcón and Javier Bertucci. Maduro had invited the United Nations to send election observers, but the UN declined because the opposition told the UN not to come. Why would the opposition disinvite the UN if they thought the election was going to be rigged? Answer, because they have given up on democratic elections. They are outnumbered by the politically awakened poor, Afro-Indigenous, and people of color who live in the barrios.
Barrio de Caracas (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
The US and Canada are violating international law and the UN Charter by interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela. The fact that Venezuela has tremendous wealth in oil, gold, precious earth, minerals and abundant natural and human resources is the obvious lure in whetting their greed.
The killer economic blockade that the US and members of the Lima Group (a US-controlled international cabal designed as a propaganda prop to legitimate attacks on Venezuela’s government) have imposed is causing tens of thousands of deaths, needless suffering, and is destroying Venezuela’s economy. The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) estimates that 40,000 Venezuelans have died as a direct result of the economic blockade. Since the blockade is intentionally targeting civilians, it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and a crime against humanity.
The CEPR disputes the US, Canadian, and mainstream media narrative that Nicolas Maduro is the blame for the current economic crisis. Mark Weisbrot of CEPR says that denying that the blockade is the cause of Venezuela’s economic crisis is like “climate change denial”.
The US and the mainstream media blame Maduro for “wrecking” the economy. They blame the Bolivarian process for having spent too much on social programs for the poor, not diversifying the economy, not fighting crime, and not putting away reserves in anticipation of low oil prices. The problem is that it is not true. Watch the 17-minute interview of Mark Weisbrot below:
Denying Impact of Venezuela Sanctions is ‘Like Climate Denial’
According to a United Nation’s analysis, and 150 experts and activists, the economic slump from falling oil prices was exacerbated by Obama’s economic sanctions in 2015. The blockade imposed by Trump and the Lima Group in 2017 has sent the economy into crisis. That is what economic sanctions are intended to do, as is well-known (e.g. “make the economy scream.”).
Other oil dependent countries in the region are struggling through the depression in oil prices. Venezuela could have too, except for the economic blockade, confiscation of Venezuela’s US oil company Citgo, and the freezing of assets by the US, Canada, and the EU countries. The constant threat of a US invasion diverts needed resources to increased defense spending, which is another drain on the economy.
What the US and Canada are doing to Venezuela meets the definition of terrorism. They are using violence against civilians, starving them to death and preventing life-saving medicine from getting through, for political and economic purposes. It is robbery in plain sight, but many people believe the mainstream media propaganda, rather than their own “lying eyes”. The blindness is caused by “blockade denial”.
The elite white minority of Venezuelans want control of the vast wealth of Venezuela’s natural resources, and the US and Canada are helping for their own imperial designs. It is a historical pattern. The US and Canada have long supported dictators and opposed anti-colonial and democratic movements in the Caribbean, Latin America, Africa and Asia. Before the rise of the US Empire, Canada backed the British Empire in the Caribbean, and even considered annexing its own colonies in the West Indies. Now the UK and Canada are the US Empire’s junior imperial partners.
After the 1898 Spanish-American war the US colonized Cuba and Puerto Rico, as well as the Philippines. The US invaded Mexico in 1914 to support the oligarchy against the nationalists. The US refused to recognize Haiti’s government until 1862, even though it had gained independence from France in 1804. The US militarily occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934. During the Spanish Civil War, the US supported the fascist dictator Franco.
Some of the most notorious dictators that the US has backed are Batista in Cuba, Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Pinochet in Chile, Noriega in Panama, and “Papa Doc” and “Baby Doc” Duvalier in Haiti. During the 1980’s the US sponsored death squads in Central America. The US backed the French in Indochina and Africa, the British in the Middle East and the 1982 colonial Falkland Island War. The US backed Suharto of Indonesia in his genocidal invasion of East Timor. The US backed apartheid South Africa, and had Nelson Mandela on its terrorist list until 2008. Is this the picture of a country that loves democracy and human rights?
Just as the US overthrew a democratic government in Guatemala in 1954 for United Fruit Company, the US is now trying to overthrow a democratic government in Venezuela for the benefit of US oil companies, and Canadian mining companies. And just as neocon Elliot Abrams was in charge of the death-squads in Central America during the 1980’s, he is now Trump’s special envoy for Venezuela. To believe that the US wants to “restore democracy” in Venezuela takes cognitive dissonance.
The US is supporting a cabal of elite white supremacists in Venezuelan to push the Washington Consensus of IMF loans, privatization of state-owned enterprises, invasion of foreign capital, Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) by the IMF, neoliberal debt slavery and austerity for the poor, Afro-Indigenous, and people of color. Even Monsanto is behind the coup because Venezuela is one of the few countries that bans cancer causing Roundup and GMO seeds.
An article in the Journal of the US Army from 2005 laid out in detail the US’s objections against the Bolivarian process. Even when there was no question about the legitimacy of the elections and the economy was doing great, the US was planning a coup d‘etat. One reason is oil, and the US Army article is blunt about it:
So, the US and Venezuela disagree on their “preference” for “this strategic asset”. The Venezuelan people want to use their oil wealth for the benefit of Venezuelans, and the US objects? Of course, Canada’s “preference” is for Canadian mining companies to control Venezuela’s gold too.
Venezuela is a sovereign country, a member of the United Nations, and Maduro is the internationally recognized president. (A status the US and its vassals and allies in crime continually work to undermine). Venezuela has the right to choose its own preferences. What the article calls “this strategic asset” is not up for grabs. The US and Canada don’t have a right to vote on it. The fact that the US and Canada even think that they can dictate ownership of “this strategic asset”, shows how arrogant and bullying they are. This is the 21st century, the Monroe Doctrine should be dead, and the Caribbean and Latin America ain’t nobody’s “backyard”.
The US Army article further whines that Chavez and Maduro encouraged the unity of South America, challenging US hegemony. Venezuela has a right to its own foreign relations. Other invented crimes are that Venezuela backed a stronger OPEC, and opposed the illegal Invasion of Iraq, and the Worldwide War on Terror. Venezuela has good relations with Cuba and Nicaragua, thus irritating the US further.
Strangely, the US Army article finds the Bolivarian process of “participatory democracy” rather than “representative democracy” to be nefarious? It’s odd that the US would object to the Venezuelan people having more democracy and local control, rather than less. Try explaining to Chavistas how Trump became president even though he got fewer votes than Clinton, and they will laugh in your face about “representative democracy”.
What is depressing is that most of the North American public is still fooled by the US propaganda that it is motivated by democracy and human rights. The historical evidence is to the contrary. The US is a serial predator of illegal wars of aggression, which have killed millions of people, and Canada has been right there side-by-side. They have invaded at least a half-dozen countries in the past few decades, and they are threatening a half-dozen more. The US has imposed illegal economic sanctions on Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela. The US State Department has bragged that the sanctions are “working” because civilians are dying. That is not concern for human rights. It is coercion, hostage taking and demands for ransom.
The US often violates international law, reneges on treaties, ignores the United Nations, defies the International Criminal Court, and breaks domestic laws. It conducts illegal wars of aggression, drone assassinations, night raids, and covert operations . The US supplies weapons, logistics and ammunition that are used by Israel and Saudi Arabia to kill civilians. The US supports 70% of the world’s dictators. Does any of that fit with a country that is concerned about democracy and human rights? The US and Canada are recklessly instigating a bloody civil war in Venezuela.
A State Department official named Brian Hook in a leaked memo disabused his boss at that time, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, about the actual aims of US foreign policy. The memo tutored Tillerson that the US is only interested in weaponizing democracy and human rights to destabilize adversaries. The US should treat friendly dictatorships, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Honduras, “different and better”, according to Hook.
As Hook explains, agitating countries about democracy and human rights is destabilizing, and the US does not want to do that to friendly dictators. With adversaries though, the US wants to destabilize them even if they are democracies, like Venezuela. For adversaries, they are never democratic enough to please the US. They should be destabilized and kept off balance, according to Hook.
It is false that US foreign policy objectives are for the benefit of the US public. US foreign policy is for the benefit of corporations, special interest groups and oligarchs. The beneficiaries of US foreign policy are the elites, and they grease US foreign policy with campaign contributions, bribes and other perks to government officials.
What drives US foreign policy is the quest for absolute military superiority, preservation of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency, maintaining the capitalist world order, controlling the world’s natural and human resources, promoting a stable business-friendly environment for Western transnational corporations, and seeking opportunities for windfall profits for cronies.
In other words, the US wants to control the whole world. If that means overthrowing non-compliant democratically elected governments and supporting military coups and dictators, killing millions of people, then as far as the US is concerned, so be it. That is criminally insane.
It is the US public that pays for US foreign policy and wars, either through taxes or by the lack of government programs, such as universal healthcare, education, mass transit and a “Green New Deal”. US foreign policy does not keep the American people safer. Wars and the threat of wars make the American people less safe.
The foreign policy elites, also called the “power elite”, which is a phrase coined by C. Wright Mills in his book The Power Elite, are a closely knit alliance of “military, government, and corporate officials perceived as the center of wealth and political power in the US”. The power elite usually come from wealthy families. They all went to Ivy League schools, they belong to the same country clubs, they are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg group. They sit on the boards of corporations, the media, banks, foundations, universities, and think tanks; and they become Senators and Presidents.
The power elite is a clique. The members all go to the same cocktail parties, their spouses are friends, and their children go to private schools together. Those not born into the power elite have to earn admission by being faithful servants, and climb to the top while they gain experience, power and influence. The power elite is the Deep State. The Deep State makes US foreign policy and declares war; not the American people. The American people pay, but do not get to “play”. The Deep State, and those that serve it, such as John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, have no moral and legal restraints.
Humanitarian interventionists, the right to protect (R2P), American values, democracy and human rights are weaponized, as Hook explained to Tillerson. It is all about US hegemony and world domination. Under three US presidents, Bush, Obama and Trump, the US has been trying to overthrow the government of Venezuela.
Twenty years ago, the democratically elected president of Venezuela became a target of the US. There was no question that the election was fair, democratic and it was declared so by international observers, including the Carter Center. Hugo Chavez won the presidency by a landslide. Instead of cheering for democracy at work, the US and Canada soon started plotting to overthrow the elected government.
In 2002 the US backed an unsuccessful military coup d’etat. The US immediately endorsed the coup government, and the mainstream media cheered. The coup failed because the people demanded a return of their kidnapped president. Within 48 hours Hugo Chavez was back in the Miraflores Palace.
Below is a 15-minute documentary on the 2002 coup attempt and the US involvement. The video features Eva Golinger. Golinger is a US attorney who has followed events in Venezuela for decades, she was a legal advisor to Hugo Chavez, and she has written several books. The most well-known is The Chavez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela.
How America Overthrew The Venezuelan Government
So, how does the US square what it now says is its concern for democracy, when the US tried to overthrow the government in 2002, regardless of it being a democratically elected government? The US’s fallback argument is that an adversary is never democratic enough, as Hook explained.
It is the same answer the US gave in 1954 when it overthrew the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Árbenz. It is the same answer the US gave in 1973 when it overthrew and assassinated Chile’s democratically elected president, Salvador Allende. It is the same answer it gave in the 1980’s when it was backing the Contras in Nicaragua. It is the same answer the US gave when it overthrew the democratically elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti in 1994, and then overthrew him again when he was elected in 2004. It is the same answer that the US gave when it backed the military coup in Honduras in 2009. For the US, an adversary is never democratic enough, and it must go.
Maduro must go because he is costing US and Canadian corporations and banks money. He challenges the Washington Consensus. Maduro threatens US hegemony in Latin America and the Caribbean. Those are unforgiveable sins in the eyes of the US. It is like putting a great big bull’s eye on your back. Being a US target has nothing to do with democracy and human rights.
Vice President Pence and Prime Minister Trudeau met in Ottawa at the end of May. In their joint statement they spoke about many issues that the US and Canada share. They chitchatted about their peaceful borders, joked about basketball rivalry, and spared about trade. One issue that they agreed on was Venezuela. Both said that President Nicolas Maduro must go. When the US says “must go”, it includes assassination.
Here is what Trudeau had to say on Venezuela:
“This afternoon, the Vice President and I spoke about the concerning situation in Venezuela. Our government remains committed to the importance of finding a peaceful return to democracy and stability for Venezuelans.”
Pence followed with his statement on Venezuela:
“Canada has imposed sanctions on 113 of the dictator’s cronies. You’ve promoted the cause of freedom and a free Venezuela inside the Lima Group and the OAS. And the two of us have said, with one voice, that Nicolás Maduro is a dictator with no legitimate claim to power, and Nicolás Maduro must go.”
Restoring democracy in Venezuela is a red herring. The US and Canadian foreign policies are not concerned about democracy. It is lip service for the home folks. US foreign policy has always preferred strong dictators and puppet governments in their “back yard”. The US and Canada have historically exploited their backyard for its natural resources, tropical monocrops, cheap labor, and schemes to get rich. Those that have opposed the US and Canada can be found in mass graves all over the Caribbean and Latin American.
Trump is refreshingly crude, compared to the smooth-talking Obama. Reportedly when Trump first took office, one of his first questions was why is the US not at war with Venezuela, since they have all that oil and they are right in our backyard?
International law is meaningless to the US, and that is not new with Trump. The US has a long history of ignoring international law. Both Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump’s national security advisor John Bolton have a vision of the world as the wild west, with no international law, just anarchy. It is the cynical view that might-makes-right, and that the US is above the law.
It was the Bill Clinton administration that injected new currency into the phrases American exceptionalism and the indispensable nation. That was the polite way to say that the US is above the law. It is just that Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, and Abrams do not have good manners. That is not a policy change, it’s Trump stepping into an imperial presidency that was left to him by Bush and Obama.
Oh, the Trump administration still speaks out of both sides of its mouth with platitudes that the US is a force for good in the world, and that its values are democracy and human rights. Only fools believe that anymore.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Appendix
Venezuelan Economic and Social Performance Under Hugo Chávez, in Graphs
1. Growth (Average Annual Percent)
Source: Banco Central de Venezuela
This graph shows overall GDP growth as well as per-capita growth in the pre-Chávez (1986-1999) era and the Chávez presidency.
From 1999-2003, the government did not control the state oil company; in fact, it was controlled by his opponents, who used it to try to overthrow the government, including the devastating oil strike of 2002–2003. For that reason, a better measure of economic growth under the Chávez government would start after it got control over the state oil company, and therefore the economy.
Above you can see this growth both measured from 2004, and for the 1999-2012 period. We use 2004 because to start with 2003, a depressed year due to the oil strike, would exaggerate GDP growth during this period; by 2004, the economy had caught up with its pre-strike level of output. Growth after the government got control of the state oil company was much faster.
2. Public vs. Private Growth – 1999-2012 (Average Annual Percent)
Source: Banco Central de Venezuela
This graph shows the growth of the private sector versus the public sector during the Chávez years.
3. Inflation: Pre-Chávez vs. Chávez Years
Source: Banco Central de Venezuela, INEC / Inflation in Venezuela, consumer price index.
4. Unemployment Rate: Before and After Oil Strike
After the oil strike (and the deep recession that it caused) ended in 2003, unemployment dropped drastically, following many years of increases before Chávez was elected. In 1999, when Chávez took office, unemployment was 14.5 percent; for 2011 it was 7.8 percent.
5. Poverty and Extreme Poverty Rate
Source: INEC
Poverty has decreased significantly, dropping by nearly 50 percent since the oil strike, with extreme poverty dropping by over 70 percent.
6. Gini Coefficient, 2001-2003 – Latin America
Source: Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean
The Gini coefficient, measuring income inequality, fell from 0.5 to 0.397, the lowest Gini coefficient in the region.
7. Social Spending as a Percent of GDP
Source: SISOV
Social spending doubled from 11.3 percent of GDP in 1998 to 22.8 percent of GDP in 2011.
8. Education: Net Enrollment
Source: SISOV
9. Graduates from Higher Education
Source: Ministerio del P.P. para la Educación Universitaria
10. Child Malnutrition- Age 5 and Under
Source: Instituto Nacional de Nutrición
11. Venezuelans Receiving Pensions
Source: Instituto Venezuela de los Seguros Sociales
The number of Venezuelans receiving pensions has increased from less than 500,000 in 1999 to nearly 2 million in 2011.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
David William Pear is a columnist writing on U.S. foreign policy, economic and political issues, human rights and social issues. David is a Senior Contributing Editor of The Greanville Post (TGP) and a prior Senior Editor for OpEdNews (OEN). David has been writing for The Real News Network (TRNN) and other publications for over 10 years. David is a member of Veterans for Peace, Saint Pete (Florida) for Peace, CodePink, and the Palestinian-led non-violent organization International Solidarity Movement.
The original source of this article is Global Research
