Mark Weisbrot on the Destabilization Campaign Against Venezuela

The escalation of tensions between Venezuela and U.S. ally Colombia in Latin America have featured prominently in the American press with the slogan being that the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, was exposed for his support of "terrorists" in the border region with Colombia. Even the National Public Radio (NPR) has reported this line uncritically. The aim of this carefully timed and coordinated message in the press is to destabilize Venezuela's government ahead of major parliamentary elections in September there. As usual, the media took the bait. Needless to say, the barrage of propaganda in our media was predicted.

Mark Weisbrot from the economic think-tank CEPR wrote a very important article in the British Guardian newspaper outlining exactly how the U.S. is planning to use the issue of "terrorism" as part of a campaign to help the opposition in Venezuela win gains in the up coming election. I am re-posting the article on this page, but you can read the entire original article by clicking here.

In March I wrote about the Obama administration's contribution to the election campaign under way in Venezuela, where voters will choose a new national assembly in September. I predicted that certain things would happen before September, among them some new "discoveries" that Venezuela supports terrorism. Venezuela has had 13 elections or referenda since Hugo Chávez was first elected in 1998, and in the run-up to most of them, Washington has usually done something to influence the political and media climate.

The intentions were already clear on March 11, when General Douglas Fraser, the head of the US Southern Command was testifying to the US Senate. In response to a question from Senator John McCain about Venezuela's alleged support for terrorism, Fraser said:

"We have continued to watch very closely … We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify that there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection."

The next day he recanted his testimony after meeting with the US state department's top official for Latin America, Arturo Valenzuela.

This made it clear that the "terrorist" message was going to be a very important part of Washington's campaign. Even the Bush administration had never forced its military officers to retract their statements when they contradicted the state department's political agenda in Latin America, which they sometimes did.

Unfortunately, the campaign continues. Last Thursday, Colombia's ambassador to the Organisation of the American States (OAS) accused Venezuela at an extraordinary meeting of the OAS of harbouring 1,500 guerillas, and asked for the OAS to take action. The timing was noteworthy to many observers. President Lula da Silva of Brazil noted that it "seemed strange that this occurs a few days before [President] Uribe [of Colombia] leaves office. The new president has given signals that he wants to build peace [with Venezuela]. Everything was going well until Uribe made this denunciation."

Venezuela responded by breaking diplomatic relations with Colombia. It had previously cut off much of its trade with Colombia over the past two years, in response to Colombia's agreement with Washington to expand its military presence at seven US military bases in Colombia. Since Venezuela had been Colombia's largest trading partner in the region, it is possible that the new president, Juan Manuel Santos, was looking to improve relations for business reasons if nothing else. He had invited Chávez to his inauguration.

Of course, Uribe does not necessarily take orders from Washington, but it would be naive to assume that someone who has received more than $6bn from the US would not check with his benefactors before doing something like this. The fact that the US state department immediately took Colombia's side in the dispute is further indication that they approved. Even Washington's (rightwing) allies in the region did not take sides, with the government of Chile, for example, issuing a neutral statement; this would have been the normal diplomatic protocol for Washington too, if this were not part of a political and public relations campaign against Venezuela.

Other governments clearly saw Colombia's action as a political move, and were upset with what looked like the OAS being manipulated for these purposes. President Lula was cited in the Brazilian press saying that the venue of the dispute should be moved to Unasur, because the US would tilt the negotiations toward Colombia and against Venezuela. Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, strongly criticised the head of the OAS, José Miguel Insulza, for not having consultation before granting Colombia's request for a meeting of the OAS permanent council. Patiño said that Insulza had shown his "absolute incapacity" to direct the organisation and to "look for peace in the region". Bolivia's president, Evo Morales, had even harsher rhetoric for Uribe, calling him "a loyal representative of the US government, with its military bases in Colombia designed to provoke a war between Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua."

This dispute highlights the importance of the institutional changes that the left-of-centre governments in Latin America are trying to make. The increasing importance of Unasur, displacing the OAS, has become vital to Latin American progress and stability. For example, because of the influence of the US (as usual, with a handful of rightwing allies) in the OAS, it failed to take stronger action to restore the democratically elected government of President Zelaya of Honduras last year.

When Bolivia was having problems with attempts by the separatist, extra-parliamentary opposition – including violence and de-stabilisation efforts – it was Unasur that met in Santiago in September 2008 and threw its weight behind the democratic government of Evo Morales. When the US decided last fall to expand its presence at the military bases in Colombia, Unasur reached an agreement – which included Colombia – that prohibited these bases from being used for any actions outside of the country.

As to the substance of Colombia's latest claims, guerillas and paramilitaries have been crossing the 2,000km border with Venezuela – much of it dense jungle, mountains and all kinds of difficult terrain – for decades. There is no evidence that anything has changed recently, and nothing to indicate that the Venezuelan government, which has extradited guerillas to Colombia, supports any armed groups – as General Fraser testified before he was apparently forced to take it back.

On Tuesday Insulza – perhaps feeling like he had gone too far to please Washington – told CNN en Español that "the guerrillas come and go, and it is quite difficult to ask just one country to control the border … Uribe says he doesn't know why Venezuela doesn't detain the guerillas, but the truth is that Colombia can't control them either." He might have added that the US, with all its vastly greater resources and superior technology, doesn't have an easy time controlling the flow of drugs, guns, and people across its own much more manageable border with Mexico.

On Thursday there will be an emergency meeting of Unasur, and hopefully a process of diplomacy will begin to resolve the dispute. Certainly there will be a better chance of success to the extent that Washington – and its political campaigns against governments that it doesn't like – can be kept at a distance.

Aristide and the Battle for Haiti's Political-Economic Future

In 2004, President Jean Bertrand Aristide was removed from executive power in a U.S.-supported coup d'tat. Aristide was kidnapped by U.S. special- forces then flown to a neighbouring location. (Exactly like the coup in Honduras last summer). Since the 2004 coup Lavalas, a mass political party which Aristide created, has been subject to violent repression and censorship at the hands of the Haitian government. Aristide, now living in South Africa, has announced his intention to return back to the country for the on going recovery effort.

"The spirit of Ubuntu that once led Haiti to emerge as the first independent
Black nation in 1804; helped Venezuela, Columbia and Ecuador attain liberty and
inspired our forefathers to shed their blood for the United States independence
cannot die. Today this spirit of solidarity must and will empower all of us to
rebuild Haiti."

The return of Aristide to Haiti will be opposed by Haitian elites and the U.S. government. Haiti is a sovereign nation-state but for decades the U.S. has interfered in its internal economic and political affairs, often relying on violence. Immediately following the earthquake, U.S. right-wing think tank Heritage Foundation, began planning a political and economic future for Haiti that could effectively defend U.S. interests there. These interests include new “free” trade deals, economic liberalization and countering the influence of Venezuela, Cuba and other Latin American countries aligned with the Bolivarian Revolution.

President Obama has already implemented many of the ideas coming out of the Heritage Foundation including sending in an overwhelming amount of military, civilian, and government forces to the island and tapping George W. Bush to help Bill Clinton in a "bi-partisan" aid effort. Bush has strong ties to the Heritage Foundation and their ideas will no doubt be represented in U.S. foreign policy in Haiti. Both Bush and the Heritage Foundation were supporters of the 2004 coup. The return of Aristide and a resurgence of popular participation during the political and economic phases of recovery would complicate their agenda.

Perhaps, it is inappropriate to start thinking about long-term political and economic transformation in Haiti given the amount of suffering taking place. But that has not stopped the U.S. State Department, Pentagon or Heritage Foundation. When the media cameras leave in the months ahead that is when the real battle for Haiti's future will begin.

Venezuela Enters 2010 Fighting for the Future

Venezuela is one of the world's largest exporters of crude oil and the leader of one of the world's only existing experiments in democratic socialism.

In 2009, oil prices plummeted and the Venezuelan government was spending more money than it generated from revenues causing internal debt to grow. As a central component of the 'Bolivarian' socialist revolution, President Hugo Chavez has refused to reduce government spending on social programs despite opposition criticism he needs to do more to curb simultaneously the debt and inflation. In response to evidence that its social policies could not be sustained, the government has decided to devalue its Bolivar currency against the U.S. dollar to encourage exports and discourage imports. Venezuela will alter the official exchange rate of the bolivar currency and create a second rate for "non-essential" imports. Venezuela like other developing countries is notoriously dependent on imports of both primary and consumer goods. With Venezuela receiving more bolivars for each dollar of oil revenue, more funds will be available to service debt and continue his popular social programs. At the same time the government intends to make imported consumer goods more expensive than imported basic purchases of items the country is lacking, such as basic foods and medicines.

FOREXYARD has a snap analysis of the Bolivar devaluation that weighs both costs and benefits of the devaluation policy. In the final analysis, the report says the Venezuelan government should be able to dampen the regressive impact of higher prices on the poor through state subsidies and industry will be more competitive in the global market.

"The devaluation will make Venezuela's hard-hit industry and agricultural sector more competitive by increasing the cost of imported goods and making the country's exports cheaper. Venezuela suffers from an economic condition called "Dutch disease," where high oil revenues cause an overvalued currency and lead other economic sectors to wither."

The reaction of the Venezuelan government to economic turmoil reveals the character of the Bolivarian revolution. Other developing countries have responded to economic crisis through cuts in government subsidies, privatization, external aid and strict monetary policies. The Venezuelan government however, has remained true to its left-wing nationalist principles and moved to lessen dependence on either external goods or advise from international financial institutions. The results of the government's response could have important implications for the structure of power and privilege in Venezuelan society. Hugo Chavez and his party the PSUV will be contesting parliamentary elections in September. The vote will be a referendum on the government's performance thus far. As prices rise, opposition leaders may seize upon social unrest and hope voters loose faith in Venezuela's socialist policies.

I am one among a few open American supporters of the Bolivarian project in Venezuela but fear future bureaucratization and poor service delivery could destroy whatever hope people had for socio-economic transformation. 2009 was a bad year for the Venezuelan government and a repetition of its performance could spell the end of President Hugo Chavez, his party and alienate the very social movements that brought him to power.

Photo Essay Highlights the "Oil Age" in the Developing World

There is an absolutely amazing photo essay in Foreign Policy Magazine called "Scenes from the Violent Twilight of Oil". The essay provides moving images and included captions of some of the world's most important oil producing states like Venezuela and Nigeria and reminds us that even as the world looks to lessen its dependence on "black gold" in the future, the resource still colors our present---for better or worse.

"NIGERIA
Children play in the halo of a natural gas flare in Ebocha. The name means "Place of Light," after the flare at an Agip petroleum refinery that has burned there, night and day, since the 1970s."

You can enjoy the rest of the photo journal by clicking here.

Can Latin America's "ALBA" Deliver?

The Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America, or ALBA according to its Spanish acronym, is a little known secret to many citizens of the United States. But throughout our hemisphere the Venezuelan-led project is gaining momentum and raising new questions about the future of trade and development in Latin America.

ALBA began in 2004 between Venezuela and Cuba when the two countries began exchanging petroleum for medical assistance. Cuba has sent more than 14,000 physicians free of charge to poorest sectors of Venezuela. In return, Venezuela at one time was sending ships to Cuba with 90,000 barrels of oil a day. In the last five years, the alliance has grown to include a total of nine members spanning South America and the Caribbean. Wednesday, ALBA made regional headlines adding Ecuador, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda as its newest member countries.


The major difference between traditional US- led free trade agreements, and ALBA is that the later explicitly works toward a version of regional economic integration that is based on a vision of social development and mutual economic aid. ALBA has a stated mission of "solidarity, cooperation, complementation, and justice." US trade initiatives are primarily concerned with market access and liberalization.

The alliance functions as a counter-weight to the free-trade negotiations initiated by the US in Latin America. The final declaration of the last ALBA summit makes no secret of the member's mistrust toward the US influence in the region.

"[We recognize] the strengthening of the ALBA and its consolidation as a political, economic, and social alliance in defense of the independence, sovereignty, self-determination, and identity of member countries and the interests and aspirations of the peoples of the South, in the face of attempts at political and economic domination,"

While the political position of ALBA has been well defined, there is very little information about the success or failure of specific projects within the alliance on delivering basic needs and creating economic opportunities for people within member countries. Ultimately, the impact on poor people in one of the vastly unequal regions of the world should be the most important aspect of any trade agreement here. Otherwise, ALBA would essentially be no different from the US agreements it seeks to replace. There will most certainly be political costs for nations who join ALBA in their relationship with the United States. Is membership in the new alliance worth those costs or is ALBA nothing more than an example of inflamed rhetoric?

There have been some positive developments, most notably Cuba's "Operation Miracle Program" which, has provided eye care to hundreds of thousands of poor people throughout Latin America. If the alliance does measurably improve the lives of people within membership countries, ALBA should no longer remain in the shadows of political debate and the development community in the United States should take notice.