Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts Volume IV, Number 23 July 11 - 17, 2004 Quezon City, Philippines |
The
Venezuelan Referendum:
The Truth about James Carter By
James Petras
Back
to Alternative Reader Index
On
August 14, 2004, Venezuelan voters will decide on a referendum, which has the
utmost world historic and strategic significance.
What is at stake is nothing less than the future of the energy world, the
relations between the US and Latin America (particularly Cuba), and the
political and socio-economic fate of millions of Venezuela’s urban and rural
poor. If
Chavez is defeated and if the Right takes power, it will privatize the state
petroleum and gas company, selling it to US multinationals, withdraw from OPEC,
raise its production and exports to the US, thus lowering Venezuelan revenues by
half or more. Internally
the popular health programs in the urban “ranchos” will end along with the
literary campaign and public housing for the poor.
The agrarian reform will be reversed and about 500,000 land reform
recipients (100,000 families) will be turned off the land.
This will be accomplished through extensive and intensive state
bloodletting, jailing and extrajudicial assassination, and massive repression of
pro-Chavez neighborhoods, trade unions and social movements.
The apparently “democratic” referendum will have profoundly
authoritarian, colonial and socially regressive results if the opposition wins. Regionally,
an anti-Chavez outcome will tighten the grip of US and Europe on Latin
America’s oil resources; the denationalization of the petroleum industry in
the post-Chavez period will follow in the footsteps of Lula’s privatization of
Petrobras in Brazil, Gutierrez’ privatization in Ecuador and the continuity of
private foreign ownership in Argentina, Bolivia and Peru.
Control
of Venezuela’s oil will heighten US control over world oil, decrease its
dependence on the Mid East, especially with high intensity conflict in Iraq now,
Saudi Arabia and Iran in the future.
Equally important the US will eliminate the strongest opponent of ALCA
– the free trade treaty – and pave the way for direct US control over the
rules and regulations for trade and investment in the hemisphere.
Strategically
the US takeover of Venezuelan oil will have grave consequences on the Cuban
economy as Washington will abruptly end exports and its client regime will
likely break relations.
Direct colonial control over Iraq and Venezuela, two of the top suppliers
of oil will increase US global power over its competitors, while serving as an
“object lesson” to potential opposition regimes. The
“referendum” in Venezuela emerges as a major clash between the US and OPEC,
US imperialism and Latin American nationalists, neo-liberalism and social
nationalism, between US backed authoritarian ruling elites and endogenous
socially conscious urban workers, unemployed, small business people, landless
rural workers and small peasants.
These historical confrontations find their specific focus in the
referendum. The
events leading up to the referendum speak eloquently of the crass US
intervention, the violent tactics of the elites, the rule or ruin strategy of
the opposition, the unbridled totalitarian propaganda of the privately owned
mass media. The
opposition has backed a violent military coup (which was defeated); it organized
a bosses’ lockout that almost destroyed the economy (which ended in defeat);
it organized a contingent of over 130 Colombian military and paramilitary forces
with the aid of active Venezuelan officers to sow violence – that was aborted
by Venezuelan intelligence.
Equally ominous, in the campaign to secure signatures for the referendum,
fraudulent identity cards were massively produced and distributed, tens of
thousands of deceased, incapacitated and coerced had their signatures forged and
thousands of signatures were written by a single hand.
Opposition corruption and fraud was rife but the official international
observers urged the Chavez government to accept then and proceed to the
referendum. More
ominously among the key voices that made their presence felt were the ubiquitous
James Carter and the notorious Jose Miguel Vivanco of the Soros funded “Human
Rights Watch”. The
Unknown History of James Carter The
two faces of imperial power include the iron fist military intervention and the
“soft sell” of electoral frauds, intimidating diplomacy and democratic
blackmail. James
Carter is “the quiet American” of Graham Greene fame, who legitimates voter
fraud, blesses corrupt elections, certifies murderous rulers, encourages
elections, in which the opposition is funded by the US state and semi-public
foundations, and the incumbent progressive regime suffers repeated violent
disruption of the economy.
Carter, also has the steel will to promote bloody wars by rightwing
fanatics and encourage military US directed coalitions to salvage reactionary
states from popular revolution. Behind
the simple and humane façade, Carter has a proven method to reverse progressive
regimes and undermine insurgent democrats.
Carter and his “team” from his Center probe and locate weaknesses
among insecure democrats, particularly those under threat by US-backed opponents
and thus vulnerable to Carter’s appeals to be “pragmatic” and
“realistic” – meaning his barely disguised arguments to accept fraudulent
electoral results and gross US electoral intervention.
Carter is a quiet master in mixing democratic rhetoric with vile
manipulation of susceptible democrats who think he shares their democratic
politics. The
international mass media feature his self-promoted overseas trips to conflictual
countries and above all his phony “human rights” record. The mass media
provide Carter with the appearance of democratic credentials. In
fact, his frequent political interventions have been dedicated to sustaining
dictators, legitimizing fraudulent elections and pressuring popular democratic
candidates to capitulate before US-backed opponents.
Carter has deliberately and systematically worked over the past quarter
of a century to undermine progressive regimes and candidates and promote their
pro-imperialist opponents. Today
in Venezuela, faced with a referendum of dubious validity, backed by the most
rancid reactionaries, Carter once again poses as a “neutral monitor” while
working with the anti-Chavez opposition to first legitimate the referendum then
to provide opportunities for its favorable outcome.
Carter has said absolutely nothing about massive US funding of the
opposition – a blatant violation of any democratic, electoral process --
activities which would be felonious in his own country, the USA.
He cynically calls for “fair reporting” by the hysterically
anti-Chavez mass media, knowing full well that, with a wink of his eye, they
have free rein to provide exclusively favorable coverage of the opposition and
uniformly negative disinformation about Chavez.
In exchange Carter secured from Chavez a promise to avoid compulsory
national chain broadcasts.
Carter refuses to recognize that the electoral playing field is not
equal, yet under the guise of “free press” he defends the right of the media
oligarchs to voice venomous lies, denying the electorate the right to hear both
sides. Carter
refuses to recognize the intimidating effects of US military maneuvers in the
Caribbean, the belligerent statements of undersecretary of state of Latin
American Affairs Noriega against Chavez and the hyperactivity of the US
Ambassador Shapiro in support of the anti-Chavez forces.
Above all Carter ignores the plots, fraudulent practices and paramilitary
activities leading up to and beyond the referendum.
Focusing on enforcing the Government’s compliance with electoral
procedures and ignoring the highly prejudicial context of the election, Carter
is fulfilling his role of a “set-up man” for either an electoral victory of
the opposition or in the event of a defeat, for a post-election pretext for
violent coup. Carter’s
history provides an extremely useful context for substantiating these
observations and affirmation. Carter
Certifies a Stolen Election: Dominican Republic 1990 In
1993, I spent several hours interviewing Juan Bosch, the Dominican Republic’s
most notable democratic political leader.
He told me that in the aftermath of the presidential elections of 1990,
which he legally won, his opponent, the rightist, pro-US Juan Balaguer, engaged
in massive theft, witnessed by poll watchers.
James Carter headed the mission “monitoring” the election.
Bosch presented Carter with a wealth of documents and testimony,
witnesses and photos of Balaguer supporters dumping ballots in the river.
Carter acknowledged the corruption and fraud, but urged Bosch to accept
the results “to avoid a civil war”.
Bosch accused Carter of covering up to gain a US client.
He led a march of 500,000 in protest.
Carter certified Balaguer as the product of a “free election” and
left. Balaguer
proceeded to repress, pillage and privatize basic services. Haiti
I: Carter the Smiling Blackmailer In
1990, Bertrand Aristide, a very popular former priest was leading in the polls
with over 70% against a US-backed former World Bank functionary, Marc Bazin with
barely 15% of popular support.
James Carter, the self-styled neutral electoral monitor, set up a meeting
with Aristide in which he demanded that Aristide withdraw from the elections in
favor of the unpopular US candidate in order to avoid a “bloodbath”.
Carter did everything in his power to frighten Aristide and deny the
populace its right to choose its president.
Carter must have known in advance from his contacts with President Bush
(Senior) that Washington was intent on preventing Haiti from taking an
independent road.
Eight months after Aristide’s accession to the Presidency, a coup,
backed by the US took place.
Aristide was ousted and replaced and Carter’s preferred candidate, Marc
Bazin, was appointed Prime Minister, backed by a paramilitary terrorist group
called FRAPH that instituted a “bloodbath” killing more than 4,000 Haitians.
Carter and Bush, the quiet diplomat and the President with the iron fist
worked in tandem, when the first failed, the latter stepped in. Haiti
II: General Cedras – Sunday School Teacher – 1991-94 With
Aristide out of the way, the US-backed regime proceeded to massacre thousands of
Haitian supporters of the former elected President.
The key member of the governing junta was General Cedras.
With thousands of Haitians fleeing his brutal regime and heading for
Florida, James Carter spoke in defense of the bloody General Cedras, “I
believe and trust in General Cedras.”
Later Carter gushed, “I believe he would be a worthy Sunday school
teacher.” Carter
later certified the respectability of the disreputable dictator on his way to
exile – after emptying the treasury.
President Clinton convoked a meeting with Aristide in Washington.
A Congressional aide privy to the meeting told me that Clinton’s aide
handed Aristide a neo-liberal program and list of cabinet ministers and told him
his return to Haiti was contingent on accepting Washington’s dictates.
After many hours of psychological pressure, threats and arguments,
Aristide capitulated.
Clinton allowed him to return.
Carter welcomed the return of “democracy”
-US style. Ten
years later when Aristide refused to comply with threats from the US to
privatize public utilities and break relations with Cuba (which was providing
hundreds of doctors and nurses for Haiti’s public health system), the US
sponsored a paramilitary attack, followed by a US invasion.
Aristide, the elected President, was kidnapped by US forces and flown –
virtually blindfolded – to the Central African Republic.
Carter did not protest the gross US intervention but questioned
Aristide’s election.
Carter’s criticism of Aristide (at a time when Aristide was a prisoner
in the Central African Republic) provided a fig leaf of legitimacy for the US
invasion, kidnapping, occupation and establishment of a murderous puppet regime.
The US intervention in Haiti was seen in Washington as a “dress
rehearsal” for an invasion of Venezuela. Nicaragua
1979: Part I – Carter and Somoza In
June 1978, President James Carter sent a private letter to the Nicaraguan
dictator Anastasio Somoza lauding Somoza for the “human rights initiatives”
while he criticized Somoza publicly. Carter had made “human rights” a
centerpiece of his interventionist propaganda (Morris Morley, Washington, Somoza
and the Sandinistas, 1994, pp 115-116).
This two-faced policy occurred during one of the bloodiest periods of
Somoza’s rule when he was bombing cities sympathetic to the revolution.
Carter’s rhetorical declaration of concern for human rights was for
public consumption, his private assurances to Somoza encouraged the dictator to
continue his scorched earth policy. Nicaragua
May 1979 : Part II – Carter Proposes Intervention In
June 1993 the Foreign Minister under the late Panamanian President Torrejos told
me of President Carter’s briefest regional meeting.
It took place less in May 1979 less than two months before Somoza was
overthrown. Carter
convened a meeting of foreign ministers of several Latin American countries who
were opposed to Somoza’s dictatorship.
President Carter entered and immediately tabled a proposal to form an
“Inter-American Peace Force”, a military force of US and Latin American
troops to invade Nicaragua to “end the conflict” and support a diverse
coalition. The
purpose, according to the former Panamanian minister present, was to prevent a
Sandinista victory, preserving Somoza’s National Guard and replace Somoza with
a pro-US conservative civilian junta.
Carter’s proposal was rejected unanimously as unwarranted US
intervention. Carter
in a pique ended the meeting abruptly.
Carter’s attempt to throttle a popular revolution to preserve the
Somocista state and US dominance clearly belied his pretensions of being a
“human rights” President.
His legacy of using “Human Rights” to project imperial military power
became standard operating procedure for Reagon, Clinton and both Bush
presidencies. Afghanistan:
Carter Finances the Invasion of Islamic Terrorists In
the late 1970’s Afghanistan was ruled by a nationalist secular regime allied
with the Soviet Union. The regime promoted gender equality, free universal
education for women and men, agrarian reform including the redistribution of
feudal estates to poor peasants, the separation of religion and the state and
adopted an independent foreign policy with a Soviet tilt.
Beginning at least as early as 1979, the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
orchestrated a massive international recruiting campaign of Islamic
fundamentalist to engage in a “Jihad” against the “atheistic communist
regime.” Tens
of thousands were recruited, armed by the US, financed by Saudis Arabia and
trained by the CIA and Pakistani Intelligence.
Pakistan opened its frontiers to the flood of armed invaders.
Internally the displaced Mullahs horrified by the equality and education
of women, not to speak of the expropriation of their huge land holdings, joined
en masse the Jihad. The
Carter Presidency (and not Reagan) was responsible for the organization,
financing, training of the Islamic uprising and the terror campaign which
followed. Zbig
Brzesinski later wrote of the US – Afghanistan campaign as one of the high
points in US Cold War diplomacy – it provoked Soviet intervention on behalf of
the secular Afghan ally.
Even when confronted with the consequences of the total devastation of
Afghanistan, the rise of the Taliban and Al Queda and 9/11, Carter’s former
National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzesinski replied that these were marginal
costs in comparison with a war which successfully hastened the fall of the
Soviet Union. President
Carter’s intervention in Afghanistan initiated the Second Cold War, which was
pursued with even greater intensity by Reagan.
Carter backed a series of surrogate wars in Angola, Mozambique, Central
American, the Caribbean and elsewhere.
Carter was clearly an advocate and practitioner of the worst kind of
imperial intervention and a master of public relations: he was an early
practitioner of “Humanitarian Imperialism” – humane in rhetoric and
brutally imperialist in practice. The
Carter Factor: Venezuela 2002-2004 Nowhere
and at no time does James Carter, the kindly-appearing human rights rhetorician,
pose a more dangerous threat to democratic freedoms and national independence
than he does today in Venezuela.
With the staunch backing of the violence-prone opposition, Carter has
frequently intervened in Venezuelan politics, presenting himself as a neutral
mediator. At
every step of the way Carter has moved to legitimate an opposition engaged in
coups, uprisings, paramilitary terrorists and bosses lockouts devastating the
economy. Carter
convinced President Chavez to “reconcile” with the elite leaders and
supporters of a violent coup which briefly overthrew his elected government.
He continually pressured the elected President to negotiate and “share
power” with an opposition even after he had won six national elections.
Carter refused to recognize Chavez’ electoral victories and
constitutional mandates – instead he supported the opposition’s demand for
new unscheduled elections and then promoted the “referendum”.
Carter endorsed the referendum results pronounced by the opposition –
even though there were gross electoral violations.
He then exercised pressure on the National Electoral Council to
accelerate its examination of votes – urging them to get on with the
referendum. Carter
never acknowledged hundreds of thousands of instances of voter fraud (as he
refused to do in the case of Juan Bosch’s stolen victory earlier) and
fraudulent identity cards.
Carter was acting in Venezuela as the “Quiet American” – one
espousing high ideals while engaged in dirty tricks.
The historical record is abundantly clear - Carter cannot be trusted to
act as a “neutral observer”.
He has been and is today a partisan of US imperial interests and is not
merely an “observer” but an active, insidious partner of US clients.
He continues to defend and promote any political opposition or regime,
any ruler or “coordinator” which will defeat popular movements and
progressive governments. Carter
is not a democrat! He is a lifelong partisan of the US Empire.
He is especially dangerous as the Venezuela referendum approaches.
The US is illegally providing millions of dollars to the anti-Chavez
opposition via the National Endowment for Democracy and other “foundations”.
And the Carter Institute will be there to legitimate fraud and deceit: to
question the questions for the referendum and the election if Chavez wins.
Carter is especially likely to take advantage of some opportunist
politicos who surround Chavez and are prone to make concessions to secure
“democratic legitimacy” from the presence of this envoy of Empire.
Carter fits into the larger strategy of US-backed coups and lockouts,
paramilitary violence and support of Colombia’s military threat. No
one in the Chavez regime intent on an honest referendum can permit this pious
hypocrite to play any role in Venezuela.
An
Afternote: Other Human Rights Mercenaries The US imperial state is mobilizing all of its organizational resources to defeat Chavez. In addition to Carter, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the National Endowment for Democracy and a small army of NGO’s (local and international), are active on behalf of the US-orchestrated anti-Chavez campaign. “Human Rights” Director Vivanco is among the most blatant early interveners: Shortly after President Chavez concurred with the National Electoral Council decision to convoke the referendum, Vivanco announced a “report” in which he declared that Venezuela “was suffering a constitutional crisis that could affect its already fragile institutions”. He accused the Chavez government of “purging and taking over the judiciary”. He called for the “intervention of the US-dominated Organization of American States”. To force the Chavez government to conform to his declaration, Vivanco demanded that the World Bank and IMF suspend aid directed at “modernizing” the judicial system. Over the past 3 years, HRW has followed the State Department’s lead in attacking Chavez democratic credentials – overlooking his participation (and victory) in six free electoral contests and his generous acceptance of the dubious signatures backing the referendum. HRW totally ignored the massive voter fraud by the opposition, echoing the line of the opposition. HRW leaders are rife with former US officials including its recent recruitment of Marc Garlasco, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official, as a senior military analyst. HRW played a major role in demonizing Yugoslavia’s President Milosovic, supported the US invasion of the Balkans and was silent over US war crimes, including the bombing of civilian targets, the KLA’s assassination of over 2,000 Serb civilians and the ethnic purge of 200,000 non-Albanians from Kosovo. During the peace negotiations between President Pastrana and the FARC, which the US opposed and was keen on disrupting, Mr. Vivanco and HRW issued a “report” claiming that the FARC was violating all the terms of the peace negotiations – something no other human rights group on the ground in Colombia claimed – in order to pressure Pastrana to break negotiations and resume the military campaign, which he subsequently did. HRW, like the Carter Center, has already intervened on the side of the authoritarian US-backed opposition. It has smeared the independence of the courts to pressure it to conform to the opposition, it has rejected the democratic deliberations of the Venezuelan Congress and its vote on judicial reform, it has openly declared the government as illegitimate and it has already called for a US-backed intervention via the OAS. Watch out for HRW and the Carter Center! Their presence is extremely dangerous for the integrity of the electorate and Venezuelan independence. Bulatlat.com July 2004 We want to know what you think of this article.
|