Behind the Coup Attempt in Venezuela

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/28691-behind-the-coup-attempt-in-venezuela

Some of the other striking similarities between these coup attempts include the role of media to discredit the Venezuelan government internationally, therefore justifying any action against it. We have seen a coordinated campaign in major U.S. and international media calling for and discussing the Maduro government’s downfall, distorting the reality in the country and portraying Venezuela as a failed state. This type of severe media campaign goes well beyond normal, and legitimate, criticism. Sources cited on Venezuela are always opposition voices, presented as neutral and credible, while reports omit important facts that present the government in a favorable light.

Business owners and private enterprise in Venezuela are also once again pushing for a coup, as they did in 2002, and using their power to restrict public access to consumer goods, forcing shortages and price hikes, and overall panic amongst the population. The government is taking direct measures to resolve these problems and work with business interests, but this is a very effective strategy that hits where it hurts the most, the stomach.

Finally, the other major factor in this current coup attempt has been the role of dissident military forces that have betrayed their oath to defend the nation and have subcombed to foreign interests. The case of Capitan Leasmy Salazar, a former Chavez presidential guard and confident who is now collaborating with U.S. intelligence agencies, is an example. In the recent coup attempt against President Maduro, at least 10 military officers from the Air Force were detained as they planned to execute their coup plot. Some evidence has surfaced indicating ties to U.S. officials and opposition figures.

<snip>

I don’t foresee the Maduro government taking any kind of repressive action against anti-government groups that is outside the law. Before Chavez was elected, Venezuela experienced a brutally repressive period for decades. Constitutional rights were continuously suspended, national curfews were imposed, young men faced a forced military draft, and authorities used lethal force to repress demonstrations. That all disappeared under Chavez, who refused to use repression, even during the coup in 2002 and subsequent attempts to overthrow his government. The Maduro government continues these same policies. The only recent change was a Defense Ministry decree allowing for military forces to use lethal force in the face of violent uprisings. But this decree is very clear that no lethal force or even weapons can be used during peaceful demonstrations.

[Judi Lynn]

1. Helpful, useful article. Really appreciated the last quoted paragraph:

The one area I believe the Venezuelan government has been too lenient is with respect to the foreign funding of anti-government activities. It’s illegal under the law in Venezuela, but rarely enforced. The state must take the necessary steps to end this type of harmful funding that is just feeding the conflict in Venezuela and keeping an otherwise defunct opposition alive. The funding also comes from U.S. taxpayer dollars, and it would be nice to keep that money in the U.S. and invest it in social programs, instead of trying to undermine legitimate democracies in oil-rich nations.

We have known about the fact the US most definitely prohibits foreign funding of anti-government activity here. It most definitely is a crime in our country. How this country's power structure feels it's just George to fund anti-government groups in other countries is fantastically hypocritical, cheap, and dishonest.

Thanks for the information.

[hack89]

2. The military is getting restless and Maduro is preparing a crackdown

he understands the real threat to his government.

The line about business owners is laughable. It is the government's own policies that is restricting public access to consumer goods.

[COLGATE4]

3. Maduro is rapidly approaching, if not actually past

the point where throwing around wild accusations of the calamitous situation of the Venezuelan economy being the fault of 'others' just doesn't work any more. The Army has a long tradition of overthrowing governments they believe are antithetical to the common good, and it's clear that they are not enamored of Maduro and his clique. Dim Successor will continue his ham-handed crackdown on political opposition instead of doing anything to resolve the mess he has brought about. Hopefully he's made plans to be received in Nicaragua.

[TooPragmatic]

4. You should read more about Venezuela

The only recent change was a Defense Ministry decree allowing for military forces to use lethal force in the face of violent uprisings. But this decree is very clear that no lethal force or even weapons can be used during peaceful demonstrations.

that's not what The Human Rights Watch state. Here's a link to an article that states the exact opposite what you claim. And there's also a link to a report that shows evidence testimony that the government used torture and killed unarmed and peacful protestors during last years demonstraitors. Or would you claim that HRW is publishing western propaganda?

I admit that I don't live in Venezuela and have never even been there so I have no first hand knowledge of what is happening there. But to trust the government, when there is so many independent news organizations and human rights organizations claiming the opposite, is either ignorant, delusional or dishonest.

://m.hrw.org/news/2015/02/12/venezuela-new-military-authority-curb-protests

[Judi Lynn]

5. Human Rights Watch Gets The Facts Wrong On Venezuela, Again

Human Rights Watch Gets The Facts Wrong On Venezuela, Again
By Mark Weisbrot, www.cepr.net
April 15th, 2014

Human Rights Watch Should Stick to the Facts on Venezuela

~ snip ~

The 2,800-word article – which provides few links or sources to back up dozens of allegations – contains a number of exaggerations and inaccuracies. For example, in describing the protests he writes that “Most of these have been peaceful, though in many places protesters have barricaded streets, and some have thrown rocks and Molotov cocktails.” This contradicts daily news reports in the major international media. Some of the large daytime marches have been peaceful, but every night for nearly two months there have been violent protests where the participants throw rocks and Molotov cocktails at security forces and sometimes neighbors who try to clear or pass through barricades. Not to mention the occasional shootings by protesters. He doesn’t mention it, but half of the 39 fatalities he refers to have apparently been caused by protesters.

Now, don’t get me wrong. It is the job of human rights groups to denounce and expose all human rights abuses committed by governments (and non-state actors too), and I would not criticize a human rights organization for being too harsh on any government. And if Wilkinson wants to ignore or pretend he can’t see that this is another attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government taking place, that’s his prerogative too. But why the gross exaggerations and false statements? Aren’t there enough things to complain about without making things up?

HRW can get away with outrageous double standards if they want. They barely lifted a finger when a U.S.-backed coup overthrew the democratically-elected government of Haiti in 2004. The perpetrators of the coup killed thousands of people, and officials of the constitutional government were put in jail. This did not raise a tiny fraction of the concern at HRW as compared to the “independence of the judiciary” in Venezuela, which of course was not more independent before their enemy Chávez was elected.

In 2008, more than 100 scholars and experts signed a letter documenting and “highlighting exaggerations and inaccuracies” in a “politically motivated” report by HRW on Venezuela. It is clear that HRW did not take any steps to correct their bias or carelessness with the facts. That is a shame. Of course, there is no political price to pay in the U.S. for exaggerating or making false statements about a government that Washington wants to destabilize. But it does not serve the cause of human rights; and it undermines the good work that HRW does in other countries when they are seen as a partisan ally of a U.S.-backed attempt at “regime change.”

https://www.popularresistance.org/human-rights-watch-gets-the-facts-wrong-on-venezuela-again/

[center]~ ~ ~[/center]
Debate: Is Human Rights Watch Too Close to US Government to Criticize Its Foreign Policy?
Thursday, 12 June 2014 11:02
By Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh, Democracy Now! | Video Report

Human Rights Watch, one of the world’s largest and most influential human rights organizations, is facing an unusual amount of public criticism. Two Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire, and a group of over 100 scholars have written an open letter criticizing what they describe as a revolving door with the U.S. government that impacts HRW’s work in certain countries, including Venezuela. The letter urges HRW to bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as staff, advisers or board members. Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth has defended his organization’s independence, responding: "We are careful to ensure that prior affiliations do not affect the impartiality of Human Rights Watch’s work. … We routinely expose, document and denounce human rights violations by the US government, including torture, indefinite detention, illegal renditions, unchecked mass surveillance, abusive use of drones, harsh sentencing and racial disparity in criminal justice, and an unfair and ineffective immigration system." We host a debate between HRW counsel Reed Brody and Keane Bhatt, a writer and activist who organized the open letter.

TRANSCRIPT:

NERMEEN SHAIKH: One of the world’s largest and most influential human rights organizations is facing an unusual amount of public criticism. Two Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire, and a group of over a hundred scholars have written an open letter to Human Rights Watch criticizing what they describe as the group’s close ties to the U.S. government.

The letter claims there is a revolving door between the U.S. government and Human Rights Watch and that it has impacted the organization’s work in certain countries, including Venezuela. It cites the example of Tom Malinowski. In the 1990s he served as a special assistant to President Bill Clinton and as a speechwriter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Then he became HRW’s Washington advocacy director. Then, last year, he left the organization after being nominated as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor under John Kerry. The letter also notes a former CIA analyst named Miguel Díaz who sat on a Human Right Watch advisory committee from 2003 to 2011. Díaz is now at the State Department. The letter urges Human Rights Watch to bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as staff, advisers or board members.

AMY GOODMAN: Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth has defended his organization’s independence. In a recent letter to the Nobel laureates, Roth wrote, quote, "We are careful to ensure that prior affiliations do not affect the impartiality of Human Rights Watch’s work."

More:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24315-debate-is-human-rights-watch-too-close-to-us-government-to-criticize-its-foreign-policy#

[Marksman_91]

6. What's your opinion on Juan Manuel Santos calling for the release of Leopoldo Lopez?

As far as I remember, wasn't he always a "friend" of the Chavista government?