Earlier this year, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro looked to be in a bad way. Falling oil price had crushed the nation’s economy, and he was facing soaring inflation and chronic shortages.
Earlier this week, President Obama tried to cut out what’s left of Venezuela’s support by declaring them a “threat to national security,” with an eye on imposing a new round of economic sanctions.
For Maduro, the timing couldn’t be better, as it has brought the attention off the economy, and turned it instead onto foreign relations. It has given Maduro a new lease on life, railing against American “imperialism.”
While that doesn’t fix the economy, the imposing of US sanctions will give the government a convenient excuse, and an external enemy to rally their own supporters against.
Although I continue to support this publication because of its unique source of antiwar news and opinion, I also continue to be extremely disappointed about your lousy coverage of Latin America in general and Venezuela in particular. By placing quotes around the word "imperialism" you apparently adopt my (US) Government's denial that there really is any such thing as US imperialism, when in fact any honest and informed observer of my Government's foreign policy over the past many decades (I happen to be 84 and a Korean War veteran) cannot escape the conclusion that my Government continues to assert itself as the ruler of the entire planet. And that behavior has been especially egregious with respect to essentially all Western Hemisphere nations south of our borders, with Venezuela being only the latest and currently primary target. President Obama's recent declaration that Venezuela is an "extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States" is patently absurd, given that Venezuela has never attacked, threatened to attack or even possesses the means to attack the US. You ignore this latest ridiculous lie by President Obama, and you apparently have swallowed the false propaganda by the State Department and essentially all mainstream media that the Venezuelan government is an unpopular dictatorship which oppresses free speech and human rights. As one who has been daily reading the online Venezuelan press (almost all privately owned by opposition political leaders and their supporters), free speech is alive and well in Venezuela and the democratically elected government deals with opposition street demonstrations (which in the past two years have been extremely violent) with far more restraint than my US Government (or state or local governments) would deal with the same kind of criminal activities — erecting burning barricades across major streets and highways, then attacking police or civilians who seek to remove the illegal and dangerous obstacles from the streets and highways. This can be easily proved by simply reading the opposition on-line newspapers (El Nacional.com, eluniversal.com, Ultimas Noticias.com) and looking at those publications' videos and still photos of masked "demonstrators" throwing Molotov cocktails at police, burning public buses and subway entrances, etc.. My Government obviously has the same ability that I have to read those newspapers, look at their videos and photographs, and learn the truth about the so-called "peaceful demonstrations" which the Venezuelan government has been "suppressing." And you have the same ability. I can't understand how an "antiwar" publication such as yours can be so ignorant of facts which you can learn through a few minutes of reading online Venezuelan newspapers. The truth is that my Government has been engaged for the past 15 years in attempting to destabilize and overthrow the democratically elected government of Venezuela, primarily for the reason that the Venezuelan government has refused to follow orders from my Government. And my Government is also hostile to other Latin American governments which refuse to allow my Government to dictate what they shall and shall not do. Get a clue about US "imperialism" — it is all too real.
Well said, Mr. Young!
Unfortunately there's a big willful blind spot with libertarians when it comes to the truth of obvious, textbook economic-based oppression, which plays out most cartoonishly in Latin American, likely because it simply verifies any number of things actual leftists (perish the thought Marxists even) have to say.
And for some reason we 'can't have that,' even at the expense of undercutting their own arguments against taxation for empire.
One sees this play out at ZeroHedge on a daily basis as well, sharp as a tack on domestic financial crimes & war in the Middle East & Ukraine… but then suddenly might as well be Fox News on Venezuela.
Maddening. I exhort our libertarian friends to put on the same goggles they view ISIS and Ukraine with when looking to our south.
Good lord, what bizarre and pathetic defense of Maduros' shitty government…in this case I mean literally shitty, seeing as how the government's brilliant economic schemes have made the country run out of toilet paper. And your defense of the government's murder of protestors (like a beauty queen and a 15 year old boy) are something to behold. Do you really think it's not possible for US Imperialism AND oppressive governments to exist independent of that Imperialism?
Oh yea running out of toilet paper. Let's call in the marines.
Yes, the US would never do anything to Latin America
(Noam Chomsky – History of US Rule in Latin America
or Venezuela
(Venezuela coup linked to Bush team http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa….
(Obama Declares Venezuela a ‘National Security Threat,’ Orders Sanctions http://news.antiwar.com/2015/03/09/obama-declares…
or anyone else, for that matter
(5 Million Iraqis Killed, Maimed, Tortured, Displaced; The immensity of Iraqi civilian suffering is incomprehensible http://www.alternet.org/story/147281/5_million_ir…
When did the author ever say the US has never done anything bad to other countries? Your argument is a classic fallacy.
The poor majority will save Venezuela not U.S imperial meddling.
The Reuters article you site in this article totally supports the imperialist line of U. S. foreign policy towards Venezuela.
So Venezuela doesn't have a shortage of toilet paper because of their brilliant socialist economic plan? I'm sure you think Cuba is a workers' paradise, as well?
What does a toilet paper shortage have to do with running a government that puts justice and equality above the needs of a tiny rich claque.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears to me you support the capitalist line with respect to Venezuela even as you oppose U.S. policy.
The problem with antiwar.com is that while it's a much needed fresh breath of air online, its reporting is often unable to escape the big money media's basic narratives of some conflict that justify western intervention. This is one of those cases.
This is a terrible article that does nothing to explain the embargo.
The "threat" language was included to satisfy the requirements of the IEEPA to allow President Obama the power to impose sanctions. Furthermore, the sanctions only target 60 or so elite members of the Venezuelan government. Frankly, this exposes those Chauvistas who maintain goods, property, assets and business interests in the "Evil Empire" in total hypocrisy to their ideology,
The real tragedy is the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans waiting for hours in queue to buy a bar of soap and some food to feed their family.
Neither you nor the White House do anything to explain what the 'threat' is. The requirements are only 'satisfied' if we buy lies wholesale.
As far as the croc tears for Venezuelans – no one cared about the hungry & homeless, education-less Venezuelans when the oil wealth was kept out of their hands via malign neglect poverty. Now our Saudi buddies & DC's dirty tricks tank the economy of the country & we get all weepy. By ANY independent measure most Venezuelans are far better off now than pre-Chavez, including being able to read, as those evil monsters in Caracas actually took some oil funds & put roofs over people's heads & educated them.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-07…
We might add that it's crony capitalist USA where the poor get cold & the evil Chavez does what exactly…
http://mic.com/articles/3357/hugo-chavez-gives-he…
You are one delusional human being. And no, they're not better off. Venezuela today is an economic basket case and EVERYONE is suffering (except the regime you worship, that is) thanks in no small part to morons like you, who think that socialism can ever work in any way, shape or form.
President Maduro — Doing a great job to kill socialism
For outside of improving poverty, medicine and education, both President Chavez and President Maduro have done nothing that harms in the slightest this Western corruption called capitalism. For by capitalism and the wars of plunder it creates, has the West been able destroy the economies of developing nations.
For Venezuela has always been a rich man’s paradise, as they own three-fourths of the wealth, 90% of all media and supply most all of the political donations turning politics into a sideshow of trickery and subterfuge. For the upper half of society hoards all the wealth turning the laboring-class lower half into a most violent police state environment.
And if you ask me, the new sanctions were designed to keep Maduro in office, for he is about the best pro-USA President money can buy.
The U.S. is obviously attempting another violent coup in Venezuela. The notion that Maduro is kept in office by the U.S. goes against all available recent evidence to the contrary. Further, your endorsement of the imperial line against Venezuelan government in the face of plunging oil prices reveals your own erroneous imperial views..
President Maduro — Doing a great job to kill socialism
For outside of improving poverty, medicine and education, both President Chavez and President Maduro have done nothing that harms in the slightest this Western corruption called capitalism. For by capitalism and the wars of plunder it creates, has the West been able destroy the economies of developing nations.
For Venezuela has always been a rich man’s paradise, as they own three-fourths of the wealth, 90% of all media and supply most all of the political donations turning politics into a sideshow of trickery and subterfuge. For the upper half of society hoards all the wealth turning the laboring-class lower half into a most violent police state environment.
And if you ask me, the new sanctions were designed to keep Maduro in office, for he is about the best pro-USA President money can buy.
What is your motivation for promoting this absurd thesis that the U.S. is supporting Maduro? What shred of evidence can you offer to give even the tiniest credence to your unfounded theory?
You might want to read the article again, this time for meaning.
The US did not "support" Castro, but the US embargo on Cuba strengthened, rather than weakened, his political control over it. Just as most of the US population "rallies around" its government when it credibly claims that "the nation is under attack," be it militarily, politically or economically.
Ditto the mullahs in Iran. That regime wouldn't last six months if the US lifted sanctions, declared free trade and let THEM take the blame for keeping their population from getting iPads and Coca-Cola.
"t. mauel" is a communist dupe, so I wouldn't expect much by the way of common sense from him.
Red baiting because the facts are stacked against your right wing fantasy.
You are right. When an outside aggressor threatens people of another nation history has shown us many times the people rally around in solidarity to fight as one against the aggressor. However your assertion that the socialist revolution in Venezuela would fall without U.S. pressure can only be guessed at. The same is true for Cuba. There is no way to tell until it happens. And I think the majority of urban poor could care less about iPads and cola. Those are the toys of the uber rich minority you appear so anxious to support.
"The regime," as you so objectively term it, has been around since 1979, long before sanctions were put into place. exactly why didn't it fall back then, if, according to you, sanctions are all that are propping them up?
AG,
Yes, I objectively term regimes "regimes." All of them. The Bush regime. The Obama regime. The Hollande regime. Etc.
The US sanctions regime (there's that word again) versus Iran dates back to the very year you mention — 1979. The Carter regime froze $12 billion in Iranian assets in November of that year. The Reagan regime expanded sanctions to cover arms sales in 1984 and to completely ban import/export with Iran in 1987. The current sanctions regime is based on the Clinton regime's Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996.
"The regime" in Iran, as you so objectively term it, has been around since 1979, long before any sanctions were applied to it. How could that be, if only sanctions are propping it up?
This previous comment was directed at Strider, in case it doesn't get posted under his comment.
To — Richard young
Yes, but if your going to get into such a conspiracy theory, we could say that this place is actually a pro-war site funded by the rich, that your comment and this article were authored by the same paid actor and its all to discourage the readers from getting involved in the anti-war movement.
You are the one with the pro imperialist, pro war attitude.
"imperialism"?? You mean like Chavez supporting the Communist-imperialism-Maoist FARC rebels? Stop defending a lousy government.
Stop supporting the tiny rich minority of Venezuela.
Obola is the consummate Machiavellian. By issuing this empty (and ludicrous) proclamation, he has tossed his fellow Marxist a political lifeline. Now Maduro can blame the evil Yanquis for the empty shelves, long lines, increasingly worthless currency, and every other bad thing that has already happened or will happen in the future. His increasingly strident rantings will, in turn, ratchet up the hysteria and jingoism among the American sheeple, who will demand even stronger sanctions. Obola will happily oblige while he and his henchmen privately laugh their heads off.
Maduro has another reason to be secretly pleased. Ultimately his only other option to stay in power was to find an actual external enemy — IOW, start a war. (He was already saying nasty things about Colombia.) In 1982 Argentina's collapsing military junta used that ploy when it invaded the Falklands. Instantly the same Argies who had been in open revolt were waving flags and shouting "AR-GEN-TINA! AR-GEN-TINA!" The generals gambled that Thatcher would do nothing. They lost that gamble, lost the Falklands, and were soon overthrown.
There is no evidence to support your theory. The U.S. is once again covertly attempting to overthrow the popular socialist government of Venezuela. Just as it was caught engineering a violent coup in Venezuela a little more than a decade ago. These pointless conspiracy theories only serve to draw attention away from what the CIA and the national security state is doing right now to undermine and overthrow another democratically elected government. Just as the U.S. has done countless times in recent history.
Ooooohhh!!! It's a CONSPIRACY!! Obama (who you charmingly call "Obola") and Maduro are secretly having phone talks, where they rub their hands together and go "Hehee, hee, hee! We're really fooling them! This is good for both of us! Hehee, hee, hee! If only we could eliminate "Strider," who is onto us! Hehee, hee, hee!" Is Bill Ayers also in on the conversation? How about that pastor?
You conspirinoids make me laugh. First off, calling Obama a "Marxist" is even more childish than calling him "Obola," and equally as childish as calling him a "Muslim," although the latter actually has slightly more justification than the former. Secondly, just because actions like this often backfire doesn't mean that they are deliberately intended to: it's simply a testimony to the idiocy of policymakers and the perversity of human beings. Only an idiot would use sanctions as a deliberate means of bolstering a troubled regime. Can the targeted regime turn this to it's advantage? Sure, but it's a delicate balancing act, and requires more and more effort to do so. If there is a strong, well financed internal opposition, they can use it as well.
As to Obama's motivations for this out-of-left-field maneuver, I think it's exactly that — a maneuver. He's throwing "red meat" to the Congressional hawks, hoping he'll never have to back it up. This is typical of Obama, who almost talked himself into a war against Syria on the pretext of chemical arms. His attempts at temporizing almost always force him into a more and more untenable position. He's like an incompetent union negotiator — if the boss demands a big pay cut, he pounds the table and demands a small one. It's who he is.