US officials seem to be pretty much unanimous on the need to meddle in Venezuela’s seemingly endless government crises. Yet a very core difference in how to approach this is leading to considerable dispute over the State Department’s latest program.
State is paying some $900,000 to the Atlantic Council to “promote non-violent conflict resolution” in Venezuela, which is their subtle way of saying they’re trying to buy a regime change and the installation of a “democratically-run government,” obviously run by someone the US likes.
What this boils down to is indirect funding for the Venezuelan opposition, one of many times when the State Department has put money into the hands of a think-tank to get them to try to coach a US-friendly opposition movement into being both more successful politically and more beholden to US interests.
Those for whom US-imposed regime change usually means coup or war, particularly Congressional hawks, are expressing major opposition to the State Department plan, saying it is a waste of money and “buys Maduro time,” in as much as so long as the State Department is trying something short of an invasion, they’re not invading.
Absent from the debate on Venezuela is the option of staying out of the matter entirely. That’s something Venezuelan opposition figures have long urged of the US, noting that any whiff of US meddling gives the government an excuse to paint the whole opposition as American puppets, and justify another crackdown.
Indeed, the simple fact that the State Department effort is public knowledge probably more than negates any impact at might have, as the damage done to opposition groups for taking this money will likely outstrip the $900,000 in aid they got.
Will there every come a time when America will stop interfering in other countries? Hope springs eternal.
Which naturally raises the question, how much of Venezuela’s problems are due to the Maduro government’s mismanagement, and how much is due to American regime change interference? How is it possible that a country awash in oil can be so economically dysfunctional?
The CIA/State Dept/DoD are serial death merchants. They despise democracy except for the phony one-dollar-one-vote sort that serves as cover for their predation. The coup in Chile in 1973 was initiated by the Kissinger-directed assassination of General Rene Schneider, a staunch defender of Chilean democracy, then the coup itself and the murder of duly elected president Allende, then 25 years of the Chilean dictatorship under Pinochet.
“How is it possible that a country awash in oil can be so economically dysfunctional?”
The answer is price controls and currency controls. The US had a taste of this when it imposed price controls on gasoline.
“how much of Venezuela’s problems are due to the Maduro government’s mismanagement, and how much is due to American regime change interference? ”
That is indeed always the big question, not just for Venezuela but for most of Latin America at any given change point. It’s not just hard to find answers, it’s hard to find trustworthy answers.
“That’s something Venezuelan opposition figures have long urged of the US, noting that any whiff of US meddling gives the government an excuse to paint the whole opposition as American puppets”
They have to make those noises in order to save face but they never turn back the checks, do they? The stone cold reality is that the lion share of the opposition are proven American puppets and always have been.