dana west
Registered on
Sep-16-2002
More User Info
|
Message #113545 posted by dana west (Info) March 27, 2008 05:25:54 ET
Bush Vs Chavez - An Update
By Stephen Lendman
3-17-2008
Imagine the following - the nation Martin Luther King called "The
Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the Wo rld Today" may brand
democratic Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism if extremist
lawmakers on the Hill get their way.
On March 12, George Bush accused Hugo Chavez of backing
Colombian-based "terrorists" and using Venezuela's oil wealth for an
anti-American campaign. He further claimed Chavez has a "thirst for
power....of squander(ing his country's) oil wealth....of prais(ing a)
terrorist leader as a good revolutionary and order(ing) his troops to
the Colombian border. This is the latest step in a disturbing pattern
of provocative behavior by the regime in Caracas. He has also called
for FARC terrorists to be recognized as a legitimate army (and his)
senior regime officials have met with FARC leaders in Venezuela."
At the same time, 21 extremist lawmakers want Venezuela named a state
sponsor of terrorism and added to the State Department's list of five
others for "repeatedly provid(ing) support for acts of international
terrorism" under three US laws:
-- the Export Administration Act, section 6 (j); -- the Arms Export
Control Act, section 40; and
-- the Foreign Assistance Act, section 620A.
Countries now listed include - Syria (1979), Cuba (1982), Iran
(1984), North Korea (1988), and Sudan (1993). Designation triggers
sanctions that "penalize persons and countries engaging in certain
trade with state sponsors."
The US Code Definition of Terrorism
The US Code defines "international terrorism" as follows:
(A) "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a
violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State,
or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States...."
The US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism (TRADOC Pamphlet No.
525-37, 1984) shortens the definition to be "the calculated use of
violence or threat o f violence to attain goals that are political,
religious, or ideological in nature....through intimidation,
coercion, or instilling fear."
The US Definition of War Crimes - Part I, Chapter 118, Number 2441 of
the US Code
(a) "Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States,
commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in
subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for
life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the
victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances. - The circumstances referred to in subsection (a)
are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such
war crime is a member of the Armed Forces or a nati onal of the United
States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act).
(c) Definition. - As used in this section the term "war crime" means
any conduct -
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international con ventions
signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention
to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague
Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed
18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the
international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any
Protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and
which deal s with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to
the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the
Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Gen eva on 3
May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United
States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious
injury to civilians."
Two Hemispheric Neighbors Worlds Apart
Under US terrorism and war crimes statutes as well as by any
international standard, the US is a flagrant and serial abuser. The
record is hardly disputable in spite of efforts made to sanitize it.
In contrast, Hugo Chavez seeks unity; wants stability; embraces his
neighbors; and promotes global solidarity, equality and political,
economic and social justice quite mirror opposite to Washington's
conquest and imperial agenda. Unlike America, Venezuela doesn't
attack or threaten other nations. It offers no-strings aid (including
low-priced oil to US cities) and mutually beneficial trade and other
alliances.
Chavez champions human rights, has no secret prisons, doesn't
practice torture or state-sponsored killings, respects the law and
everyone's rights under it. He's a true social democrat in a
participatory democracy, and has been elected and reelected
overwhelmingly under procedures independently judged open, free and
fair. That's what Bolivarianism is about, but try hearing that from
Wash ington or the dominant media using any pretext to vilify it and
the man who leads it.
Chavez is a hero in the region and around the world, and that makes
him Washington's target. Imagine the Bush administration matching his
December 31 gestur e or the media reporting it fairly. He granted
amnesty to imprisoned 2002 coup plotters, except for those who fled
the country. The decree pardoned figures accused in the scheme, who
took over state television at the time, who tried to murder him in
recent years, and who later sabotaged state oil company PDVSA during
the 2002 - 2003 management lockout. He also pardoned 36 other
prisoners in a conciliatory measure to turn "the page (and direct
the) country....toward peace."
In a po st-9/11 environment, here's how Washington rewards him:
-- he's relentlessly targeted by measures that so far stop short of
disrupting business;
-- on December 11, three Venezuelans and one Uruguayan were arrested
and charged in US federal court with acting and conspiring as agents
of the Venezuelan government without having notified the US Attorney
General; they were accused of conspiring to conceal the source,
destination and role of the Venezuelan government to deliver $800,000
to Argentina with a US businessman as conduit;
-- on November, 2007, by conspiring with Colombia to halt mediation
efforts with the FARC-EP for the release of 45 hostages at the time,
including three US contractors;
-- for repeatedly denyi ng Venezuela's extradition request for Luis
Posada Carriles who's wanted for outstanding crimes and in spite of a
legally-binding extradition treaty between the countries dating since
1923;
-- on November 5, for approving H. Res. 435 EH (by v oice vote)
condemning Iran as the "most active state sponsor of terrorism;" it
also targeted Venezuela with examples of relations between the two
countries that are hostile to Washington;
-- on September 14, 2007, citing Venezuela for the third consecutive
year for failing to observe international counternarcotics
agreements;
-- on June 21, for approving representative Connie Mack's H. Amdt. to
H.R. 2764 to direct $10 million for propaganda broadcasting into
Venezuela;
-- on June 12, the State Department targeted Venezuela in its annual
Trafficking in Persons Report that placed the country in Tier 3
status for not making adequate efforts to combat trafficking in
persons;
-- on May 24, for unanimously approving S. Res. 211 condemning
Venezuela's disregard for free expression for not renewing (one of)
RCTV's operating licenses;
-- on May 14, for the second consecutive year, condemning Venezuela
for not fully cooperating in antiterrorism efforts; other nations
listed were Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria;
-- on April 30, the State Department condemned Venezuela for being
unwilling to prevent the country's territory from being used as a
safe haven by Colombian "terrorist groups;"
-- on March 6, the State Department cited Venezuela's human rights
situation showed "politicization of the judiciary, harassment of the
media, and harassment of the political opposition;"
-- on March 1, the State Department condemned Venezuela for being one
of the principal hemispheric drug transit countries because of its
location, rampant high-level corruption, weak judicial system, and
lack of international counternarcotics cooperation;
-- on February 7, Secretary Rice accused Chave z of "assault(ing)
democracy in Venezuela (and) destroying his own country economically
(and) politically;" and
-- on January 11, National Intelligence Director (and serial killer)
John Negroponte accused Chavez of being "among the most strid ently
anti-American leaders anywhere in the world (whose) try(ing) to
undercut US influence in Venezuela, in the rest of Latin America, and
elsewhere internationally;" he also said his military purchases were
threatening his neighbors and coul d fuel a regional arms race.
The above examples only covered 2007 with many comparable and more
extreme ones in earlier years. Excluded as well are continuing covert
actions with open-checkbook funding to destabilize and topple the
Chavez gov ernment. One of them is what Latin American expert James
Petras mentions in his March 12 article on the FARC-EP and "The Cost
of Unilateral Humanitarian Initiatives." He explains that Chavez's
diplomatic rapprochement with Uribe won't halt "large-scale
(Columbian) paramilitary (infiltration into) Venezuela (that)
destabiliz(e) the country" because Washington wants it continued.
So far, actions have stopped short of disrupting business, but
anything is possible before January 2009 or thereafter. Washington
fears Chavismo's good example. It's strengthening, spreading and
creating angst in American hard right circles and for Democrats as
well.
Charges and Countercharges
The March 13 Wall Street Journal reported that US intelligence
officials have been examining "computer files (claimed to have been)
seized from (FARC-EP) guerrillas earlier this month by Colombian
commandos." The Uribe government (with no supportive evidence) says
they show Chavez "was in con tact with the rebels and plann(ed) to
give them $300 million. If true, that could open Venezuela to US
sanctions," but Washington will likely use lesser measures instead.
White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe gave
no indication either way in stating: "Our intelligence agencies are
looking at the material acquired....and we will see where that
lands." Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
Thomas Shannon said: "Declaring somebody a state sponsor of terrorism
is a big step, a serious step. It's one that we will only take after
very careful consideration of all the evidence." For her part,
Secretary Rice was true to form adding: "it is an obligation of every
member of the United Nations...not to support terrorists."
There was more as well from an unidentified senior US official who
said government lawyers were asked to clarify "what goes into effect
in terms of prohibitions or prohibited activities" when a "state
sponsor" designation is made. He added that if Washington accepts the
computer documents as valid, then "I think it will beg the question
of whether or not Venezuela, given Chavez's interactions with the
FARC, has....crossed the threshold of state sponsor of terror."
Former State Department arms trafficking expert, James Lewis,
explained further. He said "state sponsor" (designation) immediately
imposes (restrictions) on the abilities of US companies to work in"
the country. They'll be "forbidden from operating there, forbidden
from receiving any money from Venezuela. It would make it very hard
for Venezuela to sell oil to the US. All the arrangements we have now
where Venezuelan oil is routinely sent to the United States woul d
have to stop." Lewis stopped short of speculating this will happen,
but his tone suggests it's unlikely. Corporate interests would also
balk because business in Venezuela is booming, so are profits, and at
a time companies are struggling for every source they can get.
That wasn't on Mary Anastasia O'Grady's mind in her March 10 Wall
Street Journal column. She was all venom and agitprop in her
commentary on "The FARC Files - Four presidents (Chavez, Correa,
Morales and Ortega), four best friends of terrorists." She claimed
laptop documents "show that Mr. Chavez and (FARC-EP leader) Reyes
were not only ideological comrades, but also business partners and
political allies in the effort to wrest power from Mr. Uribe." She
also attacked the FARC-EP with a menu of charges, including efforts
to buy 50 kilos of uranium for a possible dirty bomb and a
(mysterious) letter explaining "terrorist efforts to acquire missiles
from Lebanon." And she jumped on four regional leaders for
"support(ing) FARC violence and treachery against Mr. Uribe."
On the same page, a Journal editorial referred to the "Venezuelan
strongman" and "Chavez Democrats" who help "our enemy by spurning our
best Latin ally," and it "isn't the first time Democrats have (done
it), but it would be the most destructive." The reference is to the
Colombia (US) Free Trade Agreement. It's stalled in Congress and
likely dead this session with Democrats not wanting to touch it in an
elec tion year - unless they can cut a deal with the administration
for something they want.
The Journal blasts them and Jimmy Carter, too, for blessing Chavez's
2004 electoral victory. It then claimed Democrats "oppose the deal on
grounds that Mr. Uribe has not done more to protect 'trade
unionists.' In fact, Mr. Uribe has done more to reduce violence in
Colombia than any modern leader in Bogota. The real question for
Democrats is whether they're going to choose Colombia - or Hugo
Cha vez." And the beat goes on with 10 more months under George Bush
for it to boil over and plenty of media support heating things up.
In the face of criticism, Caracas wasn't quiet. Reaction was swift
with Venezuela's OAS representative, Jorge Valero, calling the
administration "the terrorist government par excellence....an
aberration, an absolutely stupid thing to say (by a government in
Washington) that practices state terrorism, that has invaded Iraq and
Afghanistan without respect for international law, that commits
genocidal practices (around) the world, that has invaded Latin
American and Caribbean countries, that aims to present itself as the
moral conscience of the world."
Venezuela's Information Minister, Andres I zarra, added that US
officials are considering measures against Venezuela because "they
are searching for new ways to attack....and move forward with their
plan to finish with the Bolivarian Revolution."
In a March 14 televised speech, Hugo C havez dared the Bush
administration to designate Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism.
He said doing it is Washington's response to the country's success
and added: "We shouldn't forget for an instant that we're in a battle
against North American imperialism and that they have classified us
as enemies - at least in this continent they have us as enemy No. 1."
Their "imperial plan is to overthrow this government and knock down
the Bolivarian Revolution. They're afraid of (its impact in) Latin
America" (and, indeed, he's right).
As for allegedly paying $300 million to the FARC-EP, the Venezuelan
government denounced the claim as an "exercise in falsification (and
added) that the only foreign government that finances the conflict in
Colombia is the United States." Caracas also affirms that its only
guerrilla contacts were for hostage releases with key peace
interlocutor Reyes now dead because of Colombia's (made in USA)
incursion.
Other countries have also negotiated, including France, Ecuador and
the US as recently declassified documents show. In 1998, Philip
Chicola, State Department Office of Andean Affairs director, met
secretly in Costa Rica with FARC-EP leaders Reyes and Olga Marin
after S ecretary of State Albright designated the group a Foreign
Terrorist Organization (FTO) in 1997.
In the end, where will this lead with views on that score mixed.
Venezuela is America's third or fourth largest oil supplier, the
price of crude n ow tops $100 a barrel, and the Wall Street Journal
suggests measures far short of cutting off a vital supply source are
likely. Other analysts agree because ending trade would harm both
countries at a time world markets are roiled and the US econ omy is
shaky.
Nonetheless, Republican congressman Connie Mack says Chavez "is using
his vast oil wealth to fund terrorism in his own backyard (and it's)
critical that the administration now act swiftly and decisively"
against him. On March 13, he and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen introduced H.
Res.10-49 (with eight co-sponsors) "calling for the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela to be designated a state sponsor of terrorism"
and "condemn(ing) the Venezuelan government for its support of
te rrorist organizations" with direct reference to the FARC-EP.
Even with support in Congress, this effort won't likely get far
according to Venezuelan expert Dan Hellinger. He notes how
anti-Chavez forces are capitalizing on events but says "the o dds are
against them precisely because I think there's probably not much
interest in the Congress (overall) in terms of making things worse
with Venezuela at the moment." Key State Department diplomats aren't
"likely....to want to pour gasolin e on the fire" or take any action
that may harm the economy in an election year and on an issue that's
mainly an administration one - and a lame duck one on the way out.
Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue went further in
suggestin g Latin American leaders won't tolerate designating
Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism and "would react very
strongly, because of all the political, security, and economic
implications."
It remains to be seen what's next, but Chavez knows what he's up
against from a rogue administration in Washington with lots of time
left to destroy Bolivarianism, oust its main proponent, vaporize
Venezuela, and end the republic if that's what it has in mind. Stay
tuned for further updates on Bush v. Chavez.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago
|
