The New York Times had a news article about Venezuela in Thursday’s edition, but it was about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez saying he would cut diplomatic ties with neighboring Colombia. There wasn’t a word about a memo from a CIA operative in Caracas to CIA Director General Michael Hayden, uncovered yesterday, outlining a plan for interfering with a Venezuelan referendum set for Dec. 2, and laying out the steps for instigating and backing a coup.
The plot, called “Operation Pliers,” and laid out in the letter to Hayden by an undercover operative named Michael Steele, who reportedly works in the US Embassy as a “regional affairs officer,” was intercepted by Venezuelan intelligence and released publicly on state TV yesterday.
In the Nov. 20-dated letter, Steele refers to an $8 million US-funded in-country propaganda campaign against Chavez and the referendum, already being implemented, which is designed to institutionalize many of Chavez’s socialist reforms and to permit him to continue to run for president beyond his current two-term limit. He proposes trying to stall the referendum, which pro-Chavez forces are expected to win handily, and failing that, to then promote a campaign to refuse to accept the results. Steele further confirms that the agency is working with international news agencies in an effort to distort reports about the referendum and the reforms. (CNN had to apologize for a “mistake” which led to the words “Who killed him?” superimposed over a photo of Chavez broadcast on CNN’s Spanish-language international broadcast in Venezuela. Was this a deliberate CIA-inspired black-op?)
Among the tactics Steele recommends in his letter are:
* Promoting street demonstrations and violent protests * Creating a climate of ungovernability * Provoking a general uprising * Working through the US military attaché at the embassy to coordinate with ex-military officers and former coup plotters against Chavez.
Even more darkly, the letter calls for initiating “military actions” to support opposition mobilizations and strategic building occupations, involving US military bases in neighboring Curacao and Colombia to provide support, and even taking control of parts of Venezuela in the days after the referendum, while encouraging a “military rebellion” inside the Venezuelan National Guard.
The CIA communication has been reported in articles filed by the Associated Press, but the Times and other major US news organizations have not mentioned it . Instead, the Times today ran a column by Roger Cohen, which compares Chavez to the fascists of 1930s Europe, and which calls for defeat of the referendum. (Are Cohen and the Times part of the CIA's propaganda campaign?)
The Cohen column is so rabid that it would be almost comical, were it not for the fact that there is a real threat of a bloody CIA-inspired coup in the democratic nation of Venezuela.
In fact, I thought it would be fun and instructive to alter Cohen’s hit piece a bit, substituting the US for Venezuela, and Bush and Cheney for Chavez, to show its hypocrisy. Here then, a sample of the only lightly tweaked column:
________________
Shutting Up America’s Bush and Cheney
By Richard Cohen (courtesy of editing by Dave Lindorff)
It was a fascist general in 1930s Spain who coined the phrase “Viva la muerte!” or “Long live death!” Essentially meaningless, the words captured the cult of soil, blood and savagery that coursed through European Fascism, in its Francoist and other forms. President Bush and Vice President Cheney hate Islamo-fascists; they are central to their repertoire of insults. But they have not hesitated to deploy the imagery of death to bolster their rightist brand of petro-authoritarianism, now operating under the ludicrous banner of “Homeland, Free Markets and Democracy!”
The slogan looks almost quaint in its anachronism. Bush and Cheney would no doubt claim American Revolutionary, rather than Spanish fascist, roots for it (Patrick Henry also invoked liberty and finality). The bottom line is this. America’s oil-gilded caudillos are getting serious about instituting executive rule, much like Franco and Mussolini.
I might add Vladimir Putin to that list. Like the Russian leader, Bush and Cheney have already used fears of terrorism, a pliant judiciary, subservient institutions like the Congress, and the galvanizing appeal of vitriolic anti-Arabism to concoct a 21st-century authoritarianism, complete with gulags and arrest and indefinite detention without charge. But even Putin has not contemplated going as far as Bush and Cheney with their doctrine of pre-emptive war and “regime change” abroad.
Americans will vote next November most likely between two candidates for president who endorse many of the new powers already claimed by Bush and Cheney, and the Congress, even under Democratic control, continues to grant them additional powers, including the power to conduct sweeping spying on electronic communications without any court order or demonstration of probable cause, the power to declare martial law anywhere in the country on the slightest of pretexts, and the power to expropriate private property of those deemed to be “threatening” the American occupation in Iraq.
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
And the disclosed "memo" by the valiant (yet nameless) Venezuelan intelligence for El Presidente Magnífico Hugo Chavez couldn't possibly be a fake, right? The media agencies must know that this is newsworthy and are actively suppressing the plot, right? The absence of it across the front pages of America couldn't possibly be because of an inability to establish its authenticity, right?
I'm sure that the honorable and benevolent Chavez has only his country's best interests and not his own at heart as he tears Venezuela's constitution apart by altering it to permit his continued re-elections. I'm also sure that he would never do anything like misleading his country by refcousing the election attention from his self-aggrandizing maneuvers to that of the Great Satan - El E.E.U.U.
In fact, Chavez is a swell guy - one that you'd want living next to you and participating as a member on your school board because he cares, he really cares.
Well, this looks as legitimate as the real deal to me - http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/n105390.html .
Um, could I see the original, you know, just to establish the memo's authenticity?
And hey, wait! Why is Dave complicit in continuing to "out" an undercover CIA agent, very much in line with the abused Valerie Plame? This is serious stuff that needs to be addressed!
Yeah... right
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1541 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 10:38:45 AM
Not at all like Pakistan, or even having a Supreme Court stop the vote counting so you can win an election.
The New York Times doesn't give a damn about confirmation. They didn't have any trouble printing Judith Miller's pillow talk with Chalabi without any independent confirmation (and, BTW, it all turned out to be 100% lies).
They didn't have any trouble printing the "British Intelligence" about the Niger memo that turned out to have been stove-piped right out of the East Wing so that Cheney could use it on TV to "prove" that his claims were true.
The NYT and WaPO used to have "brands" as real bastions of journalism, but they are now nothing more than water carriers for the neo-cons and Rethuglicans, barely a step above Faux News. The EDITORIAL page of the NYT likes to come out liberal from time to time, but the news page choices and slants and what gets spiked to help the Administration -- nothing but pro-corporate, pro-neocon, pro-REthuglican all the way to the bank.
It's not about JOURNALISM, it's about MONEY and POWER.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 638 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 12:07:09 PM
1. The agent was outed by his own letter, which was made public on Venezuelan state TV. Is the writer saying that I or any journalist should self censor that news (as the NY Times is doing)? Sorry. That ain't the journalism I was brought up to do.
2. Second, Chavez is only "shredding" the Venezuelan constitution if you can say having a national referendum to change the constitution is shredding it. Sort of like saying that passing an amendment to outlaw slavery or give women the vote is shredding our Constitution. what he is doing is submitting a referendum to change the constitution to permit him to serve more than one term. Back in the 1940s, we had a president--FDR--who served four terms, or at least died in his fourth. Did that make him a dictator? It just happens that here in this country, we added an amendment, or rather "shredded" our Constitution, and changed it so a president can only serve two terms.
3. Gallup recently did a survey of national happiness. They found that people in Scandinavia were happiest in the world with their society and their lives. The next country on that index was--guess what?--Venezuela. So under the evil government of Hugo Chavez, Venezuelans are happier than we are here in Bushland.
What we have here is a breathless advocate of American exceptionalism. We know best what other countries should do. We can subvert their elected governments, we can bribe their military leaders, we can pay to support subversion and to foment unrest, because we're America. Is that it? Can you imagine if some other country were doing all these things here in the US?
by
Dave Lindorff (319 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 152 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 12:27:36 PM
"The agent was outed by his own letter, which was made public on Venezuelan state TV."
And all undercover agents use their real names in memos to the home office. How convenient for Venezuelan intelligence. I trust that Venezuela has since revoked Michael Middleton Steere's diplomatic immunity and expelled him from the country as a persona non grata. Boy! I'm sure they have a clip of his disgraced departure from the country. They don't? Zoinks! Don't they now the PR capital in getting that on video?
The Plame "zing" was exactly that – a zing – meant to provoke a response. I understand that only the "facts" as revealed by Venezuelan intelligence were discussed.
However, the timing is especially "nice" to Chavez, considering the election is in a few days and (contrary to some reports) there IS opposition to Chavez's benevolent "reform" package for the constitution - http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/24/america/LA-GEN-Venezuela-Constitution-Poll.php . What better way to swing public opinion then by claiming that someone's been messing with the collective cookie jar?
"Apart from the deep involvement of the US, the primary organization of the Venezuelan business elite (FEDECAMARAS), as well as all the major private television, radio and newspaper outlets have been engaged in a campaign of fear and intimidation campaign. Food producers, wholesale and retail distributors have created artificial shortages of basic food items and have provoked large scale capital flight to sow chaos in the hopes of reaping a 'no' vote." Right, FEDECAMARAS has created artificial shortages and NOT Chavez's "wealth redistribution" policies that remove incentives for providing services - http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2911 .
In fact, Chavez felt so moved by the memo that, "In a speech to pro-Chavez, pro-amendment nationalist business-people (Entrepreneurs for Venezuela EMPREVEN) Chavez warned the President of FEDECAMARAS that if he continues to threaten the government with a coup, he would nationalize all their business affiliates. With the exception of the Trotskyists and other sects, the vast majority of organized workers, peasants, small farmers, poor neighborhood councils, informal self-employed and public school students have mobilized and demonstrated in favor of the constitutional amendments." Wait, wait – why didn't he target the American diplomat for expulsion also, given his essentially treasonous activities in the damning memo?
"...Chavez is only "shredding" the Venezuelan constitution if you can say having a national referendum to change the constitution is shredding it."
The 69 amendments that were overwhelming approved by the Venezuelan legislature go far beyond just Chavez's doing away with presidential term limits. His gaining this amendment out of the many others only makes his dictatorial hold over the country "look" legal. Once Chavez is in, then he can act upon the other amendments to better solidify his position as the "New Castro" - click here .
And I'll make a prediction right now. Even though polling shows 49% of Venezuelan voters are against approving the amendments versus 39% approving them, the amendments WILL be passed. Chavez will make certain of it; he has to because too much of him has been invested into the effort to permit it to fail.
If you can find a way to make those 69 amendments improve the betterment of the democracy in Venezuela, then I'm very interested in reading about it. Honestly, by the time you get to the end of the listing in the link, the only reasonable conclusion formed is that the current constitution is being shredded.
"Gallup recently did a survey of national happiness. They found that people in Scandinavia were happiest in the world with their society and their lives. The next country on that index was--guess what?--Venezuela. So under the evil government of Hugo Chavez, Venezuelans are happier than we are here in Bushland."
I'm curious as to where you read the results of the Gallup survey and I didn't notice a source reference. If this is the same Gallup poll, though, I'd direct you to this statement, "The survey doesn't rank countries, because their people have different standards for health and well-being. Gallup doesn't expect good comparisons to be possible for a decade, " - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/goodnews/story/20236.html . Consequently, I question your assessment of the survey and its comparison between the U.S. and Venezuela.
However, a 2000 happiness poll (published in 2005 and compiled by the "twisted" New York Times) ranks the U.S. and Venezuela more or less equal . What's even more interesting is the skepticism that people express about trying to survey happiness at all, "Some experts who attended the weeklong conference questioned whether national well-being could really be defined. Just the act of trying to quantify happiness could threaten it, said Frank Bracho, a Venezuelan economist and former ambassador to India. After all, he said, 'The most important things in life are not prone to measurement - like love'" - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/science/04happ.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1 .
"What we have here is a breathless advocate of American exceptionalism."
No, what we have here is someone who does their research first and then draws conclusions, as opposed to forwarding information (regardless of its validity) that is only "sexy" and "tasty" because it supports a personal political opinion by castigating a nation (America).
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1541 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 2:28:23 PM
No, actually we have someone who opposes US meddling. Period
I don't pretend to know if Chavez is a great guy or a meglomaniac. All I know, from reading some accounts by people who've been there, including a priest who lived in a barrio on the hillside since 1985 and through the brief coup that briefly ousted Chavez until the people demanded that the army return him, is that the long-suffering poor people of Venezuela, who are the vast majority of the population and whose very existence in a nation of such natural wealth is an outrage, love him, and have elected him twice, in honest elections, to power.
What you say about changes in the constitution is meaningless unless each change is analyzed, which I admit I have not done. But the Venezuelan Constitution is not the US Constitution. It was not hammered out by a bunch of phenomenal philosophers who were trying to create something unique, as this country's founders did. It was a document designed from the start to establish an entrenched oligarchy, and it was amended over the years to further that end. So it was ripe for some serious reform. Whether Chavez's reforms are good, or simply sel-serving I can't say.
What I can say is that for the US to interfere by financing the opposition, by supporting unrest among the military, and by possibly planning military intervention secretly with the help of bases in Colombia and Curacau, is criminal.
The role of the US in Latin America since the days of the Monroe Doctrine has been little more than colonial or neo-colonial or imperialist control, and has been almost completely to the detriment of the people of that region. What the US is doing now in Venezuela is of a piece with that history.
Finally, I would note that it is commonplace for the CIA to place officers in Embassy positions. The countries in question generally know who those people are, but it is accepted that we do it and they do it. Those personnel do go by their real names, and they have the protection of diplomatic passports, so when they step over the bounds, the worst that happens to them is they get ordered to leave by the host government. It is no surprise that this guy used his own name. He wasn't a covert operative. He was a CIA person in the embassy. Typically the station chief works out of the embassy under diplomatic cover. This may have been his role. I don't know.
In any event, it is fortunate that his letter was leaked.
You can imagine up a scenario where it is all a fabrication. But the reality is, it is quite a similar scenario to things that the CIA has done for decades in Greece, Italy, France, Australia, Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Panama, Ecuador, Peru, Honduras, S. Vietnam, Indonesia...etc., etc. So it rings true to me.
by
Dave Lindorff (319 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 152 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 4:11:15 PM
"It was a document designed from the start to establish an entrenched oligarchy..."
So, given that the last revision to the Venezuelan constitution occurred in 1999 during President Chavez's first term (it was he that supported the presidential term limits – by the way), does Chavez himself represent the referenced entrenched oligarchy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Venezuela ? It seems to be so.
On this point we seem to agree – finally!
You've accepted, then, as true that the memo is legitimate based upon past precedence? I suppose there's logic there in some manner, but given the Venezuelan context in which the memo resides (i.e., Chevez's overwhelming harsh rhetoric) I tend to cast serious doubt on the document.
As a result, I doubt the extent of the U.S. government's involvement in the Venezuelan referendum vote, as postulated here by others here. Reiterating an unvetted memo appears to be done solely for political convenience to support a negative view of America.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1541 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 5:34:37 PM
Global Corporatist Empire to install 'Vicy Venezuela'
Looks like the global corporatist Empire behind the facade of our own 'Vichy America' is now trying to franchaise its scheme of setting up phony governments throughout the Empire's territories.
Throughout various territories of the corporatist Empire they can get away with simply setting up an obvious stooge govenment (like the Nazi empire did with the old fashioned 'Vichy France'), but in other parts of the world where web-media lights shine more light the corporatist Empire has to go to all the trouble of setting up a very sophisticated 'vichy' scam --- sometimes even setting up pre-arranged phony opposition parties, with contrived 'powe sharing' parties --- as the Empire recently orchestrated in Pakistan.
However, the global corporatist Empire never goes to the extreme of setting up in countries other than the US all the mechanisms of a complete 'Three Card Monte' scheme of 'Vichy govenment' like the US itself, which includes two completely controlled phony national policitical parties, which actually shift back and forth to confuse the rubes, and a complete national MSM scm which reports this 'vichy' political facade as being a democratic government over long periods of time.
It will be interesting to see if the global corporatist Empire, because of the focus of web-media on Venezuela, has to go as far as it did in Pakistan in building a fairly complete model of 'believable' multiparty phony conflict, or whether the Empire can still get away in Venezuela with a more traditional and simplistic, blunt 'regime change' and ousting of Chevaz without structuring the full charade of a surviving two-party image.
by
Alan MacDonald (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 50 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 11:10:24 AM
Chavez and the Bush CIA are equally capable of using such a piece as disinformation or actual plan. Chavez has more than enough reason to fear a military coup after we tried to spring one on him a few years back.
From the 60s through the 80s there wasn't a South or Central American democracy safe from our CIA and the follow-on economic chaos of Milton Friedman's boys that put American business firmly back in the saddle.
The most interesting thing to me is that a real news organization would report the incident, specify the difficulties of independent corroboration and then ride hellbent after the story.
Silent newspapers are the dog that does not bark.
By the way, Dave, nice rewrite. That's getting easier and easier to do with this administration.
by
Jim Freeman (108 articles, 42 quicklinks, 192 diaries, 364 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 2:00:19 PM
Everytime I think I couldn't possibly get more disgusted with the MO of the US, I find that its capacity to generate even more seems unlimited. I wish I could say this latest development surprises me, but it doesn't. Apart from a few good progresive websites, when is the last time anyone in the MSM did anything except demonize Chavez? I just assume if they are demonizing ANYONE, it must mean they are actually doing what is right for their own people, and likely as well for the world.
It is interesting to observe how much more frequently these days, the duplicity and the sinister nature of our covert operations are being exposed---as if the dark is slowly being overtaken by the LIGHT. Let us hope that is so. I love seeing the real "evildoers" getting tripped up in their own snares.
Great report Dave. Keep shining the LIGHT.
by
Char Stellamaris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 2:22:25 PM
It really doesn't matter if this information is correct or not. What is most alarming is the fact that a majority of Americans no longer have faith in their government and are ready to believe the worst. And why not? Look at what the right wing leadership is doing and the scandalous and revolting candidate (Giuliani) they are backing.
by
memary (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 70 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 3:19:10 PM
Why is it that 'other' media in other countries, like Britain, France and Spain report a very different picture of Chavez's socialist regime than the vicious character assasination we see in the U.S. media? With poeple like Pat Robertson (a supposed religious man) calling for the assasination of Hugo Chavez quite openly, he must be doing something right. My sources of information about Venezuala came from people who have lived there, speak spanish and have apparently no hidden agenda to report anything against the way things are going in that country.
Whereas, from the U.S. perspective, the oil, the oil, the oil, is paramount. It is curious that Ahmedinijad, the Iranian President is also demonized by the U.S. media and he is sitting on a lot of the U.S.s's oil!
There is always a good rule of thumb in judging these things, and that is:
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
by
ibrahim turner (25 articles, 26 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 5:10:49 PM
my wife lived there for 2 years and the poor people are still poor. Chavez will be just like his buddy, Castro, and live high while the peasants remain peasants. Have you people learned nothing from watching dictators of the past?
by
larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 268 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 6:17:02 PM
It would be incredible and nothing short of miraculous if someone like Chavez could take a country where 90 percent of the people lived in poverty, and in two terms of office, turn them into a middle class. But he has raised their standards of living. He has provided them with doctors, homes and jobs. That's quite a start.
As for Castro, there are certainly issues there, but to blame him and his system for Cuba's poverty, when the country has been under a strict embargo forced by the US for half a century, is simply a libelous outrage.
And for all that, the average Cuban lives better and longer than the average person in almost every other country in Latin America.
by
Dave Lindorff (319 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 152 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 6:50:12 PM
So Cubans have better than average healthcare. Are they "free"? And I read here at OpEdNews.com about Americans complaining that they're free but have no healthcare. Go figure!
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1541 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 7:25:43 PM
If people are starving, they want food, then they'll think about freedom.
If they have freedom and food, they'll want healthcare.
I'm not saying Cuba's a paradise. I'm saying if you look at the wretched lives of most of the people of central America, not to mention the island of Hispaniola, you'd have to say that the Cuban people as a whole have it pretty good. You surely cannot compare them to us.
And Haiti and the Dominican Republic have never suffered an embargo. Nor have they been under state socialism.
by
Dave Lindorff (319 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 152 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 7:39:15 PM
TM stated: “Reiterating an unvetted memo appears to be done solely for political convenience to support a negative view of America.”
No, America’s long history of atrocious behaviors in Central and South America (as described by Smedley Butler regarding the early parts of the 20th Century and expanded upon by the CIA etc. during the latter half of that same century) have created such a well-deserved ‘negative’ view of the Empire that it’s hard to imagine how ‘reiterating an unvetted memo’ could make it any worse. Of course, as noted below, it hasn’t just been directed against our neighbors to the south.
The fact that ‘you’ appear to defend the indefensible tediously over and over again speaks volumes.
------------
The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."
This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.
China, 1945-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.
Italy, 1947-48:
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.
Greece, 1947-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.
Philippines, 1945-53:
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.
South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.
Albania, 1949-53:
The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.
Germany, 1950s:
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.
Iran, 1953:
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.
Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.
Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.
Indonesia, 1957-58:
Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.
