An article in the Journal of the US Army from 2005 laid out in detail the US's objections against the Bolivarian process. Even when there was no question about the legitimacy of the elections and the economy was doing great, the US was planning a coup d'etat. One reason is oil, and the US Army article is blunt about it:
""friction arose between Venezuela and the United States over the U.S. preference for private ownership of the oil industry in Venezuela, led by international corporations, and Venezuela's preference for policies that maximized national control over this strategic asset."
So, the US and Venezuela disagree on their "preference" for "this strategic asset". The Venezuelan people want to use their oil wealth for the benefit of Venezuelans, and the US objects? Of course, Canada's "preference" is for Canadian mining companies to control Venezuela's gold too.
Venezuela is a sovereign country, a member of the United Nations, and Maduro is the internationally recognized president. Venezuela has the right to choose its own preferences. What the article calls "this strategic asset" is not up for grabs. The US and Canada don't have a right to vote on it. The fact that the US and Canada even think that they can dictate ownership of "this strategic asset", shows how arrogant and bullying they are. This is the 21st century, the Monroe Doctrine should be dead, and the Caribbean and Latin America ain't nobody's "backyard".
The US Army article further whines that Chavez and Maduro encouraged the unity of South America, challenging US hegemony. Venezuela has a right to its own foreign relations. Other invented crimes are that Venezuela backed a stronger OPEC, and opposed the illegal Invasion of Iraq, and the Worldwide War on Terror. Venezuela has good relations with Cuba and Nicaragua, thus irritating the US further.
Strangely, the US Army article finds the Bolivarian process of "participatory democracy" rather than "representative democracy" to be nefarious? It's odd that the US would object to the Venezuelan people having more democracy and local control, rather than less. Try explaining to Chavistas how Trump became president even though he got less votes than Clinton, and they will laugh in your face about "representative democracy".
*
What is depressing is that most of the North American public is still fooled by the US propaganda that it is motivated by democracy and human rights. The historical evidence is to the contrary. The US is a serial predator of illegal wars of aggression, which have killed millions of people, and Canada has been right there side-by-side. They have invaded at least a half-dozen countries in the past few decades, and they are threatening a half-dozen more. The US has imposed illegal economic sanctions on Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela. The US State Department has bragged that the sanctions are "working" because civilians are dying. That is not concern for human rights. It is coercion, hostage taking and demands for ransom.
The US often violates international law, reneges on treaties, ignores the United Nations, defies the International Criminal Court, and breaks domestic laws. It conducts illegal wars of aggression, drone assassinations, night raids, and covert operations . The US supplies weapons, logistics and ammunition that are used by Israel and Saudi Arabia to kill civilians. The US supports 70% of the world's dictators. Does any of that fit with a country that is concerned about democracy and human rights? The US and Canada are recklessly instigating a bloody civil war in Venezuela.
*
A State Department official named Brian Hook said in a leaked memo to his boss at that time, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that he should stop raising questions about human rights in Saudi Arabia. The memo tutored Tillerson that the US is only interested in weaponizing democracy and human rights to destabilize adversaries. The US should treat friendly dictatorships, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Honduras, "different and better", according to Hook.
As Hook explains, agitating countries about democracy and human rights is destabilizing, and the US does not want to do that to friendly dictators. With adversaries though, the US wants to destabilize them even if they are democracies, like Venezuela. For adversaries, they are never democratic enough to please the US. They should be destabilized and kept off balance, according to Hook.
It is false that US foreign policy objectives are for the benefit of the US public. US foreign policy is for the benefit of corporations, special interest groups and oligarchs. The beneficiaries of US foreign policy are the elites, and they grease US foreign policy with campaign contributions, bribes and other perks to government officials.
What drives US foreign policy is the quest for absolute military superiority, preservation of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, maintaining the capitalist world order, controlling the world's natural and human resources, promoting a stable business-friendly environment for Western transnational corporations, and seeking opportunities for windfall profits for cronies.
In other words, the US wants to control the whole world. If that means overthrowing non-compliant democratically elected governments and supporting military coups and dictators, killing millions of people, then as far as the US is concerned, so be it. That is criminally insane.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
5
4
