Albert: Why
would the u.s. want venezuela's government overthrown?
Pilger: There
are straightforward principles and dynamics at work here. Washington wants to
get rid of the Venezuelan government because it is independent of US designs for
the region and because Venezuela has the greatest proven oil reserves in the
world and uses its oil revenue to improve the quality of ordinary lives.
Venezuela remains a source of inspiration for social reform in a continent
ravaged by an historically rapacious US. An Oxfam report once famously described
the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua as "the threat of a good example." That
has been true in Venezuela since Hugo Chavez won his first election. The "threat" of Venezuela is greater, of course, because it is not tiny and weak; it
is rich and influential and regarded as such by China. The remarkable change in
fortunes for millions of people in Latin America is at the heart of US
hostility. The US has been the undeclared enemy of social progress in Latin
America for two centuries. It doesn't matter who has been in the White House:
Barack Obama or Teddy Roosevelt; the US will not tolerate countries with
governments and cultures that put the needs of their own people first and refuse
to promote or succumb to US demands and pressures.
A reformist social democracy
with a capitalist base -- such as Venezuela -- is not excused by the rulers of the
world. What is inexcusable is Venezuela's political independence; only complete
deference is acceptable. The "survival" of Chavista Venezuela is a testament to
the support of ordinary Venezuelans for their elected government -- that was
clear to me when I was last there. Venezuela's weakness is that the
political 'opposition' -- those I would call the "East Caracas Mob" -- represent
powerful interests who have been allowed to retain critical economic power. Only
when that power is diminished will Venezuela shake off the constant menace
of foreign-backed, often criminal subversion. No society should have to deal
with that, year in, year out.
Albert: What methods
has the U.S. already used and would you anticipate their using to unseat the
Bolivarians?
Pilger: There are the usual crop
of quislings and spies; they come and go with their media theatre of fake
revelations, but the principal enemy is the media. You may recall the Venezuelan
admiral who was one of the coup-plotters against Chavez in 2002, boasting during
his brief tenure in power, "Our secret weapon was the media." The Venezuelan
media, especially television, were active participants in that coup, lying that
supporters of the government were firing into a crowd of protestors from a
bridge. False images and headlines went around the world. The New York Times
joined in, welcoming the overthrow of a democratic "anti-American" government;
it usually does.
Something similar happened in Caracas last year when vicious
right-wing mobs were lauded as "peaceful protesters" who were being "repressed." This was undoubtedly the start of a Washington-backed "color revolution" openly
backed by the likes of the National Endowment for Democracy -- a user-friendly
CIA clone. It was uncannily like the coup that Washington successfully staged in
Ukraine last year. As in Kiev, in Venezuela the "peaceful protesters" set fire
to government buildings and deployed snipers and were lauded by western
politicians and the western media. The strategy is almost certainly to push the
Maduro government to the right and so alienate its popular base. Depicting the
government as dictatorial and incompetent has long been an article of bad
faith among journalists and broadcasters in Venezuela and in the US, the UK and
Europe. One recent US "story" was that of a "US scientist jailed for trying to
help Venezuela build bombs." The implication was that Venezuela was harboring "nuclear terrorists." In fact, the disgruntled nuclear physicist had no
connection whatsoever with Venezuela.
All this is reminiscent of the
unrelenting attacks on Chavez, each
with that peculiar malice reserved for dissenters from the west's "one true
way." In 2006, Britain's Channel 4 News effectively accused the Venezuelan
president of plotting to make nuclear weapons with Iran, an absurd fantasy. The
Washington correspondent, Jonathan Rugman, sneered at policies to eradicate
poverty and presented Chavez as a sinister buffoon, while allowing Donald
Rumsfeld, a war criminal, to liken Chavez to Hitler, unchallenged. The BBC is no
different. Researchers at the University of the West of England in the UK
studied the BBC's systematic bias in reporting Venezuela over a 10-year period.
They looked at 304 BBC reports and found that only three of these referred to
any of the positive policies of the government. For the BBC, Venezuela's
democratic initiatives, human rights legislation, food programs, healthcare
initiatives and poverty reduction programs did not exist. Mission Robinson,
the greatest literacy program in human history, received barely a passing
mention. This virulent censorship by omission complements outright fabrications
such as accusations that the Venezuelan government are a bunch of drug-dealers.
None of this is new; look at the way Cuba has been misrepresented -- and
assaulted -- over the years. Reporters Without Borders has
just issued its worldwide ranking of nations based on their claims to a free
press. The US is ranked 49th, behind Malta, Niger, Burkino Faso and El
Salvador.
Albert: Why might now be a prime
time, internationally, for pushing toward a coup? If the primary problem is
Venezuela being an example that could spread, is the emergence of a receptive
audience for that example in Europe adding to the U.S. response?
Pilger: It's important to
understand that Washington is ruled by true extremists, once known inside the
Beltway as "the crazies." This has been true since before 9/11. A few are
outright fascists. Asserting US dominance is their undisguised game and, as the
events in Ukraine demonstrate, they are prepared to risk a nuclear war with
Russia. These people should be the common enemy of all sane human beings. In
Venezuela, they want a coup so that they can roll-back of some of the world's
most important social reforms -- such as in Bolivia and Ecuador. They've already
crushed the hopes of ordinary people in Honduras. The current conspiracy between
the US and Saudi Arabia to lower the price of oil is meant to achieve something
more spectacular in Venezuela, and Russia.
Albert: What do you think the best approach might be to warding off U.S. machinations, and those of domestic Venezuelan elites as well, for the
Bolivarians?
Pilger: The majority people of
Venezuela, and their government, need to tell the world the truth about the
attacks on their country. There is a stirring across the world, and many people
are listening. They don't want perpetual instability, perpetual poverty,
perpetual war, perpetual rule by the few. And they identify the principal enemy;
look at the international polling surveys that ask which country presents the
greatest danger to humanity. The majority of people overwhelmingly point to the
US, and to its numerous campaigns of terror and
subversion.
Albert: What do
you think is the immediate responsibility of leftists outside Venezuela, and
particularly in the U.S.?
Pilger: That
begs a question: who are these "leftists"? Are they the millions of liberal
North Americans seduced by the specious rise of Obama and silenced by his
criminalizing of freedom of information and dissent? Are they those who believe
what they are told by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the
BBC? It's an important question. "Leftist" has never been a more disputed and
misappropriated term.
My sense is that people who live on the edge and struggle
against US-backed forces in Latin America understood the true meaning of the
word, just as they identify a common enemy. If we share their principles, and a
modicum of their courage, we should take direct action in our own countries,
starting, I would suggest, with the propagandists in the media. Yes, it's our
responsibility...and it has never been more urgent.