This should be very interesting. I suspect that US involvement behind the scenes might be a big factor here, as the USA is hardly going to avoid the chance to tighten its shackles around its fourth biggest oil supplier here.
Oh, I'm sure the coup perpetrators did the attempt on their own.
On the other hand, no one in their right mind would even imagine attempting a coup against a mighty political, police, military and PR machine that's obviously having popular support by at least half the populace - just like that, relying on their courage, and without prior assurances from a superpower like the US that they'd be supported by said superpower if said coup attempt succeeds. Right?
And by "assurances" I don't just mean "sure guys, knock the dictator down and we'll support you"; I also mean statements from US officials giving out hints whose side the US "would" "potentially" be, if the US-favorable scenario plays out. I trust you do know how diplomacy works?
Also I don't think anyone in their right mind would expect that the broad public would have unlimited and instantaneous access to the full minutes of those talks between the US and the coup perpetrators.
Normally I would agree with your last point, but a huge amount of material was released by Wikileaks and it doesn't look like anything was found that shows involvement or assurances. In fact, there were some documents which made it clear that the US would not support a coup after it happened... even though we kinda did.
I couldn't open the first link, but I certainly accept that some folks who were involved with the coup visited Washington DC. I also checked out the "U.S. involvement" of the article you listed, it also supports that the folks involved in the coup visited with US officials. They also visited with Canadian and Brazilian officials at times, so are we saying they were involved as well? A bunch of the section was about the New York Times refuting claims that were made.
The often quoted things about USAID, which Chavez promised to provide proof about, ended up being a few hundred thousand dollars to support an election for a union which came out in support of the coup after it happened. This is hardly sponsorship of the coup.
All in all, the most compelling "proof" I've seen is the US' involvement in the Americas over the past half century, although this is overblown a bit as well. I'd certainly be willing to look at some actual evidence, but I looked a few years ago and there were lots of accusations and few facts.
the US' involvement in the Americas over the past half century, although this is overblown a bit as well
What makes you say this?
Of course evidence is scarce, it's not like there's a public library containing all the documentation that has circulated between the Pentagon, CIA and the White House for the last half a century or so.
Wikileaks released a whole bunch of stuff that was never intended to see the light of day, including a whole lot of material on Venezuela. None of it really pointed to any US involvement. Also, it was an unsuccessful coup, so there should be a lot of lose ends.
The US' involvement in, say the Shah's "coup", while a bit odd, is pretty clear. Same with Guatemala. You can point to people doing stuff on behalf of the US government. In Venezuela, even with an unexpected release of over a thousand document, really there is nothing.
Great thread btw, so thanks for providing some nformation I was curious about.
I've been watching Oliver Stone's Untold History and he mentioned a few other cans of worms. But I'm suspect of a lot of Stone's conclusions (not the "facts" mind you) because I remember his movie JFK made some really bad historical blunders, and then he doubled down on those mistakes when he and Gerald Posner* were in an interview together. I mention all this because the series gets into a lot of these same issues in the OP; and CIA involvement with destabilizing governments we don't like. ---- * (an author who demonstrated beyond any doubt there wasn't a conspiracy and Oswald was the lone gun man)
I think Fidel Castro might disagree with that, as would the South and Central American countries where we propped up dictators to meet our interests. And as would the victims of the Contras, like all the nuns they raped.
Why? Nobody else has the capabilities to refine Venezuela's heavy oil and Venezuela owns a huge distribution network in the US. They have a 15% deficit and 18% inflation rate (officially, unofficially it is likely much higher) and a government whose legitimacy is based on distributing the profits of oil sales. The US could not come up with a better way of shackling Venezuela than Chavez has.
Brazil is becoming the main consumer of Venezuelan oil, and no, there are others with refining capabilities who'd be more than glad to step in, like France, Britain, the Netherlands, etc. It's a globalised industry, after all.
As for the regime's legitimacy resting upon its natural resources, there's a vast list of other examples of a similar case, like Russia and the entire Middle East, which the US doesn't seem to have a problem trading with. Some of them are even doing efforts to move beyond being a one-trick-pony sort of economy (Dubai, Qatar, etc), so Venezuela's future largely depends on the availability of smart leaders with insight about the further development of the world.
Reply
On the other hand, no one in their right mind would even imagine attempting a coup against a mighty political, police, military and PR machine that's obviously having popular support by at least half the populace - just like that, relying on their courage, and without prior assurances from a superpower like the US that they'd be supported by said superpower if said coup attempt succeeds. Right?
And by "assurances" I don't just mean "sure guys, knock the dictator down and we'll support you"; I also mean statements from US officials giving out hints whose side the US "would" "potentially" be, if the US-favorable scenario plays out. I trust you do know how diplomacy works?
Also I don't think anyone in their right mind would expect that the broad public would have unlimited and instantaneous access to the full minutes of those talks between the US and the coup perpetrators.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
More context.
Broader context: the US involvement in coups all across the Americas throughout the past half a century.
Reply
The often quoted things about USAID, which Chavez promised to provide proof about, ended up being a few hundred thousand dollars to support an election for a union which came out in support of the coup after it happened. This is hardly sponsorship of the coup.
All in all, the most compelling "proof" I've seen is the US' involvement in the Americas over the past half century, although this is overblown a bit as well. I'd certainly be willing to look at some actual evidence, but I looked a few years ago and there were lots of accusations and few facts.
Reply
What makes you say this?
Of course evidence is scarce, it's not like there's a public library containing all the documentation that has circulated between the Pentagon, CIA and the White House for the last half a century or so.
Reply
The US' involvement in, say the Shah's "coup", while a bit odd, is pretty clear. Same with Guatemala. You can point to people doing stuff on behalf of the US government. In Venezuela, even with an unexpected release of over a thousand document, really there is nothing.
Reply
By the way you missed to mention Allende.
Reply
Reply
I've been watching Oliver Stone's Untold History and he mentioned a few other cans of worms. But I'm suspect of a lot of Stone's conclusions (not the "facts" mind you) because I remember his movie JFK made some really bad historical blunders, and then he doubled down on those mistakes when he and Gerald Posner* were in an interview together. I mention all this because the series gets into a lot of these same issues in the OP; and CIA involvement with destabilizing governments we don't like.
----
* (an author who demonstrated beyond any doubt there wasn't a conspiracy and Oswald was the lone gun man)
Reply
Reply
Reply
As for the regime's legitimacy resting upon its natural resources, there's a vast list of other examples of a similar case, like Russia and the entire Middle East, which the US doesn't seem to have a problem trading with. Some of them are even doing efforts to move beyond being a one-trick-pony sort of economy (Dubai, Qatar, etc), so Venezuela's future largely depends on the availability of smart leaders with insight about the further development of the world.
Reply
Leave a comment