Protests in Venezuela: U.S. Involvement and Hypocrisy

From an economic standpoint, the U.S.-Venezuela relationship is one of dual participation, mutual support, and has been long-lasting – pretty much like any healthy marriage. The United States is the biggest consumer of Venezuelan oil. At the same time, 26% of all imports to Venezuela are from the U.S. (next is China at 15%). One would question, why then is the relationship so tainted politically? 

This paradox stems from the desire of the U.S. for Venezuela to enact regime change. As with most other Latin American countries, the United States has intervened in political affairs with no respect for law, sovereignty, or integrity. Dating back to the 2002 coup attempt, the U.S. has supported, and at times sponsored, many vicious political moves by the opposition. The Guardian published a revealing article a few weeks after the failed coup, detailing the intricacy of the U.S. role. Specifically, U.S. NGO’s provided “hundreds of thousands of dollars,” U.S. embassy and government personnel set up groundwork, and the U.S. Navy in the Caribbean shared SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) in support of the coup. However, this is just one of example of many.

Now opposition support goes unnoticed, receiving minimal scrutiny. The Obama administration publicly requested funds for the Venezuelan opposition. The State Department’s Foreign Operations Budget, under the Economic Support Fund designated $5 million for Venezuelan opposition groups, described as:"These funds will help strengthen and support a Venezuelan civil society that will protect democratic space and seek to serve the interests and needs of the Venezuelan people. Funding will enhance citizens' access to objective information, facilitate peaceful debate on key issues, provide support to democratic institutions and processes, promote citizen participation and encourage democratic leadership." 

This flawed mission statement intends to glorify the way in which American taxpayer dollars are being used. (Although this dollar figure seems small, it is in addition to funds from USAID (United States Advancement for International Development), and other “civil society organizations” such as: NED (National Endowment for Democracy); OTI (Office for Transition Iniatives); IRI (International Republican Institute); and NDI (National Democratic Institute), which also claim the same benevolent goals. It’s no coincidence that the democratic language in this statement is the same language that is used by the opposition leaders in Venezuela. 

When the U.S. government and organizations are sending large sums of cash to the likes of Leopoldo Lopez, they need to mislead the public because that money is not being spent in the way they profess. If people found out that the Economic Support Fund provides monetary support for “key strategic and important countries,” they would expect an explanation of what the strategic interests are. And that would lead to additional questions: one would ask the NED why they support the opposition, when they specifically say that their services “focus funding on democracy-minded organizations rather than opposition groups.” Making matters worse, for the U.S. Venezuelan relationship, such foreign funding of political parties, campaigns, or organizations is rendered illegal by a  2010 Venezuelan law that protects political sovereignty and national self determination.

Prima facie, it’s hard to challenge the rhetoric. The hegemonic corporate media culture has been able to successfully marginalize alternative news sources and selectively report on what is going on. 

For example, first cousin of Leopoldo Lopez, Venezuelan-born Thor Halvorssen Mendoza, president of Human Rights Foundation, and founder of the Oslo Freedom Forum, has been described by the New York Times as a person “who champions the underdog and the powerless.” The son of a powerful Venezuelan politician in the administration of Carlos Andres Perez, who represented large corporations in Venezuela among other things, and descendant of Simon Bolivar, Halvorssen has been able to leverage his fortune to disguise his neo-conservative agenda. His privileged access to global media enable him to promote his version of events and ideology. In a well prepared speech, Lopez spoke at the Oslo Freedom Forum, opportunistically he denounced the Venezuelan government and reiterated his democratic principles.

In both cases, the United States and Venezuela, the oligarchy associate themselves with humanitarian and civil organizations, despite all the evidence to the contrary. They use the media to assure that the people are the backers of the organizations in question, rather than them. Using financial power they push whatever buttons necessary to forward their agenda. With the support of foreign powers, social media, influential international figures, and ruling class financial funding, they have been able to exploit the insecurities and doubt of the Venezuelan people. They use economic struggles that they exacerbate themselves, and are not affected by, as the reason why the government should be ousted. Let’s be realistic; this circus is about one thing for both of these clowns: the Orinoco Oil Reserve (largest oil reserve in the world).