Come
On, CounterPunchers
Yes, the GOP Has Fallen, But Now We Must Fight the Democrats!
Annual Fundraising Appeal
We interrupt your regular reading
habits to bring you the following important announcement: CounterPunch
needs your financial support!
We're not in the habit of making
idle threats and this isn't one. Either we meet our fundraising
goal of $60,000 over the next three weeks or we'll be forced
to drastically curtail the operation of our website. It's near
the end of our year and the wolves are gathering at the door.
CounterPunch's website is supported
almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our newsletter.
We don't clutter the site by selling annoying popup ads. We tried
getting money out of Google, but they gave us the boot. We aren't
on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations.
George Soros doesn't have us on retainer. And we don't sell tickets
on cruiseliners.
The continued existence of
CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of
our readers. And we know there are a lot of you. We get thousands
of emails from you every day. Our website receives nearly 100,000
visits each day-and those numbers grow by the month. Of course,
all these readers chew up a lot of bandwidth and that costs money.
Through the Iraq war, the daily
traumas of the Bush administration, hurricanes, earthquakes and
the disappearance of the Democrats, many of you have found a
refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us
that you love CounterPunch because the quality of writing you
find here every day and because we never flinch under fire. We
appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles
to come as the Bush administration expands its wars abroad and
at home.
To contribute by phone you
can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
or mail contribution to:
CounterPunch
PO Box 228
Petrolia, CA 95558
Onward,
Alexander, Jeffrey, Becky and Deva
Weekend
Edition
November 11 / 12, 2006
Beware Venezuela, Here Come the Democratic
Hawks
The
Return of Tom Lantos
By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF
With the Democrats now taking over Congress,
the question is: what will the change in leadership mean for
U.S. policy towards Venezuela? While it's heartening that some
progressive legislators will be headed to Washington, unfortunately
some hawkish figures stand to influence Latin America policy.
Unless he is upended by Representative Howard Berman, Tom Lantos
will become the Chair of the House International Relations Committee.
Lantos, who represents California's
12th congressional district in San Mateo, supported the October,
2002 "blank check" resolution granting authority to
George Bush to wage preemptive war. According to John Nichols
of the Nation magazine, Lantos is "reasonably solid"
when it comes to supporting a liberal domestic agenda. "But,"
Nichols comments, "It's a different story on foreign policy
matters."
Back in 2002 Lantos ignored
anti-war activists who protested at his office, preferring instead
to pursue a pro-war agenda in Congress. According to Nichols,
Lantos said it was his "privilege" to deliver 81 pro-war
Democratic votes for Bush. More recently, Lantos has criticized
the execution of the war, and claims that the White House misled
him about pre-war intelligence. Nevertheless he supports Bush's
moves to fund the U.S. military effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Additionally, Lantos has been one of the House's consistent
backers of the Patriot Act.
Congressman
Lantos: Venezuela Hawk
Given his hawkish positions,
it's not surprising that Lantos would take an aggressive position
towards the leftist government of Hugo Chavez. The bad blood
between the Venezuelan regime and Lantos goes back to 2004.
Lantos, along with fellow lawmakers such as Republican Henry
Hyde, sent a letter to Chavez complaining that the Venezuelan
government was abusing its power when it accused Sumate, an opposition
group, of conspiring with the U.S. to topple the Chavez regime.
In the letter, Lantos and others
admit that Sumate had been financed by the U.S. taxpayer funded
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) but that this financing
would help encourage Venezuelan democracy. Lantos's letter elicited a sharp rejoinder
from Venezuela's ambassador to the U.S., Bernardo Alvarez, who
commented that the U.S. government was inconsistent when it came
to democracy, and that the U.S. was the only country in the hemisphere
to recognize the illegitimate Carmona regime which came to power
in a brief coup d'etat in April 2002.
Lantos Snubbed
in Caracas
Things deteriorated further
last year when Lantos was allegedly refused entry into Venezuela
and was stopped at the airport. Lantos had gone to the South
American country as part of a high-level delegation headed by
Republican Henry Hyde, the same legislator who had defended NED
the year before.
Lantos and the delegation claimed
they were actually harassed and held onboard their aircraft by
customs officials at Caracas's Simon Bolivar International Airport.
The delegation, which sought to repair troubled U.S.-Venezuelan
relations, was set to meet personally with Chavez himself. After
two hours, the delegation claimed, they left when government
officials said that they could not guarantee that the party would
be allowed to disembark or pursue its schedule on the ground.
The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry denies the charges, claiming
that it never held the congressmen who simply opted to continue
on their way.
The incident provided fodder
for xenophobic nationalists like CNN's Lou Dobbs, who told his
viewers that the Venezuelan government's actions constituted
"a Chavez insult to America." El Universal,
a conservative Venezuelan newspaper, suggested that Chavez may
have wanted to snub the delegation as payback, since the U.S.
had refused to grant a visa to many members of Chavez's security
detail when the Venezuelan president went to visit the United
Nations in New York.
Lantos Goes
On the Offensive
Snubbed by Chavez, Lantos went
on the rhetorical offensive this past summer. During a hearing
of the House's International Relations Committee, the California
lawmaker accused Chavez of financing the electoral campaign of
Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua (the Venezuelan
leader has denied the charges). Lantos added fuel to the fire
by remarking that in Venezuela, "the basis of democracy
is being systematically suffocated by a demagogic leader."
Lantos went on to demonize
Chavez for his ties to Cuban leader Fidel Castro, and for creating
"a one party state in Venezuela." Lantos added, "To
insure the recently elected and soon to be elected Presidents
of Latin America are not pressured into accepting the oil slick
promises of dictators with dollars, we must reengage with the
region."
Lantos's remarks were countered
by some other Democrats including Howard Berman, a fellow California
legislator. The U.S. was hypocritical in harking on democracy
in Latin America, Berman argued. "I was in Nicaragua during
the last presidential election [in November, 2001]," he
said, "and it appeared to me that the U.S. Embassy was very
involved in guaranteeing the defeat of Mr. Ortega."
Berman is currently Lantos'
rival to run the House's International Relations Committee.
According to a recent article in the Jewish Daily Forward,
Berman, who represents parts of Los Angeles and the San Fernando
Valley, has often "been less conciliatory to the GOP"
than Lantos. "Ousting Lantos," according to the Forward,
" could signal that Democrat leaders, including presumed
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, intend to usher in an era
of more overtly partisan confrontation."
Lantos and
Democrats Provoke Chavez on Media
But in the end, will the new
"Madame Speaker" have the nerve to stand up to the
hawks in the Democratic Party? She herself called Chavez "a
thug" when the Venezuelan leader recently traveled to the
United Nations and insulted George Bush. Unfortunately, the
Democrats hardly inspire confidence and have more often than
not joined with the Republicans in bashing Venezuela. A key
example of this is the Democrats' handling of the Venezuelan
media issue.
I recently returned from an
extended six week trip to Venezuela, where I was struck by the
stridently anti-U.S. tone in much of the government media. One
edition of the pro-Chavez paper Diario VEA had a screaming
headline reading, "General Baduel Warns: Foreign Aggression
is Possible." Again and again on Vive TV, a state owned
station, the channel would broadcast a short segment showing
stark, bombed out images of Iraq.
"Imagine if your city
was invaded and destroyed by a foreign army," intoned a
solemn voiceover. It had been some years since I'd been back
to Venezuela, and the state media had clearly ratcheted up the
rhetoric against the Bush administration's foreign policy.
Perhaps more controversially from the point of view of Washington,
Chavez has also launched Telesur, a hemispheric wide satellite
news station. Oil-rich Venezuela supplies 51% of Telesur's budget,
with Cuba, Argentina, and Uruguay providing the rest of the funding.
I frequently watched the station during my time in Venezuela
and was struck by the coverage of the war in Iraq, which was
much more graphic and critical of the conflict than our own U.S.
media.
Since its initial launch in
2005 Telesur, which aims to rival other news stations such as
Univision and CNN en Espanol, has certainly come a long way professionally.
When I had first watched the station in the U.S. via Telesur's
Web site, there had been frequent technical glitches. But now,
I could scarcely tell the difference between Telesur and CNN
from a technological standpoint.
In July 2005, Congressman Connie
Mack, a right wing Republican from Florida, sponsored a measure
to authorize U.S. supported radio and television broadcasts to
Venezuela. Mack, a vocal critic of Hugo Chavez, has said that
Telesur spreads "anti-American, anti-freedom rhetoric."
Mack's legislation was approved as part of an amendment to the
Foreign Relations Authorizations Act. Under the amendment the
U.S. government could provide radio and television broadcasts,
through the independent Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)
for up to 30 minutes a day.
Though the legislation was
supported by many Republicans, it also attracted support from
Democrats and passed easily in the House. Again, it was Lantos
who went on the attack, remarking that as Chavez "ramps
up his information campaign, we should be prepared to present
balanced news to the people of Venezuela." During the vote
on the House floor on Representative Mack's media proposal, no
Democrats spoke out against the measure. What's more, according
to the Venezuela Information Office based in Washington, D.C.,
no liberal Democratic legislators have spoken out against Republican
legislation designed to set up anti-Chavez media.
Predictably, Mack's amendment
spread nothing but further ill will between the United States
and Venezuela. Chavez called the amendment "a preposterous
imperialist idea that should not surprise us because we know
what the U.S. government is capable of." The Venezuelan
president vowed to jam the signals if the U.S. tried to transmit
broadcasts to Venezuela.
Colombia:
An Opportunity for Democrats to Mend Fences with Chavez
Given all of the acrimonious
history between Democratic hawks and Chavez, it is going to take
a lot to restore trust. But perhaps, if the Democrats start
to restrict U.S. aid to the Colombian military, Chavez's paranoia
might be allayed somewhat. For years the U.S. has spent billions
arming the Colombian military, ostensibly to fight drug trafficking.
Chavez regularly denounces the drug war as a thinly disguised
excuse to extend U.S. military control over the Andean region
(for a more detailed discussion of Chavez's position on the drug
war, see my recently released book, Hugo
Chavez: Oil, Politics, and the Challenge to the U.S).
The Venezuelan president recently charged that the Bush administration
might even be considering an invasion of Venezuela through Colombian
territory.
While such rhetoric might seem
overblown, Chavez has some reason to feel concerned. Paramilitaries
allegedly tied to the U.S. funded Colombian military routinely
cross over the frontier into Venezuela, creating friction along
the more than 1,200 mile border. The Paramilitaries have pursued
refugees into Venezuela, where they have killed or kidnapped
those fleeing the violence. Even worse, the Chavez government
claims that Colombian paramilitaries cross the border and fire
on Venezuelan security forces. Ongoing clashes have led to the
untimely deaths of Venezuelan military personnel.
Chavez has claimed, plausibly,
that he needs to protect the border. In recent years the Venezuelan
leader has acquired military hardware from Spain and Russia.
Prior to the Democratic takeover, the right wing Republican
majority in Congress showed no sign that it was willing to change
course in Colombia and vociferously supported President Alvaro
Uribe's calls for greater military aid. In a recent move, the
State Department inexplicably "certified" that the
Colombian armed forces had improved their human rights record,
thus freeing up frozen military aid.
To his credit, Democratic Senator
Patrick Leahy of Vermont disputed the certification.
As the ranking Democrat in
charge of foreign assistance, he temporarily halted the aid.
Now that the Democrats have taken Congress, there is a possibility
for greater scrutiny of human rights in Colombia as Leahy is
now responsible for writing the basic draft of the foreign aid
bill each year.
If Leahy and progressive legislators
start to limit or put greater conditions on military aid to Colombia,
tensions might be lessened in that war torn nation and this in
turn could lead to greater peace and stability along the Venezuelan
border. If Chavez perceives that Washington is serious about
reining in the Colombian military, he might be prompted to reduce
his own military expenditures.
Hopefully, Congress may restore
some restore some semblance of rationality and humanity to U.S.
policy in South America. The Democrats must now choose: will
they continue the bombastic rhetoric that we have seen from the
likes of Lantos? Will they promote counter productive legislation
on the media which will only serve to agitate the Chavez government
further? Will they continue to fund the Colombian military to
the tune of billions of dollars with little oversight, leading
to more strained relations with the Chavez government? In the
weeks and months ahead, we shall see which wing of the Democratic
Party prevails on these vital questions.
What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
A Special Investigation:
China's Mass Murder for Body Parts
CounterPunch
outlines the terrible evidence that thousands of Falun Gong members
have been killed to supply China's body parts trade with the
West. Larry Lack reviews
the evidence and explains why the US government is keeping its
mouth shut. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month But remember, we are
funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch.
Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation towards the cost of this online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
