On Venezuela (Also a Systematic Takedown of a New York Times article)

For my first official post/rant, I thought I'd put in a commentary I did (for school, actually, but it turned so snarky in places I don't know whether to turn it in) on Venezuela and US foreign policy and forgetting history, after our recent attempt to overthrow their government again. Etc. Since it'll probably all be lost in cyberspace, I can rant all I like. Here goes.

           ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/opinion/conspiracy-claims-in-venezuela.html?_r=1

           I didn’t initially realize that this article is from the New York Times Editorial Board, and so at first was under the impression that this piece was masquerading as actual, factual, non-biased news. That would have been appalling, as the bias in this piece is overt and almost laughably reliant on less-than-factual statements. However, it follows the tired pattern of US reporting on conditions in Venezuela--which is to say, it’s imbued with shocking hypocrisy and elective amnesia towards US history in Latin America.

The article begins by denouncing Maduro’s “ranting” about a rightwing coup attempt as “outlandish,” instantly crushing any speculation that his claims--even if exaggerated--have any historical precedent (say, 2002?) or veracity. The hackneyed lines are trotted out about how Maduro’s blaming of the US is merely an attempt to distract from the dismal situation in Venezuela. Partly this may be true, but if the finger-pointing has indeed singled out the true culprit, why should he not lay blame where it’s due? I won’t even go into this. It’s par for the course, in US reporting on anti-US nations.

       The Editorial Board further continues their pointed lambasting, calling foreign minister Delcy Rodriguez’s statement an “absurd detail," after Rodriguez "[said] on Twitter that ‘the international community should know that the coup plan included airstrikes to tactical objectives without distinction of civilians.’” Even if this claim were false in this particular instance in Venezuela, the idea that a US-backed coup in Latin America might have indiscriminately struck “tactical objectives” is hardly absurd. Remember Panama, 1989? Bush Sr.’s attack that apparently warranted destruction in Panama City for no reason other than that the country was headed by a so-called drug lord the US wasn’t fond of? The US has a rich history of not caring whether civilians are harmed in tactical airstrikes (or worse, a la the SIOP in the case of a nuclear attack, we explicitly name “soft targets”--civilians--to be eliminated), and I’d like to point out that no matter how much we dislike a country’s ruler, targeting the population in an act of collective punishment is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. I suppose the insinuation that this coup might have involved war crimes made the Editorial Board bristle in indignation. They might consider consulting the historical (and current) record before judging such claims “absurd.”

       I particularly enjoyed the deliberate designation of recently arrested Venezuelan opposition-sympathizing mayor Antonio Ledezma as “a democratically elected official.” If the deposing of “democratically elected officials” so concerned the United States, you’d think we might have partaken in fewer coups against such aforementioned democratically elected leaders. I’m sure Mohammed Mossadegh, Jacobo Arbenz, Jamie Roldos, Omar Torrijos, Salvador Allende, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and so many others would have appreciated our regard for their democratic elections, and our concern to see them remain in office… I’d also like to remind the New York Times that Nicolas Maduro was also elected by the Venezuelan people, which is the scenario we usually consider “democratic.” More so than several US elections, I might add. Yet though we protest Ledezma’s removal loudly, I imagine that Maduro’s downfall would be met with quite the lack of protest at the toppling of yet another democratically elected leader.

         The article acknowledges that the opposition movement is “poorly organized”--although it fails to mention that this is due largely to lack of widespread support in Venezuela, not for lack of trying or lack of funds from, say, the National Endowment for Democracy. It is mentioned, however, that Maduro’s “credibility is nearly gone,” never mind that opposition approval ratings are said to be equally low. The Editorial Board also simpers, “We regret that the Venezuelan government continues to blame the United
States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela.” So do I. I really regret that our country is still partaking in actions that warrant such blame.

         When the NYT recommends “[a]rticulating an attractive and viable option to Mr. Maduro’s authoritarian and erratic rule,” does that mean that they find the “transition” plan proposed by the opposition, which caters gladly to neoliberal ideals, not “attractive and viable?” I would have thought they’d be quite enamored of it. It’s just what we’ve prescribed elsewhere in Latin America. Perhaps they think the time hasn’t yet come for such measures. Or they don’t want to state it too openly, for fear of the fallout of that history drifting back into our memories.