top
Americas
Americas
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Fateful Quadrangle: Cuba and Venezuela Face the US and Colombia

by Counterpunch (repost)
Cuba's living example of 45 years of successful resistance to US military aggression and economic boycott is extremely damaging to Washington's goal of world empire for several reasons. In the first place Cuba's success refutes the notion put forth by the "center-left" that "small", "undeveloped" countries cannot resist imperial powers, or sustain a revolution in the face of "globalization". Secondly the survival of the Cuban revolution refutes the idea that Caribbean or Latin American countries located proximate to the US must conform to the dictates of Washington. Thirdly, Cuba demonstrates that the US empire is not invincible ­ Cuba has defeated almost all major aggressive military, political and diplomatic attacks.

Diplomatically, Cuba is recognized by almost all countries in the world, and receives the support of over 150 countries (versus 3 for the US) in opposition to the US embargo in the United Nations. Economically, Cuba has trade and investment relations with all major European, Asian, African, Latin American and North American nations (except the US). Militarily, the Cuban armed forces and intelligence agencies have defeated every US-sponsored terrorist attack on the islands for the past half-century in addition to raising the political cost for any potential invasion. In response to a half century of failures, the Bush Administration has escalated its aggression: practically eliminating all US travel to Cuba, blocking almost all family remittances, and tightening trade restrictions on food and medicine. While these harsh measures have had some negative effects on Cuba, they have also provoked opposition among some conservative sectors of the US public. Many Cuban exiles who would normally support Bush have been antagonized because they cannot provide economic assistance to aging family members. Agricultural interests (from 38 states) which supported Bush are furious at the new restriction on trade. Liberal and conservative enemies of the Cuban revolution who hoped to subvert the revolution via cultural and ideological penetration are upset by the travel and cultural restrictions.

In other words the harsher and more extreme the measures adopted by the Bush Administration against Cuba the greater Washington's isolation. This is true externally as well as internally. Let us examine several illustrations.

The US exploited the jailing of over 70 US paid propagandists, labeling them "political dissidents", initially securing the support of the European Union. A year later, the EU has broken with Washington and renewed and expanded its cultural and economic ties with Cuba.

While the US tightens its trade embargo, Cuban trade and investment ties with China and the rest of Asia, Venezuela and the rest of Latin America, Canada and Europe have expanded and deepened. The US restrictions on family remittances has been weakened by family members sending money via "third countries such as Mexico, Canada, Dominican Republic etc. Canadian, European, Latin American and Asian visitors have topped 2 million annually and new influxes of investment have made up for most of the shortfall from the restrictions on remittances.

Finally Washington's attempts to limit Cuba's access to energy sources after the fall of the USSR have been defeated by the far-reaching trade and investment agreements with the Venezuelan government of President Chavez. The Chavez regime provides Cuba with petrol at subsidized prices in exchange for Cuba providing a vast health and education program for the poor of Venezuela. The Cuban-Venezuelan political and economic ties have undercut US efforts to force the Caribbean and Latin American countries to break with Cuba. As a result of past and present failed policies of directly attacking Cuba, the Bush administration has turned toward destroying Cuba's strategic alliance with the Chavez regime.

The Two Stage Strategy

US strategy toward destroying the Cuban revolution is increasingly following a "two step" approach: first overthrow the Chavez government in Venezuela, cut off the energy supply and trade links and then proceed toward economic strangulation and military attack. The "two step" strategy against Cuba, involves the elaboration of a calibrated action plan to overthrow the Chavez government.

Washington's anti-Chavez efforts up till 2005 have resulted in severe defeats. These efforts have largely been based on an "insider" approach, utilizing the local ruling class, sectors of the army and the corrupt trade union bureaucracy. Not only have Washington's domestic instruments been defeated but they have been severely weakened for future use. Washington's support for the failed military coup resulted in the loss of several hundred counter-revolutionary officers who were forced to resign. Bush's support for the petroleum elite's lockout led to the expulsion of thousands of oil officials allied with Washington. The defeat of the referendum to expel Chavez, mobilized, politicized and radicalized millions of poor Venezuelans and demoralized Washington's middle class supporters. The result of these failed policies has been to turn Washington's attention to an "outsider" strategy: the key to which is incremental military intervention in association with the terrorist Uribe regime in Colombia.

The US strategy against Cuba involves a joint US-Colombian attack of Venezuela backed by internal terrorists and the ruling class. This indirect attack on Cuba, involves complex, external preparation in cooperation with Colombia. First of all Washington and Uribe have greatly strengthened military bases surrounding the Venezuelan border. Secondly "trial military incursions" involving both Colombian military and paramilitary forces occur on a regular basis ­ testing Venezuelan defenses. In 2004 six Venezuelan soldiers were killed, a number of Venezuelan officials were bribed to kidnap a Colombian resistance leader and numerous cross border attacks killing and kidnapping Colombian refugees took place in Venezuela. Thirdly the US has provided nearly $3 billion dollars in military aid to Colombia, tripled the size of its armed forces (to over 275,000), greatly increased its air force combat units (helicopters, fighter bombers), provided advanced military technology and several thousand official and "contracted" military specialists. Fourthly Washington has recruited the Gutierrez regime in Ecuador, invaded Haiti, established military bases in Peru and the Dominican Republic, and has engaged in navy maneuvers just off the Venezuelan coast in preparation for a military attack.Fifthly Colombia (under US tutelage) signed a joint military-intelligence cooperation agreement on December 18, 2004 with the Venezuelan Ministry of Defense, providing the US with "inside information" and serving as a possible source of infiltration of the Venezuelan Armed Forces to counter pro-Cuban officers.


The Triangular Strategy

The US is relying on a "triangular strategy" to overthrow the Chavez regime: A military invasion from Colombia, US intervention (air and sea attacks plus special forces to assassinate key officials) and an internal uprising by infiltrated terrorists and military traitors, supported by key media, financial and petrol elites. The strategy involves seizing state power, expelling the Cuban aid missions and breaking all agreements with Cuba.

Prior to this concerted military strategy, Washington has designed a propaganda campaign against the Cuban-Venezuelan alliance, Venezuela's attempts to rectify the enormous military deficit with Colombia by purchasing defensive arms, and raising the specter of Venezuela's "subversion" of Latin American regimes. The key to US policy is to prevent Venezuela from joining Cuba as an alternative social welfare regime to the US neo-liberal clients in Latin America. US aggression escalates as the agrarian reform expands, Venezuela prepares self-defense and Chavez diversifies trade and investment ties. Cuba's powerful support for Venezuela's social welfare programs has consolidated mass support for the Chavez regime and is a main base of defense for the radicalization of the process.

As Venezuela confronts Washington's threats, it consolidates its ties with Cuba. The fate of the two projects become intertwined and bound together in a single common anti-imperialist alliance, despite the differences in social systems and political composition.


Strengths of the Venezuelan-Cuban Alliance

The US "external" strategy toward Venezuela and its "two step" approach toward Cuba face powerful limitations.

First of all the Colombian regime faces a powerful internal opposition: 20,000 veteran guerrilla fighters and millions of Colombians sympathetic to the agrarian reform program, independent foreign policy and political freedoms of the Chavez regime. It is very dangerous for Uribe to start a "two-front war" which might open the way to attacks on the principle cities including Bogotá.

The US is heavily tied down militarily in Iraq and puts a higher priority on war against Iran/Syria than Venezuela. The US intervention would be limited to air and sea attacks and Special Forces.

The war would mobilize millions of Venezuelans in a war of national liberation, defending their own land ­ homes, neighborhoods, families and friends. Moreover popular liberation wars radicalize the population and frequently lead to the confiscation of counter-revolutionary property. A failed invasion could push Venezuela toward greater socialization of the economy and eliminate the domestic elite.

Moreover, US economy and multi-nationals stand to lose a reliable supply of petroleum in a tight market and billions of dollars in investments ­ weakening the US position in the global energy market.

An invasion would likely to lead to a joint military defense pact between Venezuela and Cuba, which would counter-US policy in the Caribbean. Such an invasion would also be likely to provoke major unrest and instability throughout Latin America, threaten US clients and undermining neo-liberal regimes and policies.

For all these reasons, Washington's attempts to pursue the external, two step policy toward Venezuela and Cuba, while extremely dangerous to both countries, could have a boomerang effect, setting in its wake a new wave of anti-imperialist struggles throughout the region.

Up to now the escalation of US diplomatic and economic aggression against Cuba has led to the greater isolation of the US in Europe and throughout the Third World. An escalation of military aggression against Venezuela as part of a "two-step strategy" against Cuba could have even more severe consequences ­ the expansion of the revolutionary struggle in Colombia and the rest of Latin America.

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in brazil and argentina and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed). He can be reached at: jpetras [at] binghamton.edu

http://counterpunch.org/
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Steve
You can put a dress on a pig, and it's still a pig. Cuba is a police state, with no political or social freedoms. Chavez is trying to turn Venezuela into another police state. He has already closed Jewish schools, stolen land from the owners without compensation, sent his goon squads to intimidate and threaten opponents of his "government". Real nice guy. A thug is thug is a thug. Good riddance, and the sooner the better - if Venezuela ever has another election that isn't rigged like the last one.
by not a chavista
Uhh, Chavez has won three elections and turned back an attempted US-backed coup.

I'd be curious to see some supporting evidence for your charge that Chavez has closed down Jewish schools.

by Steve
You actually believe that Chavez won those "elections"? I don't. Never underestimate the power of a police state and it's goons to "win" elections. As for the Jewish schools, it was all over CNN and the NYT. Google it.
by Sefarad

And from time to time unionists are found tortured and killed on roadsides.
by Sefarad
The government of Hugo Chávez should carry out a thorough and impartial investigation into the abduction and murder of four opposition supporters whose bodies were found on February 16 and 17, Human Rights Watch said today.
February 19, 2003 Press Release


http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu

----

http://www.csis.org/press/ma_2004_0408.pdf
§?
by ?
I wouldnt be surprised if Chavez didnt have the cleanest human rights record in the world, but US attempts to overthow and smear him have nothing to do with that. Chavez probably has a similar human rights revcord to most other S American governments but he sides with Castro and Iran against the US and thats why the US will do anything it can to get him out of office. A focus on slight shortcommings can be used as an explanation to explain why some "domestic" group just happened to assasinate or over throw him (as the US did in Haiti). If the US doesnt want to wait for the next election the only chancex they have to get rid of Chavez is to build up bad press and then hope that enough people around teh world believe it wasnt the US behind an assasination that there isnt much repercussion. The US managed to get Aristide out of office despire his election (Which was fair, the dispute was over elections in the to Parilament) and somehow even got the corporate press to see the current unelected leader who is shooting many former Aristide supporters (and has many others in jail) as democratic despite there never having been an election. The press is so subserviant to Bush these days tey should be able to do the same with Chavez.
by not a chavista
The first election back in the late 90s Chavez won overwhelmingly. Nobody disputes that.

We started hearing "concern" about democracy in Venezuela shortly after he took power, not based upon the legitimacy of the elections, but because he didn't govern at the whim of the US. There's a long history of the US voicing concern about democracy when shit isn't going how US corporations would like, and absolute silence when shit is.

Since the late 90s, Chavez has won two more referendums on his government. The last one was certified by Jimmy Carter election monitoring group and many others who were on hand. It's interesting to contrast this with the recent election in Iraq, held under conditions of foreign occupation, where the "monitors" did there monitoring from the safety of Jordan!

The fact of the matter is that Chavez has a very large base of support in Venezuela. That's what's apt to happen when the government makes an authentic effort to channel resources to the poor in a country where 80% of the people are poor.

As to your claim of oppression of Jews in Venezuela: the evidence seems pretty flimsy. The charges are based mainly on extrapolations from the fact that Chavez has expressed interest in opening trade with Libya and Iran and not upon systematic, government-sanctioned actions against Jews in Venezuela. Indeed, one of the web-sites I unearthed that's dedicated to spot-lighting anti-semitism around the world refers to Venezuela as the one of most hospitable countries for Jews in Latin America.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$330.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network