The N.Y. Times’ Support of U.S.-Backed Coups in Latin America
truthdig.com
truthdig.com
The article assumes that Maduro is a legitimate President. That is simply not true, there is solid evidence of plenty of fraud on the last election, the rule of the law is long gone in there, the justice courts are puppets of the regime, the legislative is silenced by force.
What is at stake here is just whether the military keep supporting the caudillo Maduro or not. Democracy is out of this game already.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elecciones_parlamentarias_de_V...
The opposition won the elections, 112 to 55 MP, which, AFAIK, are also electors. There was a supposed fraud on a few of them, which, on the other hand, was poorly substantiated, and very likely fake on its own.
Sin embargo, apenas una semana después de las declaraciones anteriores, el TSJ difundió oficialmente que había aceptado 7 denuncias de impugnaciones que afectaban a un total de 8 diputados electos para representar a los estados Amazonas, Aragua y Yaracuy,,111 de las cuales 6 fueron posteriormente declaradas improcedentes112 y la séptima aceptada como procedente, consecuentemente siendo declarado por el TSJ que se ordenaba la "suspensión" de los actos de totalización de votos y proclamación de resultados de la elección parlamentaria en todos los circuitos del estado Amazonas,113 afectando a tres diputados electos por la MUD (uno de ellos de la representación indígena por la región sur) y un diputado del PSUV elegido por votación lista.114
Supreme court, nominated by Maduro, then prevents MP from taking oath, which, in effect, makes the assembly non-functional. Maduro then orders the supreme court to install him as president, one more time.
If there was a coup, it was a judicial one, by Maduro, in 2015.
Do you think that the average American can accurately asses who is the proper president of Venezuela using only the word of the government and the press?
We know the current administration is packed with ideologues; many of whom are veterans of the Latin American "Dirty Wars" of the 1980s. I don't think we can trust the government on this one.
The "click bait" article, which is actually well cited, makes the case that the press is almost always in favor of regime-change in Latin America.
So I will ask again, do you think that US Americans are knowledgeable enough about Latin America to know what is best for Latin America?
I don't know, I am Latin American (from Brazil), not US American.
The current administration has nefarious intentions for Venezuela. They want to turn it into a more compliant, Banana Republic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
In fact, there isn't. If there is, please provide supporting evidence. Since we're on the subject of the New York Times, here[1] is the closest example I can find, which resorts to vague, unsubstantiated insinuations that voters were "pressured" despite historically low turnout.
As you indicate, the military supports Maduro. There is no reason to believe this will change. The putative interim 'leader' Juan Guaidó was relatively unknown until this coup attempt, has no constitutional mandate to lead, and has no traction with the Venezuelan state. He received an astounding zero percent of the vote in the last election.
Efforts by the US's famously free press to portray otherwise have sunk to desperately lower stabs at 'clickbait' than the linked article. A few hours ago, NPR published the sensationalist headline "High-Ranking General Rejects Maduro, Who Proposes Earlier Parliamentary Elections"[2]. Eight paragraphs later, we get this hilariously sunken lede: "Although hundreds of generals serve in the Venezuelan military, the announcement represents a victory for Guaidó, NPR's Philip Reeves reports."
None of this is to defend to current leadership of Venezuela - it is disastrous. Neither would I defend the leadership of Saudi Arabia, which doesn't even _pretend_ to have "democratic order." But these are not problems to be decided by the US, the media class, or the "international community." Don't take it from me - ask an Iraqi.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/20/world/americas/venezuela-...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2019/02/02/690944320/high-ranking-genera...
It spent more space on the nytimes making a bad call about Iran in the 50s, then on Maduro or Venezuela.
They tried to depose a lot of legitimate leaders. (agreed)
A couple of times the nytimes argued it was the right thing to do when it probably wasn't. (I'll take their word for it.)
But none of the article argues that Maduro is a legitimate leader. And I don't know if I buy the argument that because we tried to depose a lot of legitimate leaders in the past with illegitimate ones we should now support an illegitimate leader instead of the legitimate one.
Let's run down a list of the recent US interventions.
Russian Election of 1996: The US helped rig Russia's election in 1996. Electing Yeltsin for a second term is what brought in Putin and basically killed Russian democracy. https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-meddling-in-1996-russian-el...
Iraq: 600,000 dead so far.
Libya: It was supposed to turn into a thriving democracy but instead it's now a thriving slave market. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/africa/libya-migrant-auctions...
Yemen: Largest humanitarian crisis in the world.
The list goes on and on. Things don't get better when the US intervenes. Let Venezuela decide it's own fate.
Also, let's not forget the NYTimes cheered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and journalists who merely questioned the Iraq War lost their job at the NYTimes, the Dixie Chicks got blacklisted, etc.
Secondly when they made the wrong call, I bet at least part of the reason was 2002 was a less connected time, and there was more trust in government. So if a bunch of government offficials tell the journalist Chavez is a terrible regime. And you happen to know a handful of anti Chavez individuals in Venezuela the journalist could easily make the wrong call.
Research "the Fourth Estate".
When it comes to military operations, either covert or overt, the media coverage actually has to be considered as part of the operation. For this reason intelligence has to have influence with major media and draw hard lines with respect to certain required propaganda.
People are going to dismiss that as a conspiracy theory especially with regard to the US, but before you do think about it.
Have you ever read about a war where the soldiers were describing their motivation and they talked about strategic objectives? Do soldiers go to war to chanting about "20% More Oil Reserve Control Hoorah!"? No. Because wars involve risking your life and killing others. Because of that, military personnel need moral causes to fight for. If they turn on the news and they start saying that three oil executives are predicting an immediate five percent rise in oil prices if the Venezualan nationalization continues into 2019, is that really going to motivate them to shoot people? No. They need a bad guy. They need to know they are fighting against a bad system and for freedom. It needs to be cut and dry.
From Chile: Allende was declared unconstitutional by the congress. The CIA came into play because the KGB and the Cubans were working here. There was inflation of more than 400%, the communists expropriated and introduced weapons, the country was in ruins and near a civil war.
On Venezuela: The Cubans have there: armed force, agents and intelligence. Besides that it is a Narco State. The economy = people are literally dying of hunger.
Sobre Venezuela: Los Cubanos tienen ahí fuerza armada, agentes e inteligencia. Además de que es un Narco Estado. La economía = las personas literalmente se están muriendo de hambre.
They're either ignorant of the history of US interference in Latin America, or they're ideologues acting in bad faith. I imaging there is also a strong pressure to go-along to get-along that weeds out anyone who would properly push back.
I recommend The Gray Zone Project for a counters-establishment perspective. Like all journalism, you need to know how to read it, but it really does cover foreign policy in a way that NYT cannot. https://grayzoneproject.com/ If you prefer something more tabloid-y I recommend The Canary. They even have US and UK editions. https://www.thecanary.co/us/
How did you miss the fact that virtually every US newspaper has criticized the current president's foreign policy on deep breath Syria, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Canada, South Korea, Russia, most of our allies, etc?
Even before our current president plumbed unheard of depths in foreign policy idiocies, I've long seen criticism of foreign policy. The drone assassination program was a big one. The virtues of the surges in Iraq and Afghanistan was certainly a spirited debate.
> How did you miss the fact that virtually every US newspaper has criticized the current president's foreign policy on deep breath Syria, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Canada, South Korea, Russia, most of our allies, etc?
> Syria
The press criticized the administration for deciding to leave. Even though the Syrian civil war is basically over and the regime won. Obama was criticized for not "doing enough" even though the Syrian Civil War was the largest CIA operation in decades and the opposition was overwhelmingly made up of sectarian death-squads. Don't take my word for it, read what the NYT's Thomas Friedman said in 2017. He argues we should allow ISIS to continue existing so that it might take down the Assad regime. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/opinion/why-is-trump-figh...
> Russia
The liberal press has been criticized the decision not to ramp up a new cold-war with Russia. They attack anyone who opposes more sanctions.
> Iraq
The press uncritically promoted the invasion of Iraq and only turned against it when it started going bad.
> Afghanistan
If the any administration decided to pull out they would be criticized.
How about the West's role in Yemen? You didn't hear anything about that in the Anglo press until recently even though the UN was calling it the worst humanitarian disaster in the world.
I'm not saying the establishment press is always wrong. They serve an important purpose, but on foreign policy in particular their coverage ranges from good(leaving the Iran deal is bad) to awful(uncritical support for Syrian opposition), and sometimes it's just propaganda.