Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (Photo: Bernardo Londoy)
It’s no secret that U.S. media loathed the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Much of that was purely political; sure, Chavez could have given shorter speeches and been nicer to his political opponents–but it’s hard to imagine that would have mattered much to, say, the Washington Post editorial board.
One thing that turned up constantly in Chavez coverage over the years was his suspicion that the United States government was looking to undermine his rule. As a Washington Post news article (1/10/13) put it:
A central ideological pillar of Chavez’s rule over 14 years has been to oppose Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington, which he accuses of trying to destabilize his government.
“I think they really believe it, that we are out there at some level to do them ill,” said Charles Shapiro, president of the Institute of the Americas, a think tank in San Diego.
As ambassador to Venezuela from 2002 to 2004, Shapiro met with Chavez and other high- ranking officials, including [Vice President Nicolas] Maduro. But the relationship began to fall apart, with Chavez accusing the United States of supporting a coup that briefly ousted him from power. U.S. officials have long denied the charge.
Shapiro recalled how Maduro made what he called unsubstantiated accusations about CIA activity in Venezuela, without ever approaching the embassy with a complaint. He said that as time went by, the United States became a useful foil for Chavez and most Venezuelan officials withdrew contact.
“A sure way to ruin your career, to become a backbencher, was to become too friendly with the U.S. Embassy,” Shapiro said.
There was, as I argued at the time, plenty of evidence that this was more than a hunch; there was U.S. involvement in the 2002 coup that removed Chavez from power. And a newly released WikiLeaks cable fleshes out some more details about the intentions behind U.S. policy.
As a short write-up in the Hill notes (4/5/13), the 2006 cable,
signed by then-Ambassador William Brownfield, outlines a five-point strategy that includes “penetrating Chavez’s political base,” “dividing Chavismo,” “protecting vital U.S. business” and “isolating Chavez internationally.” Those goals are to be obtained by strengthening “democratic institutions,” according to the cable.
As we know demonizing is always the standard distraction from the active subversion being perpetrated against any leader who puts the interest of his country above that of the acquisitive transnationals, amply aided and abetted by their military. Usually such subversion is common knowledge in the country, no matter how well disguised.
An earlier FAIR article dis provided examples of the collusion between the media and the government, irrespective of the government’s nefarious activities.
The growth of a blog like this will further diminish the relevance of the increasingly discredited media.
I have no doubt that any US leader worth his salt, or with half a brain- would NEVER of throw in with Mr Chavez.In fact they would of hampered his every move as a matter of course.This would be because ideologically there is no middle ground here.He was seen as what he was…..a fake.Mr socialist ,who cares for the poor,and fights the great oppressor indeed.Like all such leaders of the people- he died a billionaire,who lived a lavish lifestyle.Mother Teresa he was not.
m.e.: “Like all such leaders of the people- he died a billionaire,who lived a lavish lifestyle.Mother Teresa he was not.”
This is an article of faith to the far right — no evidence needed.
A truthteller you are not.
this is one conspiracy theory i would believe but what’s new, we’ve been clumsily meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations for decades or even centuries. unstable governments create a vacuum that corporations cab exploit for profit (looting).