The Monroe Doctrine became the ideological basis
for US hegemony in the region, justifying the
violation of the rights of nations of
self-determination, as was the case for
Venezuela in 2002 and since then.
By Michelle Ellner
On April 11, 2002, there was an attempted
coup against President Hugo Chavez's
democratically elected government in Venezuela.
Chavez had prioritized programs to improve
living conditions for those who were previously
unrepresented, and established an independent
foreign policy in favor of the nation's
interests.
Chavez’s stance conflicted with the Monroe
Doctrine of 1823, which laid the groundwork for
the use of U.S. military force and other forms
of intervention to oppose any government, be it
foreign or regional, that jeopardized U.S.
interests. The Monroe Doctrine became the
ideological basis for US hegemony in the region,
justifying the violation of the rights of
nations of self-determination, as was the case
for Venezuela in 2002 and since then.
With Washington's backing, Venezuela's
pro-Washington elite, high-ranking military
officials, leaders of the traditional labor
organizations, the Catholic Church hierarchy,
and the nation's chamber of commerce had
embarked on ousting a popular government. The
Chávez administration had redefined the rules of
democracy by drafting a new Constitution, one
that was voted on by the people, and that
allowed for greater popular participation. The
Chavez government was also reasserting its
sovereignty over its vast oil wealth by ending
the process of privatization of PDVSA, the state
oil company. In September 2000, It organized a
summit meeting in Caracas of OPEC oil-producing
countries to stabilize prices at higher levels
to increase the country’s main source of income.
Washington’s main opposition to Chávez's
foreign policy came when he met with OPEC
leaders considered to be U.S. adversaries,
including the governments of Libya, Iraq and
Iran in preparation for the 2000 OPEC summit. He
met again with Saddam Hussein and Muhammar
Ghaddafi the following year, and spoke out
against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan as a
reaction to 9/11, saying "You can't combat
terror with more terror."
An intelligence brief dated April 6, 2002 — a
mere five days before the coup plot would be
carried out — explicitly states that a coup was
set to take place.
Under previous Venezuelan governments,
neoliberal reforms had increased poverty and the
police and military had used violent repression,
but the U.S. still perceived Venezuela as a
flourishing democracy. Nevertheless, upon
Chavez's ascension, the fundamental premise of
respecting an elected leader's mandate was
swiftly ignored by the United States. A State
Department
cable leaked right before the coup
revealed the dissident military factions’
intentions to detain and overthrow Chavez,
exhibiting advanced knowledge and direct
involvement with the conspiracy.
On April 10, a day before the coup, U.S.
Ambassador Charles Shapiro spoke to the press
after meeting the Mayor of Caracas and when
asked if the
U.S. supported President Chavez, his
reply was: “We support democracy and the
constitutional framework” and he advised U.S.
citizens in Venezuela to “be careful”. The
Caracas Mayor, by his side, said: “If he doesn’t
rule like a democrat, Chavez will leave office
sooner than later.”
What came after was a wave of violence and
repression that led to the arrest of Chavez, the
killing of 19 people and injuring of over
hundred, and a business leader swearing himself
in as President, followed by a visit from
Ambassador Shapiro. All according to regular
Monroe Doctrine protocol, thus far.
Yet the one factor not taken into
consideration: the will of the Venezuelan
people.
On April 13th, the people of Venezuela made
history and made a dent on the Monroe Doctrine’s
record. Community leaders and organizers,
despite facing police repression and a corporate
media blackout, took the streets to
demand that Chavez was brought back to office.
Military officers and troops, loyal to the
Venezuelan Constitution that the people had
given themselves, rose up against commanding
officers and demanded that Chavez be reinstated
as the legitimate President. This joint civilian
and military popular rebellion to save
Venezuelan democracy made history and overturned
the Monroe Doctrine formula that had
successfully overthrown other independent Latin
American leaders in the past, such as Jacobo
Arbenz, Salvador Allende, Joao Goulart, Juan
Bosch and Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
The question we must ask on an anniversary
like this is why the United States continues to
insist on a 200-year-old doctrine that has its
back turned to the aspirations of the peoples of
Latin America and the Caribbean? Why does the
U.S. government continue to promote violence,
human rights violations, and undemocratic
governance that we would not tolerate on our own
soil? Why do we continue to make people suffer
in places like Venezuela by sanctioning the
entire country for standing up for their
self-determination? Wouldn’t we, as a people,
expect solidarity and respect for standing up
for our own democratic ideals?
In the end, the Monroe Doctrine is condemned
to failure because people’s determination to be
free will always prevail. Why not turn, instead,
to a policy of mutual cooperation, of respect
for Latin American and Caribbean internal
affairs? Why not convince rather than coerce,
collaborate rather than take advantage? Why do
we still not understand that the instability,
violence, and exploitation we promote in our
region backfires and leads to the migration
challenges we face today in our own country?
In Venezuela now, there’s a popular saying
that refers to the day of the 2002 coup and the
day–two days later–that Chavez was reinstated:
Every 11th has its 13th. It is a significant
sign of the new Latin America and Caribbean that
has emerged in the 21st Century, a region that
wants to bury 200-year-old interventionism. For
every Monroe Doctrine intervention, there will
be an April 13th rebellion for sovereignty and
dignity.
Michelle Ellner is a Latin America
campaign coordinator of CODEPINK.
Views expressed in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
Reader financed- No
Advertising - No Government Grants -
No Algorithm - This
Is Independent