South American Subversion

Most of us up here in gringo-land know little to nothing about Venezuelan Hugo Chavez, which is one of the reasons that articles like this one are both hugely important while also somewhat misleading.

The reason I find this topic particularly concerning is because Latin America is home to a great number of fantastic resources that we, traditionally, have either usurped directly or paid a great deal for. The problem here is that because the vast majority of Americans are ignorant of both Latin American history as well as current political climate, they're much more likely to take up the viewpoints that are purported in news organizations like the New York Times.

So when the Times reports, as it did in the article linked above, that the U.S. is pouring money into Venezuela for the purposes of promoting "democracy," people are fairly likely to believe it, because they don't have much in the way of alternative information. There's nothing necessarily to contrast it, so why question it?

For my part, the only reason I started looking a little bit deeper was because I wasn't quite sure why so many Latins are pissed off at Shrub. There are plenty of reasons for us to be mad at him that I could list off, but South Americans? So I read more about it, did a little research. And this is what gets to me: I found out a number of very relevant things that are never mentioned or only briefly touched on in articles like the one in the Times.

For one thing, there's a damn good reason that Chavez has had such success in both the polls and past elections in his country- he's poured tons and tons of money into socialistic programs for the Venezuelan people, which are all aimed at elevating the general living standard. Peasants who had never before visited a doctor received checkups and medicine, children who previously had no hope of attending school were enrolled in classes, and so on. Chavez has greatly increased the quality of life for the average Venezuelan, and that is precisely why he's so popular.

And one of the reasons the Bush administration considers him such a threat is because he's an empowering figure to Latinos, an icon that proves that Latin countries don't have to be economically subservient to the U.S., which most of them have been for centuries. If Chavez's influence continues to spread (and it is- he's solidified alliances with not only South American countries but also with China, Russia, Iran, and is working on deals with other nations), he'll constitute a serious threat to American economic dominance around the globe.

But that's never mentioned in articles like the one that ran in the Times. Instead, the author concentrates on the rhetoric flying back and forth between Chavez and the Shrub administration, and focuses on the question of whether or not the U.S. is trying to subvert Chavez.

The author even acknowledges that some of the U.S. money being spent is generally acceptable to Chavez supporters, but also notes that much of it is highly questionable, especially because aside from some vague euphamisms, the U.S. won't reveal where it's being sent to or exactly how it's being used.

Other projects remain so vague as to raise concern among Chavistas, such as a $47,459 grant for a ''democratic leadership campaign,'' $37,614 for citizen meetings to discuss a ''shared vision'' for society, or $56,124 to analyze Venezuela's new constitution of 1999. All went to unidentified recipients.

This is the kicker, though-

USAID said revealing more of their identities would be an ''unwarranted invasion of personal privacy'' that could endanger the recipients, saying some have been questioned for 12 hours at a time by the Venezuelan secret police.

Yeah. An "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Never mind that our own citizens are under surveillance by the shrubbies, in case someone from Saudi Arabia decides to make a phone call. As the author himself even notes,

''It's very hard to accept an innocent directing of those funds,'' said Bill Monning, a law professor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California. ''We would scream bloody murder if any outside force were interfering in our internal political system.''

But the double standard obviously doesn't bother us, because we're only interested in democracy, right? Ha. That's a laugh. It's common knowledge that the CIA were the ones who backed the 2002 coup that displaced Chavez for a few days, before popular demand forced his would-be successor out of office and put Chavez back into power. And yet we have the audacity to claim that we're only interested in helping "the people."

If anyone reading this wants to send me to Caracas, please feel free. I'd love to send back some dispatches from the heart of socialist country.

One thing I don't know about Venezuela is what they drink. Do they make their own beer? Or do they import?

Fuck it. I'll take some huevos rancheros and a Sol. Extra Cholula.