A scandalous commentary in the Washington Times … by a supporter of the coup in Venezuela!

We knew that the Washington Times’ editorial line on Venezuela was one of rabid opposition to Chavez based on all sorts of unfounded allegations. But an article published today in the Commentary section is really scandalous, even for the Times. The piece, under the title “Hugo Chavez, imperialist”

(http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060305-093318-9516r.htm) by Stephen Johnson, starts by comparing Venezuela’s democratically elected president to Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, North Korea’s ruler Kim Jong-il and to Uganda’s brutal dictator Idi Amin. The article then repeats the usual unproven allegations about Chavez’s support for the FARC guerrillas in Colombia, attacks on property and democratic rights, etc.

One can see that what Johnson really cannot stomach is the impact that the Bolivarian revolution is having abroad, Chavez’s opposition to the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement and his offer to provide cheap oil to poor communities in the United States, not to mention the emergence of Bolivarian Circles and other organisations in solidarity with Venezuela in the United States itself. He is also on record opposing Venezuelan help for the victims of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

But who is Stephen Johnson, presented to us by the Washington Times as a “a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation”? Well, according to his biography, as published in the right-wing conservative Heritage Foundation site (http://www.myheritage.org/Experts/StephenJohnson.asp) he “served as Assistant Air Force Attaché in Honduras” and “has lived in El Salvador, Honduras and Uruguay”. After that he worked in the State Department “at the bureaus of Inter-American Affairs and Public Affairs”. In the 1980s the US embassy in Honduras was the centre of coordination for Washington’s support of the contras in Nicaragua and the dirty war operations in the whole of Central America. The US ambassador to Honduras at that time was none other than John Negroponte, now Director of National Intelligence in the Bush administration.

Stephen Johnson also does not hide his support for the undemocratic military coup that briefly overthrew president Chavez on April 11, 2002. In an article titled “After Chavez: Supporting Democracy In Venezuela” (http://www.revistainterforum.com/english/articles/041502artprin_en1.html), written in the capacity of Heritage Foundation analyst, he openly says: “Above all, Washington must realize that what happened in Venezuela was not a coup by a small group, but a broad, public rejection of policies that were leading Venezuela into economic chaos, into closer relations with rogue regimes such as Iraq and Cuba, and away from liberty and economic opportunity that, at heart, most Venezuelans are striving for.”

Unfortunately for Mr Johnson, most Venezuelans support president Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution and came out on the streets and defeated the right-wing coup of Carmona in less than 48 hours.

Later on, retreating from such open statements of support for a military coup, he came out in support of the theory that it had all been an “auto-coup”, a theory promoted by the looniest sections of the Venezuelan opposition. In a testimony before the US Congress Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, entitled “U.S. Diplomacy Toward Latin America: A Legacy of Uneven Engagement (wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/109/joh072705.pdf), Stephen Johnson says this about the coup in Venezuela: “In 2002, Chávez took advantage of a popular uprising against him to temporarily disappear from office, smoke out his enemies, and return consolidating his grip on power,” (my emphasis). But then again he thinks that “the best example of a strategic agenda toward Latin America occurred during the Reagan Administration”. Why would that be? Because, according to Johnson: “It sought to roll back Soviet advances in the hemisphere, establish stable democracies, and introduce economic reforms.”

From these lines we can get a more precise idea of what Johnson’s concepts of “liberty”, “economic opportunity”, “free markets” and “stable democracies” are. What he means is the rule of the multinationals and governments following the diktats of Washington. And, if this is not accepted by the people of these countries, it does not matter, people like Johnson, who know what they “are striving for, at heart”, will advise the funding of gangs of murderous cut-throats and the installing of dictatorial regimes, all in the name of “democratic reforms” and “fledging markets”.

Stephen Johnson’s article is part of a concerted effort to demonise Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and prepare the ground for “regime change”. The hysterical tone of the piece and the ridiculous character of the “arguments” he uses, show that they are losing the debate, but this does not make them less dangerous. Now more than ever “Hands Off Venezuela”!

You can write politely worded letters to the Editor of the Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/contact-us/)