Trump has made more threats against the Maduro government at the United Nations, continuing a pattern of nearly 20 years of the US Empire’s insistence that the popular Bolivarian movement should have no voice.
Abby Martin sits down with Professor Chris Gilbert in Caracas, Venezuela, to learn about the rise of the Chavez movement, its role in society and the threats it faces from the US-backed opposition.
Gilbert is a historian and professor of political science at the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela. His articles on the struggle in Venezuela appear on CounterPunch.org and more.
The Birth of Chavismo & Its Fight to Survive in Venezuela
Trump hit the lowest moment of his presidency when he blamed “both sides” for the murder of anti-racist protester Heather Heyer in Charlottesville. But understanding how a neo-Nazi sympathizer got into the White House requires breaking apart the myth underneath the glorified story of the foundation of the United States in 1776.
Dr. Gerald Horne is the Chair of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston and is the author of over 20 books on slavery and the Black liberation movement; most recently “The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States”.
From 1776 to Trump – White Mobs, Racist Heroes & Hidden History
In a recent and disturbing live press conference, Donald Trump blamed “both sides” for the events leading up to the murder of protester Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Virginia. He went so far as to remark that the press had been treating neo-Nazis and white nationalists “absolutely unfairly” in the media coverage of the events, adding that doing so is “changing history” and “changing culture.”
Neo-Nazis and white nationalists gathered in Charlottesville to protest the removal of Confederate monuments, undeniably blatant symbols of white supremacy. But unknown to most of these protesters is the fact that most monuments were constructed long after the Civil War. In fact, the many of these statues were constructed during the height of the Civil Rights movement and the Jim Crow era — a significant point in history when their construction was clearly meant to send a strong political message.
Why is the country littered with these symbols of white supremacy and how did we end up with an unashamed neo-Nazi sympathizer in the White House? Abby Martin breaks down the myths and misrepresentations surrounding the creation of the United States, with Dr. Gerald Horne, Chair of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston. Dr. Horne is the author of more than 20 books on slavery and the Black liberation movement.
To contrast the human rights realities, Abby Martin interviews human rights attorney Dan Kovalik, who has recently returned from both countries.
Kovalik has done extensive work in Latin America and was an observer to the recent Constituent Assembly election in Venezuela. He also serves as the Associate General Counsel of the United Steelworkers union, teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Law, and is the author of the new book “The Plot to Scapegoat Russia.”
Use of force by Venezuela’s Bolivarian National Guard has become a regular sight in corporate media, and those actions are used by foreign powers as justification for intervention.
With very real possibilities of another US-backed coup, Abby Martin interviews the head of Venezuela’s Armed Forces and Minister of Defense, General Padrino López. They discuss the National Guard’s control of food and medicine, condemnations over use of force, and the threat of US military intervention.
Head of Venezuela National Guard on Insurgency & US Threats
Images of the Venezuelan National Guard using force against protesters have been plastered across the front pages of media outlets around the world for months, with the United States and its allies using these images as justification for foreign intervention in Venezuela. But absent from this constant media coverage are the violent attacks on civilians and state forces perpetrated by the opposition.
Most recently, on July 28th armed and masked opposition members issued a call via video for National Guard members to stage a coup against Venezuela’s democratically elected government. On July 30th there was a roadside bomb attack on a National Guard convoy. Through the lens of the corporate media the National Guard is oppressive and violent, but how much violence has the National Guard been responsible for and are they operating outside of the powers granted to them by their constitution?
While in Venezuela investigating the country’s economic and political struggles, Abby Martin met and spoke with the head of Venezuela’s Armed Forces and Minister of Defense, General Padrino López. They discussed demands for him to be tried for crimes against humanity, the National Guard’s control of food and medicine distribution, condemnations over use of force including protester deaths and the threat of U.S. military intervention.
According to General López, Venezuela’s constitution establishes three missions for the military which include military defense, maintaining order and, unique to Venezuela, engaging in active participation in the development of the country. He denies the accusation that military control of food and medicine distribution is evidence of a police state. The “control” is not via militarization or occupation, it is merely supervision. For example, the military supervises where medicine goes, confirming it is given to patients in hospitals rather than being hoarded to later be sold at exorbitant prices.
“The right to protest is printed in the constitution and we respect it very profoundly.”
The National Guard of Venezuela respects the right to peacefully protest. They are obligated, however, to become involved when the opposition engages in violence. There is a state duty to protect protesters and third parties. Unlike in the United States, where it has become commonplace for police and those in uniform to emerge unscathed from controversy involving death and violence against U.S. citizens, National Guard members in Venezuela engaging in violence or working outside of their given orders are held accountable.
“All we want is to be free, all we want is to be independent, all we want is to be a sovereign country. We just want to be a happy, united nation with it’s own national spirit. If that’s a threat to the United States, then we will be a threat.”
During Obama’s presidency, the U.S. government named Venezuela a top threat to U.S. national security. In fact, Venezuela has been referred to as the top threat to the U.S. in all of the Western hemisphere. The Trump administration is continuing the battle cries and has gone so far as to slap Maduro with sanctions on July 31st after a successful Constituent Assembly, referring to the process as a “sham.” How can a country like Venezuela possibly be a threat to a military and economic superpower to like the United States?
On July 30th, Venezuelans will elect a people’s body called the “Constituent Assembly” comprised of hundreds of representatives across the country with the power to redraft the constitution.
U.S. politicians, press and opposition in Venezuela are calling the process a “coup” that should be boycotted by all.
Abby Martin addresses the criticisms with Head of the Presidential Commission to oversee the Constituent Assembly process, Elias Jaua, speaks to supporters and participants of the Assembly, interviews historian Chris Gilbert and explains what is at stake in Venezuela if the social programs instated under Chavez are terminated by the opposition.
Constituent Assembly Dictatorship or Democracy in Venezuela?
On July 30th Venezuelans will elect a large citizen body called the Constituent Assembly. This group of 537 Venezuelans, representing multiple sectors and municipalities, will have the power to redraft the constitution. The main charge currently being levied at the government by the opposition is that it is a dictatorship, claiming the Constituent Assembly is a power grab while U.S. politicians and press allege it to be part of a coup attempt. In reality, the democratically elected assembly will only successfully draft constitutional amendments after all Venezuelans are presented a chance to vote on the changes.
What exactly is the Constituent Assembly and in what ways does it pose a threat to Venezuela’s democracy? Abby Martin traveled Venezuela to find out.
While in Venezuela, Abby witnessed numerous street actions held to generate support for the Assembly and attended two public mass meetings explaining how Venezuelans can be involved in the democratic process– Maduro calls it a peaceful solution to the recent violence. Those putting their hope in this democratic process are calling for a peaceful dialogue with the opposition. In stark contrast, opposition leaders are making charged statements, claiming that “Venezuela will be lost” if the Constituent Assembly is successful. Outside players are not hesitant to get involved. In fact, Marco Rubio, vocal in his threats of issuing sanctions on the country if the Assembly proceeds, claims the process is a theft of democracy.
Supporters of Venezuela’s current government are prepared to amend the constitution in a way that protects current programs that are vital to the well-being of numerous Venezuelans, especially those who are struggling. This massive movement places emphasis on the person and the well-being of the family– it is “a revolution of peace, revolution of love” according to one supporter interviewed.
The opposition has gone so far as to respond with additional violence by targeting participants in the Assembly. Recently, on July 10th, a Chavista running as a delegate was murdered when he was shot 8 times. They claim the assembly could rewrite the laws to exclude their preferred parties and instead of boosting their own candidates that support their platform, they are calling for all Venezuelans to boycott this constitutionally allowed political process.
The current constitution of Venezuela makes it possible to active the Constituent Assembly when necessary. All candidates are independent and not nominated by political parties. The election process is seemingly fair and encompasses a vast array of different cultural and economic sectors, with 50% of participants chosen based on location and 50% chosen by secret vote in 8 sectors that include workers, students, indigenous, employers, disabled, seniors, farmers and fisherfolk for a total of 6,120 candidates.
“Revolutionary men and women are invisible to foreign media.”
Despite this fact, the specifics of the process, and the large numbers of government supports eager to participate in the Assembly, are largely absent from the media. The fact that the current constitution emphasizes family and aims to provide a means for all families to live a dignified life is rarely addressed or acknowledged.
The programs that many Venezuelans are eager to protect via the Assembly are called “missions.” There are over two dozen of these missions that were created by Chavez and there is a valid fear the opposition will repeal these programs if they gain control of the government. The missions provide necessary tools and support for Venezuelans from all walks of life. For example, Mission Sucre provides free higher education, Mission Musica provides musical instruments and lessons to youth, there is a mission to provide free healthcare for the low income community and another mission that has provided 1.6 million homes for low income Venezuelans. These missions have sustained the revolutionary spirit of Venezuela for the past 18 years and they will not be given up on without a fight.
These programs have led to a dramatic drop in poverty in Venezuela. Poverty fell from 43% to 26%– with extreme poverty falling from 17% to less than 7%. In addition to the drops in poverty rates, college attendance more than quadrupled, grade school attendance doubled and infant mortality dropped a shocking 50%. Many Venezuelans are rightfully fearful that these statistics will shift under opposition control.
The opposition has vocalized their own plans for missions, some of which include privatizing the programs. While humans are at the center of the current government model laid out by Chavez, money is seemingly at the center of the opposition model. There are numerous examples the world over for why this is not a successful strategy. Despite frequent invitations to be a part of this political process, the opposition continues to reject the idea. If the majority of society supports the opposition, as they claim, there should be nothing to fear in the opposition’s participation.
So it seems the Constituent Assembly does not pose a threat to Venezuela’s democracy at all. What it does do is pose a threat to the increase in capitalism and privatization that the opposition, the bourgeois class, is seeking. Do not be mistaken– a class war has erupted in Venezuela and the opposition is on the wrong side of history.
