There are many challenges, as well as opportunities, i=
n foreign
relations. Challenges include
language barriers, power structures, religious beliefs, economic structures=
and
motivations, etc. Opportuniti=
es
include establishing trusting relationships, expanding one’s knowledg=
e of
other cultures and people, trade, and peaceful coexistence. While differences between cultures=
can
be vast, those differences can also be rich in meaning and presentation.
The relationship between the United States of America = and Venezuela has, for a number of years, been a relationship of powerful over power-less, profit over poverty, and culturally embedded images of intellect over ignorance. But that relationship has been shaken a bit of late, with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela claiming its own identity, its own sovereignty, and its own power. Through three hundred = years of colonial rule by Spain, and a hundred more years of domination by an eli= te few over the many, Venezuela is now standing firm in its insistence upon self-determination. Long root= s of historical oppression have brought Venezuela, the people of Venezuela, to t= his moment of refusing any longer to succumb to the power structure and images = that have been placed upon them by others. Those images, embedded in both the psyches of the Venezuelan people themselves, as well as in the psyches of the people of the oppressive cultu= re to the north, having pressed upon, nearly suffocating the people and cultur= al identity of Venezuela, are being rejected by the people of Venezuela.
Venezuela falls into the category of being a collective society. A primary considerat= ion of the collective nature of Venezuela is the centuries of colonial oppression = and exploitation, resulting in identity-creating influences being embedded in t= he lives of Venezuelans. The que= stion may be asked whether the collective nature of Venezuela existed prior to the people being dominated, or whether domination created the collective nature= of the culture. The Spaniards ki= lled many of the indigenous peoples of Venezuela, and remaining indigenous peopl= es are by far the smallest percentage of the population. Many slaves were brought = from Africa and their domination predated their presence in Venezuela. Most of the current population are= of a mixed heritage of African slaves and Spaniards. So it doesn’t appear there is necessarily a definitive answer to the question of which came first, the br= utal domination of the Venezuelan people or their so called collective nature. <= /p>
The question of the origination of some so-called collectivist characteristics may be clarified by following the inquiry of t= he “Zapotecan ‘native’s model’ of social harmony in or= der to understand their modes of resolving disputes. But whence the ‘native model?’ Not from a cultural or historical vacuum, and certainly not f= rom a ‘black box’ model of the mind.” (Avruch & Black, 19= 91, p. 33). To answer the question, = Laura Nadar is quoted: “I have come to the conclusion that the harmony tradition stems from Spanish and Christian origin and it is this idea that leads me to propose that the uses of harmony are political…a tool of cultural control introduced by missionaries in colonial and neo-colonial contexts” (Avruch & Black, 1991, p. 33). It may be that VenezuelaR= 17;s collectivistic characteristics are better understood as having resulted from domination.
The attempts that have been made in Venezuela in the p= ast to throw off the chains of domination have failed, in large part due to the po= or economic conditions, high level of illiteracy, and an always-ready successi= on of oppressors all too willing to take control of resources and labor for the benefit of the few. The curre= nt attempt in Venezuela to create/establish a Socialist Participatory Democracy appears different in that it is oriented toward removing resources and political power from the dominating hands of the few, and turning them over= to benefit the many. The vast oil wealth= of Venezuela gives might and muscle to throw off the weight of the oppressive power structure that has been in place for so long. The new constitution handing vast powers and protections over to the citizenry (providing univer= sal health care, education, pensions, etc.) as well as the participatory struct= ure that is evolving, has brought out the populous in support in a dramatic way. The promises of a govern= ment oriented toward the common good of the people may be at hand.
I=
t is in
the very nature of the Venezuelan society to acknowledge brotherhood and wo=
rk
together for the good of the group.
The establishment of Communal Councils, local groups participating in
and making decisions at the local level, as well as effecting decisions at =
the
national level, reaffirms the collectivist nature of Venezuelan culture.
Hofstede (1997) contrasts the economics of Adam Smith,= the “pursuit of self-interest by individuals through an ‘invisible hand’,” and the economics of a collectivist society which inten= ds to benefit the group (p. 355). For Hofstede (1997), “because of the individualist assumptions on which t= hey are based, economic theories as developed in the West are unlikely to apply= to societies in which not individual interest, but group interests prevailR= 21; (p.355). Historically the eco= nomic relations between individualist and collectivist societies have been less a matter of integration and more a matter of ruling power to colony, or maste= r to slave. This may be seen as tr= ue in regard to the relations between the United States of America foreign policy= and corporate interests, and Latin America.
The individualist/capitalist assumptions inherent in t= he economic theories of the West (or North in relation to Venezuela) to which Hofstede refers, favor the benefit of the individualist/capitalists (or the few) at the expense of the collectivists (or the many). Representatives of the capitalist economies have used their privileged and direct approaches to take advantag= e of the collectivist groups. Prov= iding trinkets in exchange for land, pennies in exchange for labor (or slavery), = the resources in collectivist lands have been extracted for profit for the capi= talists with little or no benefit to the domestic people in those countries themselves. Physical resistan= ce to capitalist domination has been futile for the most part, due to the superior weaponry = of capitalists which is designed for attack and conquer, versus the collectivists’ t= ools designed primarily for hunting and group preservation.
In Venezuela, 300 years of Spanish domination came to = an end under the leadership of Simon Bolívar. The Liberator freed the Venezuelan people from direct rule by Spain, and he had a vision of bringing the count= ries of Latin America together as a united group. His efforts in that regard failed = to come to fruition. Eventually Venezuela, the land that Bolívar saved from the barbarous domination= by Spain, fell under the control of the elite few in Venezuela. The people of Venezuela were once = again under domination and they suffered such domination under various military a= nd elitist dictators for many years to follow.
The social structure of subordination to a dominant gr= oup or culture has, through hundreds of years of experience, seemingly been embedd= ed in the lives and worldview of the Venezuelan collectivist society. The general characteristics of subordination may be applicable to the Venezuelan society in years past, as those characteristics “form a certain familiar cluster: submissiveness, passivity, docilit= y, dependency, lack of initiative, inability to act, to decide, to think, and = the like. In general, this cluster includes qualities more characteristic of children than adults—immaturity, weakness, helplessness. If subordinates adopt these characteristics, they are considered well-adjusted” (Baker Miller, 19= 95, p. 60). While some of the above characteristics could be construed as being components of a group due to its collectivistic nature (as with the brief mention of harmony above), = that would be to ignore the historical fact and effects of domination in that cu= lture. To mistake defeat in the face of domination, for a propensity for harmony, could be such construal. As Charles Hardy (2007) stat= es in his memoir of the Venezuelan Democratic Revolution, “One of the first things that I heard when I came to the country was, ‘We Venezuelans a= re lazy’…. I gradually discovered that this mind-set was an excell= ent way to keep a people oppressed. As factory workers and domestic help heard the saying repeated over and over, = they began to accept the idea as true even if it wasn’t” (p.14). To attempt to resolve a conflict in such a cultural milieu without understandi= ng the historical effects of domination would perhaps be to misunderstand the orientation of the culture in question, and the resolution of such a confli= ct may be only temporary if not outright failure. It seems that the issues surroundi= ng domination must be recognized, contextualized, and addressed if a real resolution is to be reached. =
&nbs= p;
Collectivist cultures generally seek harmony and utili= ze less direct means of communication. Another way of framing this point would be to say, “dominant groups usually impede the development of subordinates and block their freed= om of expression and action” (Baker Miller, 1995, p. 60). However one wants to interpr= et the cause of the silence, there do arise individuals or minority groups who do = not stay within that realm of expression. Conflict can arise when members of a subordinate group become acutely aware of their status as subordinates and they may begin to act upon that awareness. Whether it is a wo= man becoming aware of patriarchal relationships, or a racial minority becoming aware of racist social structures, or an economically deprived person or gr= oup becoming aware of an unfair or unequal economic social structure, it is generally the subordinate who is defined as the source of the conflict. As = the subordinate speaks up or acts in reaction to an oppressive situation, it is they who are labeled as the problem, and the process of enmification ensues= or intensifies. “It then becomes ‘normal’ to treat others destructively and to derogate them, to obscure the truth of what you are do= ing, by creating false explanations” (Baker Miller, 1995, p. 61).
Rather than admit and honestly work to resolve the une= qual or oppressive situation (as this would require giving up power) when it is called to their attention, dominant groups may become more overt or aggress= ive in their attempts to dominate. Once the heretofore hidden unequal or oppressive structural relations are questioned and brought to light by a member or mem= bers of the subordinate group, attempts by the dominant group to resolve the conflict are often really just attempts to get the disruptive subordinates = to fall back in line with the values of the dominant group. With dominant group values often embedded in the minds and approaches of the mediator or negotiator, the lar= ger task of calling in to question the reality and validity of the oppressive structure of relations that actually gave rise to the conflict is perhaps unseen or ignored, if not los= t on those dominant group members. It seems a necessary and legitimate goal of a mediator or negotiator or confli= ct resolver to not only overcome the false labeling and enmification of the ot= her, but ultimately to work to resolve the true cause of the conflict which is o= ften the hidden power structure that lies embedded at the root of the conflict. =
When a conflict resolver from a dominant group enters = the fray, so to speak, that person may carry with him/her, perhaps unknowingly,= the embedded values of the dominant group. Those embedded values and biases, of= ten obvious to the person in the subordinate group, may interfere with the conf= lict resolution process. While it = is imperative and incumbent upon the conflict resolver to overcome the biases = that may color the lens of his/her perspective, it is just as imperative to not lapse into a state of relativism. To fall prey to a relativistic position, that each party to a disagr= eement has a valid and equal status to their perspective, without seeing the larger context and structures of power and domination, may leave the conflict reso= lver as an unwitting accomplice, complicit in the furthering of the oppressive structure.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
It may be true that “most conflict research has focused on the context, but more often this is the situational context rath= er than the cultural context” (LeBaron Duryea, 1992, p. 191), it is even less the historic economic power-structure context. Just as the interrelations of peop= les have expanded internationally and even globally, so too must the research a= nd understanding of conflicts be expanded to get a clear picture of the contex= t of conflict. Just as there is a “tendency for European Americans or whites to view racism episodes as individual acts rather than as part of a problematic, power-imbalance institutional package” (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2005, p. 276), there= is also a tendency for European Americans or whites to view uprisings in secon= d or third world nations as individual acts rather than as part of a problematic, power and economic-imbalance institutional and international package. It is easier to see a person such = as Hugo Chávez as a tyrannical madman than to question and deconstruct = the historical cultural elitist racist capitalist package in which he struggles= and speaks out. Just as the racist structure against which Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and countless others struggled was not just a problem for those individual persons but a struggle against an oppressive and unfair structure, so too is the problem in Venezu= ela not Hugo Chávez. ̶= 0;Love him or hate him, Chávez is not the problem. It is what he represents. An old and evil way of life is dyi= ng and those who enjoyed it so abundantly are fighting its death all the way” (Hardy, 2007, p.159). It is j= ust easier to demonize and enmify individuals than to question and relinquish p= ower embedded at the roots of an unfair structure.
While questioning the Western media and U.S. governmen= t depictions of Hugo Chávez as destabilizing and authoritarian, and as a risk to Latin American security, in short comparing him to “Adolf Hitler̶= 1; (Rumsfeld, 2006), it is also important to not succumb to various labels that we in the privileged culture may impose on the people of Venezuela. Reclaiming one’s identity, as opposed to being identified by others, is a fundamental component to many conflicts. The process of objectification, labeling and limiting another without valuing or validating the other person or group’s own sense of identity, is oppression. Abstracting a characteristic of an= other, or imposing a characteristic upon another, obfuscates the other. When such abstractions or foreign characteristics become the other in one’s own eye or mind, then confusion and harm may intensify. When such abstract characteristics become internalized in the other, especially along with the internalization of the unfair and oppressive soci= al and economic structure, then psychological and emotional harm, as well as economic disadvantage, may become embedded to the point of being considered normal. This is especially tr= ue when such oppressive abstractions and structures are endured over years, generations, or centuries. “At issue is the power to define reality; to forfeit that definition to another’s authority is to give up other powers as well, especially the ability to name and therefore deal with that which is happen= ing to us” (Roy, 2002, p. 11). To claim one’s own identity in the face of another who claims to have th= at right over one, brings the hidden and silent oppressive relation to the observable surface. But it is= not the claiming of one’s own identity that is the problem, it is not the anger in the face of oppression that must be resolved or controlled. “To be angry in the face of oppression is a courageous and wholly normal thing. Rage is not pathological; it is an expression of the human spirit” (Roy, 2002, p. 14).
When an oppressed woman stands up in defiance of the objectified, limited identification that has been placed on her by a patriarchal system and proclaims “I am”; or when a black man st= ands his ground in a racist system and proclaims his identity over that which has been placed upon him; that act of claiming one’s own identity is a si= gn of health and strength, but it is also risky. The powers that be in a racist or patriarchal structure have never taken kindly to subordinates claiming their own identity. Similarly, when= a society such as Venezuela, which has endured hundreds of years of dominatio= n, stands firm in its intention to define itself, claim its own identity, and = say “no” to oppressive economic and social structures, the reaction= by the dominant, the privileged, is far from welcoming. Nonetheless, Venezuela has claimed= its own identity. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has named itself; it has created its own constitution, and is creating its own rules of order and engagement. Venezuela is becoming itself it se= ems, at last.
The approach of Westerners (or rather Northerners in t= his case) has been somewhat typical. The Western attitude of cultural supremacy, the indignant poise, the refusal to treat a perceived subordinate as a valu= ed and equal member of the world community, rears its ugly head. The head approaching from the Nort= h is a head full of embedded United States of America, white, capitalist, male, dominating values. It is a he= ad seemingly disembodied from the life and blood of humanity. A head determined to oppress, extr= act, profit, and control. That hea= d, linear in thought, seemingly vacant of feeling and concern for the well bei= ng of others, Cartesian in its own abstraction, does not congratulate the mill= ions of persons in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for trying to get off th= eir knees, it does not offer assistance to the fledgling constitutional state, = but instead, true to its self-serving values, it condemns, vilifies, enmifies, plots and plans and waits for the moment to regain control.
It is with such embedded values, that representative c= apitalist negotiators scratch their heads and wonder why negotiations fail, why mediations muddle, why relationships turn sour. The common sense direct speaking tell-it-like-it-is Western business values carry with them the inherent des= ire to dominate and profit. Those embedded values, so embedded in the Western approach as to be hidden deep in the crevices of the Western psyche, are obvious to the Venezuelans. “Subordinates, then, know mu= ch more about the dominants than vice versa” (Baker Miller, 1995, p. 60)= , as well they should after hundreds of years of various forms of being dominated. The transparency, = the nuances, and the attitudes, interests and motives of domination stand out l= ike caricatures, almost cartoon-like in their obviousness. The high regard with which Western= capitalists (USers) hold themselves is sorely misplaced in relation to the culture of Venezuela. Western professionalism and business approaches would be laughab= le, if they weren’t so deadening and potentially deadly in their applicat= ion. Any attempt on the part of th= e United States to resolve the cultural divide with any sort of prescriptive solution will, without doubt, fail miserably.
It appears there is the absence of an honest we=
in
the approach of the United States, that implicit sense of we that is=
the
guiding principle in collectivist societies generally, as well as in the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela under the leadership of Hugo Chávez=
in
particular. That sense of =
we,
is the implicit-become-explicit driving force of identity, strength and
independence from domination. The
absence of the sense of we stands out in its vacuity in the minds and
actions and attempts at engagement and negotiation on the part of
Westerners/Northerners, especially in business and governmental relations.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> That absence, that vacuum where
My opinion is that it is not too late to begin anew to resolve the many conflicts we face in our world. In regard to the conflict between = the United States of America and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela I believe= the next step is up to the government of the United States of America to engage Venezuelans, and the government of Hugo Chávez, with an open heart a= nd hand. Rather than crassness, = and coups, and control, an honest acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the many-= times-over democratically-elected Chávez government, and the need of the Venezu= elan people to be free from domination, would go a long way to healing the situation.
There is a p=
eaceful
revolution taking place in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. People in the United States of Ame=
rica
who value justice, peaceful coexistence, and nonviolent change should be su=
pportive
of the monumental changes taking place in Venezuela. The media representation of that r=
evolution
as depicted in the North (as is so often the case with U.S. corporate and
government influenced media) is not telling the truth about the positive
changes taking place in Venezuela. <=
/span>It
is unfortunate, that “While it may be that norms drive policy most
naturally, it is also true that in an era of mass media persuasion and
efficient law enforcement that policy can drive norms effectively”
(PowerPoint slide 37). The
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a land where the development and enrich=
ment
of the majority of human beings is more important than the enrichment of the
few or the corporations. It
doesn’t take much imagination to think of at least one other country =
that
could benefit from such a redefinition of development and enrichment.
There is a new constitution in Venezuela, handing vast decision-making powers over to the people. There is free health care. There is constitutionally guarante= ed free universal education through the undergraduate level. The Venezuelan military has been p= ut to work for peaceful domestic purposes. Building of schools, clinics, and essential infrastructure have increased dramatically. Housing and cooperative farms have increased significantly. Unemployment has dropped considerably. Illiteracy has been reduced to an = astounding 1%. Women who work raising th= eir own children are guaranteed income for their work. There are constitutional= ly guaranteed social security benefits for all citizens. These changes are not empty promis= es or temporary placations; they are realities today in Venezuela.
The profits resulting from Venezuela’s huge oil resources have been redirected to benefitting the majority of the people of Venezuela, rather than the local elites and the foreign oil companies. It’s no wonder we are spoon-= fed misinformation in our media, and from our government, regarding the positive changes taking place. Can you imagine if the huge profits of the oil companies in the U.S. were put to wo= rk to provide medical care, housing, education, and rebuilding our infrastruct= ure, rather than going into the pockets of the wealthy? Can you imagine what would happen = if our military in the U.S. was put to work building schools, clinics, and infrastructure rather than dying and killing in Iraq and Afghanistan?
After hundreds of years of being oppressed by Spain, a= nd another hundred years of oppression by wealthy elites (both domestic and foreign) the people of Venezuela are starting to stand up. The people of Venezuela are living= a peaceful participatory revolution of the greatest magnitude. They are not a threat to us, or an= yone else (other than oil company and other Western/Northern corporate profits). More than a century= ago Simon Bolivar prophetically stated “The United States of North America seems destined to plague Latin America with misery in the name of liberty”. Unfortunately= his words still ring true today. We have seen this in numerous Latin American a= nd Central American countries (not to mention Iraq and elsewhere) with U.S. government and corporate infl= uence, interference, resource grabbing, profit-taking and funding of undemocratic rulers in the name of spreading democracy and freedom. Hugo Chávez has been democr= atically-elected three times; the president and the constitution have been overwhelmingly approved by the majority of the people in Venezuela. This is no dictatorship in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as some of our media would have us believe.
The government of Venezuela is truly a peaceful participatory government. We = need to support the people and peaceful processes in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as they work toward freedom from foreign and corporate induced oppression and poverty. Others around the world are recognizing the positive changes taking place in Venezuela. Other governments = are congratulating Chávez and the changes he is implementing. Why is he being demonized in the U.S.? Why would the U.S. gove= rnment recognize, support, and congratulate those few in Venezuela who would plan = and attempt a coup against the democratically-elected government in Venezuela?<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Could there be profits in the balance? Could there be massi= ve oil reserves waiting to be stolen by a foreign power? Would anyone really consider overthrowing or attacking another country, and demonizing its president, ju= st to obtain vast oil resources and assure corporate profits? Does any of this sound all too fam= iliar?
What we still need to learn in the U.S., especially du= ring our current war torn era, has been succinctly stated by President Hugo Ch&a= acute;vez: “What the Right fears most is an organized people”. Much is done to keep us here in th= e U.S. from becoming an organized people (think about what we are letting our government and corporations get away with due to our lack of an organized movement to demand accountability in our own country). An organized peaceful movement is desperately needed in our own country, the least we can do is recognize it = and support it in another country when it is there for us to see. Will we see it? Or will we continue to be blinded = by the Western/Northern media’s enmification of Hugo Chávez and the t= ruly humane and meaningful changes taking place in Venezuela?
In Adrian Karatnycky and Peter Ackerman’s Freedom House Research Study (2005), the central conclusion is that “how a tr= ansition from authoritarianism occurs and the types of forces that are engaged in pressing the transition have a significant impact on the success or failure= of democratic reform” (Karatnycky & Ackerman, 2005, p.5). That study also suggests “th= at the choice of strategies employed” in the pursuit of freedom is “of fundamental importance” (Karatnycky & Ackerman, 2005, p.9). The reports data clearly suggest t= hat nonviolent action, as opposed to violent action, is much more “likely= to produce sustainable freedom” (Karatnycky & Ackerman, 2005, p.8) a= nd is “far more likely to yield a democratic outcome” (Karatnycky & Ackerman, 2005, p.8). T= he findings are certainly important, and certainly appear to be true. Nonviolent action has proven time = and again to be far preferable to violence, and the positive results of nonviol= ent action have been shown to be more lasting and influential on the future cou= rse of developments than violent actions.
Since it is the position of the Karatnycky report that “it is essential to the advancement of democracy that the concrete mechanisms by which freedom advances are better understood and more widely = discussed by the policymaking and analytic communities” (Karatnycky & Acker= man, 2005, p.15), it is reasonable to address issues that stand out in that repo= rt itself in an attempt to further that understanding. While “in his January 2005 inauguration address, U.S. President George W. Bush focused on global trends that are contributing to the spread of freedom and democracy” (Karatn= ycky & Ackerman, 2005, p.4), George W. Bush has lost nearly total legitimacy= as being a leader, much less a leader interested in freedom and democracy. Both domestically and internationa= lly President Bush has proven himself to be more interested in trampling on the rights of others than in working toward a more just and peaceful world. One thing the world does not need = is any further spread of freedom and democracy as defined by the Bush Administration. While the Kar= tnycky report is correct that the speeches (and policies) of President Bush “have helped place on the front burner the question of how best to promote democratic change” (Karatnycky & Ackerman, 2005, p.4), it= is because he is a perfect example of what not to do, not as an example to follow. Unfortunately, his ac= tions have been less lessons “of the mechanisms by which democracy replaces tyranny” (Karatnycky & Ackerman, 2005, p.4), and more lessons of = the mechanisms by which democracy is replaced by tyranny.
Another =
issue in
the Kartnycky report that must be addressed is a fundamental component of t=
he
mechanisms of change recommended by the report. While “outside forces, regio=
nal
organizations, and the broader international community “ (Karatnycky
& Ackerman, 2005, p.5) are credited with, at times, furthering rights a=
nd
liberties, it is also true that outside forces and organizations have caused
immense harm and have attempted to impede the development of sovereign demo=
cratically-elected
governments. Such outside for=
ces
and organizations have provided funding, training, and other support to civ=
ic
organizations so that those civic organizations may affect change in their =
own countries. While the Kartnycky report finds it
“surprising how small a proportion of international donor assistance =
is
targeted to this sector” (Karatnycky & Ackerman, 2005, p.9) it is=
not
surprising at all given the fact that most of the international community t=
ries
to prevent such U.S. funded organizations from meddling in their internal
affairs. “Americans have been leaders in providing such democracy
assistance” (Karatnycky & Ackerman, 2005, p.9), but unfortunately,
what is being called democracy assistance is actually the manipulation of t=
he
political environment in foreign nations to further the control by the U.S.
government and profits of U.S. corporations. Funding and training civic groups =
in foreign
nations to change (or even overthrow) their democratically-elected leaders =
is
not a positive mechanism of change, and certainly should not be praised or
recommended. At times “=
A high
proportion of this assistance is provided through such independent groups as
the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican
Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute” (Karatnycky &
Ackerman, 2005, p.9) and other “donors” (Karatnycky & Acker=
man,
2005, p.9). Those organizatio=
ns and
other donors have an agenda, and that agenda is no more justice for, and
empowerment of, the majority of the people in those foreign nations than is=
the
U.S. government’s agenda for the majority of the people of the U.S.
In 1998, Hugo Chávez was elected President of Venezuela by a majority of the electorate.= The name of Venezuela was officially changed to the Bolivarian Repub= lic of Venezuela, a new constitution was written (and ratified by 70% of the electorate), and Hugo Chávez overwhelmingly won another election the year after winning his first election.&nbs= p; The minority (elite) opposition called for a recall referendum, which was observed by and validated by the Carter Institute. There is no doubt Hugo Cháv= ez is a democratically-elected and popular president.
There are vast oil reserves in Venezuela. Those reserv= es belong to the people and democratically-elected government of that country. In the decades prior= to Hugo Chavez being elected, the oil companies had been reaping huge profits = (leaving the majority of Venezuelans in utter poverty). The U.S. government had used its political and corporate strength to keep those profits in the pockets of the major oil companies. Followin= g Chávez being given a mandate by the majority of the Venezuelan people however, tho= se profits have begun to be redirected to benefit the many rather than the few= . The U.S. government and corporate = elites still want that oil, and they will do just about anything to regain control= and profits.
The United States has a long history and reputation of intervening in the domestic affairs of Latin American nations. Ronald Reagan stands out as a glar= ing example of such intervening. “President Reagan’s reputation suffered considerably, and his domestic political room shrank significantly, after the news leaked that his subordinates had illegally traded arms for hostages and money from Iran, and then, contrary to the express will of congress and international law, u= sed the proceeds to arm the Contras fighting the legal government of Nicaragua. It is also clear t= hat the President lied about his knowledge and understanding of this extraordin= ary episode of extra-constitutional foreign policy” (Breyman, 2001, p.263= ).
U.S. illegal interference in the legal government of Nicaragua is a clear example of the length to which U.S. government and corporate interests will go to get their way. Reagan’s actions in Nicaragu= a is an “unsurprising if nonetheless shocking outcome of a reckless and illegal foreign policy. Peace activists were of one voice in opposition to Reagan’s violations of Nicarguan sovereignty, acts of war, state terrorism and unprecedented flout= ing of the World Court’s ruling against CIA mining of Nicaraguan harbors. Central American solidarity and anti-intervention movements (part and parce= l of the anti-Euromissile movements) regularly protested the murderous results of the Reagan Doctrine” (Breyman, 2001, p. 264). So too today, the Bush Administration’s terrorist attack and occupation of Iraq shows that nothing has changed in the goals of the U.S. elite when it comes to control= ling foreign nations, their governmental structure, and their resources. While the goals have remained the = same, the tactics used are essentially the same as well.
The Bush Administration’s interference in foreign nations has not been limited to Iraq however.
The Bush Adminstration and U.S. corporate elites funde= d, encouraged, trained and supported the 2002 coup against the legal democrati= cally-elected government of the sovereign nation of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Millions of dollar= s were funneled through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Internatio= nal Republican Institute (IRI), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) “under the guise of promoting democracy” (Golinger, 2006, p.7).
That 2002 coup may rightly be called the Bush Putsch, = and it mirrors much of the Kapp Putsch, a “right-wing pro-monarchist coup d’état” (Sharp, 1973, p.80) in the Weimer Republic in the 1920’s. During that bri= ef coup, conspirators forced the existing government out of power and “t= he Kappists declared a new government” (Sharp, 1973, p.80). Although there were “severe threats and actual deaths by shooting” (Sharp, 1973, p.81) the nonvio= lent movement of the people of the Weimer Republic forced the resignation of the very temporary Kapp government of conspirators, and the Ebert government was put back into office. “= An authority on the coup d’état, Lieutenant Colonel D.J. Goodspee= d, has pointed to one of the central lessons to be learned from the Kapp Putsc= h: After having seized the machinery of government, the conspirators must obta= in the required minimum of consent for their own administration” (Sharp, 1973, p.81).
Immediately following the Bush Putsch in Venezuela, hu= ndreds of thousands, if not millions, of the Venezuelan people took to the streets= in Caracas and other cities and demanded that the conspirators leave and allow= the legally elected Hugo Chávez to return. The U.S. funded conspirators in Venezuela did not have the required minimum of consent for their own administration and the conspirators were forced to allow Chávez his rightful place as President of Venezuela.&= nbsp;
“The Kapp Putsch is the episode where this quest=
ion of
popular support is seen at its clearest… to all intents and purposes =
the
coup seemed to have succeeded. Yet
it was broken, very largely because the people would not obey the new
government” (Sharp, 1973, p. 81).&nb=
sp;
While the Kapp Putsch is perhaps the best example of the power of
popular support, the events in Venezuela following the short-lived coup in =
2002
are at least as striking and shows that the power of popular support lives =
on
today. The power of the peopl=
e in
support of their government, and against the illegitimacy of the Kapp Putsc=
h in
the Weimer Republic was mobilized swiftly and “only immediate interve=
ntion
by the populace could have saved it so soon” (Sharp, 1973, p. 81).
Much of = the U.S. government and corporate action in foreign nations is done under the guise = of democracy and freedom. But th= ose words have been twisted in their meaning and have been co-opted by those wh= ose intentions instead are control and profit.= An obvious case in point is the U.S. military operation in Iraq. It is not democracy and freedom th= at is being spread around the globe, but capitalist corporate control, and defeat= of the many for the benefit of the few. Just because noble words such as democracy and freedom are used by o= ne to justify one’s heinous actions, it does not mean that one’s actions are not in fact heinous. Words and concepts such as democracy and freedom are powerful symbols which, when applied to actions undeserving of = such words, become tools of manipulation, oppression, greed, and terrorism.
From the Interactionist Perspective, it is important to understand “how we use language, words, and symbols to create and maintain our social reality. = This perspective highlights what we take for granted: the expectations, rules, a= nd norms that we learn and practice without even noticing” (Leon-Guerrer= o, 2005, p.12). Certainly the le= arning of one’s language and the norms of one’s society can be an innocuous or even beneficial process. But it is also true that when meanings are distorted, and words and concepts are used to intentionally control or confuse one’s clarity of thought, then such a process could take on a sinister characteristic such as control or manipulation. For instance if we are taught to believe that we are a free and democratic soci= ety and that we want to share our freedom and democracy with others, who could disagree? But if the words fr= eedom and democracy take on, or embody cruelty for the sake of profit, then we wo= uld be suffering from a misunderstanding of the actual meanings of the words we= use and the reality in which we live.
When meanings of words are twisted for the benefit of = the few over the suffering of the many, the Interactionist Perspective dovetails wi= th the Conflict Perspective. “Conflict theorists consider how society is held together by p= ower and coercion for the benefit of those in power” (Leon-Guerrero, 2005,= p.11). Unfortunately, “powerful gro= ups usually win” (Leon-Guerrero, 2005, p.11). But it is also true that by indoctrination vis-a-vis twisted meanings and concepts, the many can be bro= ught to believe that they are the benefactors and that they live in a free and democratic society. Such a social system does seem to be dysfunctional. It also must be remembered that fr= om the Functionalist Perspective, dysfunctions are “beneficial for at least = one part of society, or else it would cease to exist” (Leon-Guerrero, 200= 5, p.10). The Feminist Perspecti= ve, similar to the Conflict Perspective, helps us see who is benefitting from indoctrinating and confusing people with words and other symbols which embo= dy twisted meanings. “For feminists, the patriarchal society is the basis of social problems” (= Leon-Guerrero, 2005, p.12). While from the Feminist Perspective, “patriarchy refers to a society in which men dominate women and justify their domination through devaluation” (Leo= n-Guerrero, 2005, p.12), the Feminist Perspective may be seen as more expansive and encompassing in regard to domination, as “the definition of patriarchy has been broadened to include societies in which powerful groups dominate a= nd devalue the powerless” (Leon-Guerrero, 2005, p.12). Such is the struc= ture of most, if not all, societies in our world.
Our own society, and the meanings and orientation of o=
ur
society toward other societies, is presented to us through powerful media a=
nd
educational systems. If those
powerful meaning-generating media and educational systems inculcate meaning=
s,
words, symbols, and concepts which serve the powerful few over the seemingly
powerless many, then we have a problem.&nb=
sp;
Well, we have a problem. The
educational system functions at the behest of the powerful, teaching us the
meanings of words from the perspective that best suits the powerful. The me=
dia,
owned by the powerful, manipulates the symbols present in our thinking, and=
our
view of ourselves, other persons, and other nations may be distorted to suit
the needs of the powerful.
Unfortunately, the above holds true in our view and
understanding of what is happening in Venezuela. There, the powerful media have been
trying desperately to shape the thoughts of the domestic population, as wel=
l as
(in partnership with powerful persons in the U.S. and elsewhere) the though=
ts
about Venezuela in the minds of people in the U.S. and the rest of the
world. Furthermore, some seem=
ingly
very bright people have succumbed to the twisted meanings of democracy and
freedom and seem to think that the democratically-elected president of
Venezuela should be overthrown or killed.&=
nbsp;
Let’s be clear:=
democratically-elected presidents should not be killed or overthrown=
by
a coup. If the citizens of a
country don’t approve of their president, then it is those citizens w=
ho
should vote him/her out of office or begin impeachment proceedings. The United States government, or
factions thereof such as the CIA or NED or IRI or USAID, etc., should not be
interfering in the decisions of a democratically-elected president of a
sovereign nation. We should be
supportive of the democratic process as it unfolds in Venezuela, even if it
means the wealthy elite and oil companies in that country (and in the U.S.)
lose some of their power. The=
U.S.
government, corporations, agencies, organizations, and/or individuals should
not in any way be participating in, contributing to (even in a consultative=
or
advising capacity) the overthrow or removal of the democratically-elected
president of Venezuela. To do so is not working toward democracy or freedom=
or
justice. It would mean democr=
acy
and freedom and justice are but shams that are used to cover for greed and
domination, even if such participation is through some misguided use of
nonviolent techniques. Expert=
s in
nonviolent techniques should not put such techniques to use in Venezuela wi=
th
the intent of helping to overthrow a democratically-elected president. There are democratic processes to =
remove
unpopular democratically-elected leaders: those processes are voting and im=
peachment,
not coups and killing. As Gene Sharp reminds us, “there is nothing in
nonviolent action to prevent it from being used for both “good”=
and
“bad” causes” (Sharp, 1973, p. 71). To clarify this, one must ask the
question, would it have been appropriate for the members of the peace movem=
ent
to put their energies into helping Ronald Reagan deploy missiles in
Europe? Would it have been
appropriate for members of the peace movement to put their energies into
helping Reagan overthrow the legal government of Nicaragua? The answer would certainly seem to=
be
“No.” By the same
token, the questions must be asked, is it appropriate for members of the pe=
ace
movement to help the Bush Administration and U.S. corporations take over the
country of Iraq, and further, is it appropriate for members of the peace
movement to help the Bush Administration and oil company interests to overt=
hrow
the legal and legitimate government of Venezuela? The answers are also clearly ̶=
0;No”. The members of the peace movement =
should
not help to steal resources from Latin American countries; members of the p=
eace
movement should not help media moguls to maintain their billion dollar
consumer/political propaganda machines; members of the peace movement should
not help the ruling class keep the majority of people in poverty, ignorance,
and ill-health. Unfortunately=
, some
members of the peace movement have misunderstood the situation and have bee=
n seemingly
co-opted by the causes of the elite class in Venezuela, and have contribute=
d to
the goals of the major oil companies. Some peace movement members intereste=
d in
participating in nonviolent action have been put into action to further
undemocratic, oppressive, capitalist interests, the goals of which are to k=
eep
the majority of people in poverty and ignorance so that the elite may conti=
nue
to maintain control and oppression of the many. That
having been said, one must ask if it is helpful for Gene Sharp to provide c=
onsultation
services to the oppressive and manipulative elite in Venezuela, who then use
his information and techniques to mobilize factions in Venezuela to interfe=
re
with, and perhaps overthrow, the legitimate government of Hugo Cháve=
z (http://www.chav=
ista.net/files/SharpInVenezuela.mht
). After all, Mr. Sharp does clearly state in that document that Hugo Ch&aa=
cute;vez
was “democratically elected.”&=
nbsp;
In fact, Hugo Chávez has been democratically elected multiple
times with a vast majority of the electorate supporting him. Mr. Sharp also
refers to a “waning popularity” for Hugo Chávez, but that
waning popularity was only in the elite class. Hugo Chávez was, and =
is,
wildly popular with the majority of Venezuelans. The “deteriorating political
situation” that the elite few in Venezuela were concerned about was t=
heir
own diminishing manipulative and oppressive control over the majority of the
Venezuelan people, their loss of oil revenue, and the loss of the power of =
their
manipulative commercial/political media machine. It is with the purpose of
regaining that oppressive control over the many that the elite few have been
consulting with Mr. Sharp and other members of the Albert Einstein Institut=
ion,
not to establish or restore
democracy, freedom, and justice for the majority, the poor, the
underprivileged. Even though it is Mr. Sharp’s position that he was
helping the “democratic opposition” by providing them with the
capacity “to restore democracy”, the democracy those persons wanted to restore was their own elitist
control over the majority of the Venezuelan people. Just calling oneself the
“democratic opposition” does not mean one is the democratic opposition.&=
nbsp;
Not all who call themselves freedom fighters are fighters for freedo=
m,
and not all those who claim to be democratic in their opposition have democ=
racy
as a motivating factor or goal.
Words are but symbols, labels which may be placed on atrocious groups
and actions for the purpose of gaining legitimacy for those groups and acti=
ons
where none is deserved. While Mr. Sharp may have had good
intentions by providing his techniques to the elitists in Venezuela, his
techniques have been, and are being used for a “bad” (Sharp, 19=
73,
p. 71) cause in this situation. Mr. Sharp has disputed the accusations of h=
is
complicity in the actions to oust the democratic government of Venezuela via
his June 12, 2007 Open Letter to President Hugo Chávez (http://www.chavist=
a.net/files/SharpToChávez.mht
), but the brief description of his organization’s activities in
Venezuela, as provided in his annual report for 2000-2004, speaks volumes in
support of those accusations. One can only wonder why he states in his open
letter that his Institution doesn’t “take ideological sides in =
conflicts”
when it is clear in his annual report that he has a (perhaps unbeknownst to
himself) bias in favor of those he thinks are the democratic opposition.
How does one know which side of a conflict to be on?
In Venezuela, it is the opposition movement against Hu= go Chávez that has the support and funding of the Bush Administration and wealthy elites. In Venezuela it is the opposition movement that is anti-democracy, even though they, through the media, present themselves as the freedom fighters. Remember the Reagan Contra ‘Freedom Fighters’ in Nicaragua? Those people were not fighting for freedom; they were illegally funded and armed by the Reagan Administration = to overthrow the legal government of Nicaragua. Calling them ‘Freedom Fighters’ does not make them fighters for freedom. They were in fact fighting for the opposite of freedom. So too, = in Venezuela, the media moguls and others who are fighting for their freedom to manipulate, control, profit, and oppress, are not freedom fighters, they are capitalist manipulators bent on regaining oppressive control over the major= ity in Venezuela. The peace movem= ent should not work to benefit the regaining of that oppression. Leaders of the peace movement from= the United States should not provide their expertise to the opposition in Venez= uela to help them overthrow the democratically-elected government of Hugo Ch&aac= ute;vez. To do so would be to act contrary = to freedom, democracy, and peace. Quite to the contrary, peace activists in the U.S. should act in support of Hugo = Chávez and his Bolivarian Revolution as he struggles to break the imperialist chai= ns that have bound Latin America for so long.=
We must be able to distinguish between freedom and
oppression. We cannot fall prey to some type of Orwellian doublespeak where=
the
meanings of words are reversed and then used to gain our complicity in
atrocities. Unfortunately, th=
at is
where we find ourselves, and it is imperative that we regain and maintain o=
ur
ability to think critically and distinguish between right and left, freedom=
and
oppression, benefit for the many versus benefit for the few. Good luck to us all in this strugg=
le, as
this struggle begins out of sight and out of mind in the complexities of our
own thinking and the presuppositions upon which our thinking takes place.
The only fruit of privilege is its discourse. Its victims produce a= ll the rest.
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Luis Britto-Garcia
The foreign policy of the United States as it pertains= to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is the issue at hand. What would I recommend we do about it? In keeping with the spiri= t of this being a web class I have, as part of my final project for this class, = set up a website to address this issue: htt= p://www.chavista.net. The domain name I obtained, “chavista” is the name many call themselves who believe in the Bolivarian Revolution as pursued by Hugo Ch&a= acute;vez. While I will confess to being an a= dmirer of Hugo Chávez in his standing up to global imperialism, I am not so much a follower of him, but I do value the principles for which he stands.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
What are the chances of my efforts totally resolving t= his issue? Not likely. What are the chances of my efforts causing one person, o= r a few more people, to become aware of the situation, think about it, and hold= an honest and helpful opinion in regard to the issue? Pretty good I’d sa= y, since it has already happened through my discussions with others in recent weeks. As the PowerPoint presentation reminds us, “Individual or small group witness against a violent or unjust public policy can precipitate a m= ass movement that leads to changes in that public policy” (PowerPoint sli= de 37).
That being said, I would recommend:
1.&n= bsp; De-enmify Hugo Chávez. Find out who he is as= a person as best we can, to break the false images presented to us.
2.&n= bsp; Become educated in the facts as they are, not as th= ey are spoon-fed to us by our media.
3.&n= bsp; Read the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
4.&n= bsp; Read the letter from Dennis Kucinch, Jesse Jackson, Howard Zinn, and others in support of the Hugo Chávez government. Th= at letter is also an apology for the U.S. participation, including the participation of the National Endowment for Democracy, in the 2002 coup (http://www.chavista.net= /files/Kucinich.mht ).
5.&n= bsp; Read “The Chávez Code” by Eva Golinger.
6.&n= bsp; Read “Cowboy in Caracas” by Charles Har= dy (and watch his interview http://www.chavista.net/files/videos.htm ).
7.&n= bsp; Send emails and letters to congresspersons and other government officials insisting that they support the democratically-elected government, and the popularly ratified constitution of Venezuela.
8.&n= bsp; Support the impeachment proceedings against George = Bush and Dick Cheney, as their illegal acts in regard to Iraq are in the same ve= in as their illegal acts against Venezuela.
9.&n= bsp; Send emails and letters of support to the Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Washington, D.C.
10.&= nbsp; Read the Carter Institute’s opinion validating the legitimacy of the refer= endum in Venezuela (ht= tp://www.chavista.net/files/CarterCenter.pdf ).
11.&= nbsp; Participate in groups such as the School of Americas Watch, Portland Central American Solidarity Committee, the Hands Off Venezuela organization, the British Venezuela Solidarity Campaign, and others that are working to spread the wo= rd, stop any further coups, and stop the possible assassination of Hugo Cháve= z by rogue factions of our own government.
12.&= nbsp; Discuss this issue with family, friends, and at any opportunity with others.
13.&= nbsp; Send letters to the editors of local and national newspapers, giving them a perh= aps unheard perspective on this situation.
14.&= nbsp; Arrange for the showing of films, such as The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, the story of the 2002 coup against Hugo Chávez (http://www.Chávezthefilm.com), The War on Democracy (http://www.chavista.net/f= iles/videos.htm), Venezuela Bolivariana: People and Struggle of the Fourth World War (http://www.chavista.net/f= iles/videos.htm), perhaps through the PSU Multicultural Center and other venues.
15.&= nbsp; Fill your tank with Citgo gas (the closest would be in Vancouver, WA) as that Venezuelan oil company provides low cost heating oil to low income American= s.
16.&= nbsp; Walk, use public transportation, and support alternative energy as a way to relie= ve our dependence on fossil fuels (the control of which is at the center of th= is policy problem).
17.&= nbsp; Buy local food and clothing rather than support second and third world sweatsho= ps and multinational corporate control over our food supply. The World Bank and IMF literally d= estroy domestic economies and agricultural capabilities in foreign countries to ma= ke those countries forever in debt and dependent upon those organizations.
18.&= nbsp; Demand that we have universal healthcare, free college education through the undergraduate level, guaranteed social security benefits for all citizens, wages for mothers who stay at home to raise their children, and rebuild our infrastructure. Since they can do those things in Venezuela under the Ch&aa= cute;vez government, why can’t we do it here? Imagine what could be done to alleviate suffering in our own country if the obscene amount of our money b= eing thrown away in Iraq was put to use for our benefit, instead of benefiting t= he likes of the oil companies, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, etc.
19.&= nbsp; Be prepared to protest if/when our government pushes another coup, or militari= ly attacks Venezuela. It’s not too early since plans are being made, just read and listen to the rhetoric coming out of Washington. (http://www.chavista.net= /files/ERNofPDX.mht)
20.&= nbsp; Turn off your television and find alternate sources of news and entertainment, it’s out there.
21.&= nbsp; Support Cindy Sheehan, as she met Hugo Chávez and says she would rather have= him for president than George Bush (http://www.chavista.net/f= iles/videos.htm).
22.&= nbsp; Write to and speak out against Pat Robertson as he openly called for the assassination of Hugo Chávez (http://www.chavista.net/f= iles/videos.htm). Whatever happened to “Thou Shall not Kill?” I guess it means something else now.
23.&= nbsp; Sign up for the Venezuela Emergency Response Network (ERN) to be notified via em= ail in case of egregious actions against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (= http://www.ve= nsolidarity.org/Campaigns/index.php#ern).
24.&= nbsp; Become familiar with the ERN of Portland (http://www.chavista.net= /files/ERNofPDX.mht)
Resources to=
assist
with some of the above suggestions, and other materials, are available on t=
he
website I set up for this project: http://www.chavista.net/ .
References<= /p>
Albert Einstein Institutio= n (2004). Report on activities 2000-2004 (Venezuela).
= Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/2000-= 04rpt.pdf.
Albert Einstein Institution (2007). An ope= n letter from Gene Sharp to President Hugo Chavez. Retrieved August 9, 2007, fro= m http://www.aeinstein.org/Chave= z.pdf.
Avruch, K= . & Black, P. (1991). The culture question and conflict resolution. Peace and Change, 16(1).<= /p>
Baker Mil= ler, J. (1995). Domination and subordination. In P. Rothenberg (Ed.), Race, class & gender in the United States: An integrated study. NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Britto García, L. Discourse of the Privileged. Retrieved August = 9, 2007, from http://www.escueladeformacion.org/jg_eng/summit/2006/brit= toprivilege.htm.
Breyman, S. (2001). Why movements matter. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Golinger,= E. The Chávez code: Cracking US in= tervention in Venezuela (2006). Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press.
Hardy, C.= (2007). Cowboy in Caracas, A North American’s memoir of Venezuela’s democratic revolution. CT: Curbstone Press.
Hofstede,= G. (1997). I, we, they. In Judith Martin, Thomas K. Nakayama, Lisa A. Flores, (Eds.), Readings in cultural contex= ts. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing.
Karatnyck= y, A. & Ackerman, P. (2005). How free= dom is won: from civic resistance to d= urable democracy. New York, NY: Freedom House.
LeBaron Duryea, M. (1992).= Conflict and culture: A literature rev= iew and bibliography.
Leon-Guerrero,
A. (2005). Social problems: Communi=
ty, policy,
and social action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Roy, B. (=
2002).
For white people, on how to listen when race is the subject. Journal of Intergroup Relations, XXIX(3). Rumsfeld,
D. (Feb. 3, 2006). Retrieved Augu=
st 9,
2007, from http://=
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11159503/. Sharp,
G. (1973, 9th printing 2006). The
politics of nonviolent action: Part one, power and struggle. Boston, MA:
Extending Horizons Books. Ting-Toomey,
S. & Chung, L. (2005). Wh=
at are
the essential cultural value patterns? Understanding
intercultural communication. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Compan=
y. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;