…11 april – as a summit ends, a venezuela event recalled…

…there is a tide in the affairs of men (and women)…

Today, the VII Summit of the America (SoA) ends. And, there, as evidence of the nobility of US intentions, would be that momentous handshake between Cuban President Raúl Castro and the US President Barack Obama – and for the corporate US MSM that symbolic event would be more than sufficient for those who still refuse to look elsewhere for reliable and accurate news.

So we put some context to this. US President Obama had no option but to meet with Castro – he had been warned by most countries at the VI SoA in Cartagena that no Cuba at the VII SoA, then no VII SoA. Simple. Of course, being the US one step forward must always be met by more than one backward. So, the US President, to placate the Cuban elites in the US and the right-wing nutters in both corporate parties, would then go forward and declare, just few weeks before the VII SoA, Venezuela a threat to the security of the United States, thereby provoking undiminishing ridicule, not to mention criticism from even close allies.

Handshake aside, the isolation would remain at the VII, whose agenda was modified to minimise embarrassment to the US. Unconcerned with reality the US President would speak at the Civil Society Forum. Amid the rhetoric, there would be, as The Guardian reports, this disconnect from reality,

Obama, meanwhile, said his government had learned the lessons of the past and would respect national differences even as it worked to promote civil society worldwide. At a civil society forum he told participants from NGOs that he had made it a mission of his government to empower them with knowledge, technology and resources.

[bold added for emphasis]

As we remember that ‘handshake’, we recall this report, again, from The Guardian, to put that ludicrous assertion into context, White House denies ‘Cuban Twitter’ ZunZuneo programme was covert. Three telling paragraphs,

Contrary to the impression given by the White House claims, the initiative also appears to have had a surveillance dimension, according to the AP.

Mobile Accord began building a vast database about Cuban ZunZuneo subscribers, including gender, age, “receptiveness” and “political tendencies”, according to the AP. The AP report said USAid believed such demographics on dissent could help it target its other Cuba programmes and “maximise our possibilities to extend our reach”.

The AP said its report was based on more than 1,000 pages of documents it obtained about ZunZuneo as well as interviews with US officials and company executives involved in the project.

And why not add this for learning lessons and respecting national differences, USAID programme used young Latin Americans to incite Cuba rebellion. Learning lessons? Respecting national differences? When?

An Obama administration programme secretly dispatched young Latin Americans to Cuba using the cover of health and civic programs to provoke political change, a clandestine operation that put those foreigners in danger even after a US contractor was sent to a Cuban jail.

Beginning as early as October 2009, a project overseen by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) sent Venezuelan, Costa Rican and Peruvian young people to Cuba in hopes of ginning up rebellion. The travelers worked undercover, often posing as tourists, and traveled around the island scouting for people they could turn into political activists.

In one case, the workers formed an HIV-prevention workshop that memos called “the perfect excuse” for the programme’s political goals – a gambit that could undermine America’s efforts to improve health globally.

If we recall the stratagem the US had deployed in Pakistan to track and assassinate its Osama bin Laden and its impact on inoculation programmes there, we wonder even more.

11 April also brings to mind the same date in 2002, when the democratically elected President of Venezuela was deposed in a coup d’état. We turn to a US blog, fair and accuracy in reporting, for the US MSM’s coverage of the event, U.S. Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move. Couple damning paragraphs from the fair blog post, and sufficient to justify abandonment of corporate media as any source of anything other than for infotainment and self-deception,

When elements of the Venezuelan military forced President Hugo Chávez from office in April, the editorial boards of several major U.S. newspapers, following the U.S. government’s lead, greeted the news with enthusiasm.

In an April 13 editorial, the New York Times triumphantly declared that Chávez’s “resignation” meant that “Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator.” Conspicuously avoiding the word “coup,” the Times explained that Chávez “stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader.”

And, as expected, the US would strenuously deny any involvement, Such denials would be promoted by the MSM until reality, truth rears its head, as the fair blog would again report with a question, WikiLeaks: Was Chavez Right About U.S. Meddling?

There was, as I argued at the time, plenty of evidence that this was more than a hunch; there was U.S. involvement in the 2002 coup that removed Chavez from power. And a newly released WikiLeaks cable fleshes out some more details about the intentions behind U.S. policy.


As a short write-up in the Hill notes (4/5/13), the 2006 cable,

signed by then-Ambassador William Brownfield, outlines a five-point strategy that includes “penetrating Chavez’s political base,” “dividing Chavismo,” “protecting vital U.S. business” and “isolating Chavez internationally.” Those goals are to be obtained by strengthening “democratic institutions,” according to the cable.

That strategy was, according to the cable, to be carried out via the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and its Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI).

That coup would end some 36 hours later, on the 13 April 2002, with the reinstatement of the President. Insidious? Perfidious? Lessons learned? When? Is there a character profile one can deduce from such a statement by the US President?

So on this 11 day of April 2015, to compound matters even further and raise the question of aversion to truth, reality, let us examine another telling observation by the US President in that Civil Society intervention, an observation only the willfully gullible would accept,

Quoting Martin Luther King, Obama said the experience of the civil rights movement in his country had shown the importance of citizens’ actions in bending the arc of the moral universe towards justice.

“The only reason I stand here today as president of the US is because those ordinary people – maids, and janitors, and schoolteachers – were willing to endure hardship on my behalf.”

Revealing here is that the US President of primarily the one percent seeks to associate himself with the late Martin Luther King. Not only that he studiously avoids the fact that he has betrayed ‘those ordinary people’ who had really believed the yarn he was spinning. Again, rhetoric and substance.

The irony that comes through is that the prevailing, optimistic view has been that this US President seems the only one who, by his deeds, could have made the US a not only strong but respected partner and friend of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the rest of the world. And not much time left, if the US President indeed wants to have a legacy other than one of being a Wall Street President and a Perpetual War President.

…hope springs eternal…