globalresearch--2019-06-19--Overthrown in a 2013 Military Coup The Passing of Egypts Mohamed Morsi Man vs Myth

Overthrown in a 2013 Military Coup, The Passing of Egypt’s Mohamed Morsi: Man vs. Myth

The passing of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi presents the perfect opportunity for reflecting on his controversial legacy and the real impact that this Muslim Brotherhood leader had on the region.  Former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi passed away on Monday due to what are largely thought to have been health complications arising from his poorly treated blood pressure and diabetes while in custody. The country’s brief leader was overthrown in a 2013 military coup by now-President Sisi in response to rising protests against his rule driven by many of his secular compatriots who were extremely uncomfortable with a member of the previously and once-again banned Muslim Brotherhood as their head of state. Morsi narrowly won the presidency by less than a one million vote margin in a country of over 90 million people, so his mandate was always questionable and gave rise to rumors about its legitimacy.  Importantly, Morsi shared the same ideology as both the Qatari and Turkish leaders, so his rise to power provoked fears among some regional security stakeholders that a new axis of influence was forming in the Mideast, one that could threaten both the remaining secular governments and the monarchic ones as well, both of whom shared little in common other than their agreement that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. It’s due to this strategic consideration that many believe that the Gulf Kingdoms secretly played a role in Sisi’s 2013 coup, which led to the Brotherhood being banned once again and Morsi charged with a bevy of crimes that resulted in an overturned death sentence.  Supporters of the coup believe that it prevented the country from descending into civil war given the dangerous polarization that it entered into following the onset of the so-called “Arab Spring“. They also point to Morsi’s anti-Assad stance and believe that he was planning to play a leading role in the War of Terror on Syria had he not been stopped by the military. Critics of the coup, however, denounced it as a foreign-backed anti-democratic seizure of power that merely replicated the same Color Revolution tactics that brought Morsi himself into power in the first place. They’re also very unhappy with with Sisi’s presidency because they don’t see much of a difference between him and Mubarak.  Morsi’s alleged mistreatment and ultimate death in custody are also being interpreted by some as a message to Turkish President Erdogan of the fate that could befall him if he’s ever overthrown as well, such as what was unsuccessfully attempted during the summer 2016 coup events. The two leaders are ideological brothers-in-arms with a vision of Islamifying their decades-long officially secular societies, which Erdogan has already almost fully succeeded with whereas Morsi never really had much of a chance. Granted, there are serious differences between both societies that facilitated and impeded those leaders’ plans, but with Morsi out of the picture and Qatar largely “contained”, Erdogan’s Turkey is now the Muslim Brotherhood’s last main torchbearer.  Interestingly, although Russia officially regards the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and wasn’t on good terms at all with Morsi, it nowadays has no problem with Erdogan and is actually in a fast-moving strategic partnership with his country. This seemingly contradictory stance can be explained by contemporary geopolitics and the prevailing fears around the time of the “Arab Spring”. Russian General Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov wrote in February 2013 that Moscow regards the aforementioned events as a series of Color Revolutions that catalyzed regional conflicts, whereas President Putin just praised Turkey the other day during the SCO Summit in Bishkek for contributing to Russia and Iran’s joint victory over Daesh in Syria.  Quite clearly, Russia doesn’t consider Erdogan’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood to be as threatening as Morsi’s was, most likely because Turkey nowadays cooperates real closely with Russia in Syria after its geopolitical volte-face since the failed summer 2016 coup attempt while Egypt was supposedly getting ready militantly export its model to Syria and elsewhere in the region before Sisi’s successful 2013 coup. The thought exercise of comparing and contrasting Morsi’s Egypt with Erdogan’s Turkey therefore reveals that geopolitical calculi were the main reason why Russia eventually came to treat these two very ideologically similar states differently in spite of their nearly identical regional visions.  With this in mind and reflecting on the rest of Morsi’s legacy, most observers would agree that this fallen leader elicits very strong partisan political reactions from the average person, who either strongly supports him as the best of Egypt’s post-independence leaders or vehemently opposes him as its worst, believing that he embodied a brief period of hope or epitomized the chaos of the times, respectively. Some will insist that he was brought to power by the people and taken down by a foreign plot, while others maintain that his rise was due to a foreign-influenced Color Revolution and only ended with a patriotic coup. Whichever way one looks at it, the myth will always overshadow the man, for better or for worse, making Morsi’s legacy all the more contentious.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


globalresearch--2019-08-15--Sudans Constitutional Declaration Leaves Out Key Political Forces Attempted Military Coups and R

Sudan’s “Constitutional Declaration” Leaves Out Key Political Forces. Attempted Military Coups and Regional Intrigue

Members of the Sudanese Professional Association (SPA), a leading organization within the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC), announced on August 9 that they would have no representatives in the soon to be created transitional government.  This report comes in the midst of a whirlwind of political developments inside the oil-producing African state which has experienced social unrest, a military coup and ongoing negotiations aimed at establishing an effective interim process.  Former President Omer Hassan al-Bashir of the National Congress Party (NCP) was ousted in a putsch on April 11, just five days after the commencement of a sit-in outside the defense headquarters in the capital of Khartoum. The occupation remained until it was violently dispersed nearly two months later at the aegis of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), an important component of the security apparatus in the country.  Demonstrations began in Sudan during mid-December as a rise in bread prices triggered thousands of people to move into the streets in protest. Soon enough the demands shifted from economic grievances to the call for the resignation of President al-Bashir.  A Political Declaration agreed to by the FFC and the Transitional Military Council (TMC) which has ruled the nation since April 11, laid a framework for a Sovereign Council where representatives from both the TMC and FFC will share power for 39 months leading up to multi-party elections. The terms of the implementation of the Constitutional component of the three-pronged transitional framework will remain uncertain particularly with the absence of a pathway towards peace which is contingent upon its adoption by the armed opposition groupings, the Left and other disaffected tendencies.  However, the armed Sudanese Revolutionary Front (SRF) and the Sudanese Communist Party (SCP) have already expressed their displeasure with the terms of the Political Declaration leaving the possibility of continuing demonstrations and other forms of resistance. This same position has carried over as it relates to the Constitutional Declaration agreement as well. The third component of the transitional arrangement, the Legislative Council, is yet to be determined by the principal negotiators of the FFC and the TMC.  Sudanese celebrate the signing of the Constitutional Declaration on August 9, 2019 (Photo by EWN)  Other groups which have significant followings, the National Umma Party and the Sudanese Congress Party (SCP) have also revealed they will not be a part of the transitional government based in Khartoum. An apparent restless populace which has been the target of highly repressive measures by the security forces may not be willing to remain optimistic in light of a myriad of unanswered questions related to the country’s future.  SRF affiliates have been engaged in military operations against the central government for many years. Two of the principal members of the alliance are fighting against SAF and RSF units in South Kordofan, Blue Nile and the Darfur region.  Consequently, when the SPA said it would not participate in the transitional government, additional questions came to the fore. Moreover, how long will the negotiations continue on outstanding issues related to the Political Declaration and the Constitutional Declaration? A Legislative Council is also under discussion which would theoretically seal a pathway towards a new dispensation.  In an article published by Sudan Tribune on August 9, it says that:  This same above-mentioned dispatch goes on to note:  Therefore, despite the extensive discussions between the FFC and TMC in both Khartoum and in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, under the mediation of the African Union (AU), existing contentious issues are unresolved. There can be no effective transition to even a bourgeois democratic government without securing sustainable peace treaties mandating the laying down of arms and the creation of an inclusive administration.  Another key element of the Sudanese political crises is the numerous accounts of attempted counter-coups within the SAF itself. Several high-ranking military officials have been arrested where they join former President al-Bashir in detention.  In addition, there were rumors of ongoing “purges of Islamists” military personnel from the SAF. Defining what the term “Islamists” actually means within the context of contemporary Sudan is undoubtedly complex. The previous government of the NCP under al-Bashir was categorized by some as “Islamist.”  At the same time there are other political tendencies such as the Umma Party and the Popular Congress Party (PCP), long in opposition to the NCP, as also fitting into this characterization. These factors raise the question as to the nature of the political disagreements obviously plaguing the military apparatus.  For example, the crackdown on the mass demonstrations which occurred in the capital of Khartoum on June 3 has been attributed to the RSF. In a sense the SAF has attempted to distance itself from some of the harsher forms of repression which have resulted in the deaths of more than 300 people.  On the international level, there are reports that the RSF militias are supplying weapons to opposition forces in the Central African Republic (CAR). The Seleka Coalition, an alliance of several organizations dominated by the CAR’s minority Muslim population, has recently signed a peace deal with the government in the capital of Bangui.  Seleka Coalition affiliates are said to be concerned about a possible offensive to disarm their forces. This comes amid the increasing presence of advisors from the Russian Federation who were requested to assist the military of the CAR by its current President Faustin-Archange Touadera. The appeal was made directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in 2017.  Moreover, SAF units are still cooperating with Saudi Arabia and other regional states in the now more than four-year old war being wage in Yemen. This is a United States engineered bombing and ground campaign designed to weaken the Ansurallah (Houthis) Movement. The U.S., Britain and their allies contend that the Ansurrallah are backed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and therefore viewed as a threat to the strategic balance of forces in the Middle East.  The Aims of Imperialism in Sudan  Washington’s foreign policy towards Sudan has been geared towards regime-change and a total capturing of the state for the purpose ensuring compliance with its political and economic objectives in North and Central Africa. The fact that the previous government of President al-Bashir had exercised a degree of independence from successive U.S. administrations, both Democratic and Republican, resulted in hostile actions towards the NCP over a number of years.  The al-Bashir government had made firm economic agreements with the People’s Republic of China in regard to its drilling and export of oil. Ousted President al-Bahir also defied the warrants issued against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC), saying that they would not recognize this imperialist construct as having any authority over the country and its leaders.  Nevertheless, this modicum of independent domestic and international policy would shift after 2014 with the decline in petroleum prices and the worsening economic outlook for the Republic of Sudan in the aftermath of the partitioning of the South. The Republic of South Sudan came into being in 2011 largely as a result of the contradictions which developed during the period of British colonialism in the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries until the country became liberated in 1956.  Britain ruled Sudan as two separate entities involving the North and the South. These divisions fomented two civil wars, from 1955-1972, and later from 1983 through 2003. The transition to partition reduced the economic and territorial status of the Republic of Sudan, which prior to the independence of Juba, was the largest geographic nation-state in Africa.  The U.S., Britain and the State of Israel supported the creation of the Republic of South Sudan. As events have developed since 2013, the Republic of South Sudan has not proven to be a viable state and has been inflicted with civil war due to a split within the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). Both Juba and Khartoum are suffering from internal conflict and economic malaise. Consequently, the imperialist legacy of domination has effectively impeded the genuine development of the now two separate states.  Of course this contemporary history has profound significance for other regional states and Africa as a whole. The necessity for the resolution of internal conflict and the maintenance of sovereignty is the major question facing the AU. The degree to which the Republic of Sudan can resolve its present situation will prove instructive to other African and developing nations.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Featured image: Sudan Constitutional Declaration signed by Transitional Military Council and Force for Freedom and Change Photo by Al Jazeera


globalresearch--2019-11-06--Bolivia: Leaked Audios Confirm Involvement of Opposition Leaders, Ex-Military and US in Coup Plans

The Radio Education Network of Bolivia (Erbol) leaked 16 audios involving opposition leaders who are calling for a coup d’etat against the government of President Evo Morales, a political action which would have been coordinated from the U.S. embassy in the Andean country.  Among those mentioned in the audios are the U.S. senators Marco Rubio, Bob Menendez and Ted Cruz, who have would maintained contact with the Bolivian opposition in order to achieve a possible regime change in the South American country.  The audios also reveal participation in the political conspiracy of the former prefect of Cochabamba, Manfred Reyes Villa, who was accused of corruption in 2009 and fled Bolivia to seek asylum in the U.S., where he is currently living.  In their conspiracy talks, Bolivian politicians also mention a former Bolivian president whose name is not explicitly mentioned, former New Republican Force lawmaker Mauricio Muñoz and former Army officers Oscar Pacello, Remberto Siles, Julio Maldonado and Teobaldo Cardozo.  The Erbol leaked information audios also mention calls from opposition leaders to burn government party structures and to put together a general strike across the country.  All these actions, which were expected to be advertised as based on social unrest, would be part of the response to the triumph of Evo Morales in the last presidential elections.  The opposition plans would also include an eventual attack against the Cuban Embassy, very similar to what happened in the coup against Venezuela’s late president Hugo Chavez in 2002.  So far, none of the opposition leaders in Bolivia has said anything about the leaked audios.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


globalresearch--2019-11-11--PSL Statement: We Condemn Military Coup; US Hands Off Bolivia

The Party for Socialism and Liberation strongly condemns the military coup in Bolivia, and extends our solidarity to the Bolivian people who are struggling to defend the massive gains won under the leadership of President Evo Morales in the face of this counter-revolution. U.S. imperialism is clearly the sponsor of the coup and we are outraged at this crime against Bolivian sovereignty and democracy.  The goal of the coup is to restore the absolute authority of the Bolivian elites who rule as clients of the United States. They despise the country’s Indigenous majority and want to eviscerate the rights of the working class.  The coup also has a clear regional significance. Progressive and revolutionary forces have been on the march over the past year. President López Obrador’s new government in Mexico committed itself to non-interference in the sovereign affairs of the nations of Latin America. Venezuela defeated the U.S.-backed coup attempt of Juan Guaidó. An uprising in Ecuador forced the government to flee the capital city and cancel an IMF-imposed austerity package. An ongoing rebellion in Chile has brought historic crowds into the streets and put the right wing government of Sebastian Piñera on the defensive despite vicious repression by the police and military. The right wing government in Argentina was voted out of office in favor of the progressive Alberto Fernández-Cristina Fernández presidential ticket. And immediately preceding the Bolivian coup, wrongfully imprisoned ex-President Lula was freed.  The Bolivian ruling class and their military are following the dictates of the U.S. government, which has worked overtime to turn back the leftwing tide sweeping Latin America.  Upon assuming the presidency in 2006, President Morales nationalized the country’s oil and gas wealth. This wealth was used to meet the needs of the people and promote economic development. Morales’ Movement for Socialism (MAS) drew its support from the working class of Bolivia, whose population is majority Indigenous, and transformed Bolivia from one of the poorest countries in the world to the fastest-growing economy in the region. Evo Morales is the first Indigenous President in the history of Bolivia, and his presidency has posed a challenge to the racist ruling elite by empowering the Indigenous majority culturally and economically.  The battle in Bolivia and all of Latin America continues between the forces that want to empower the people and those that want to restore the power and wealth of the elite. People in the United States can play an important role in this intense struggle by pressuring our imperialist government to end its war on the people in Latin America and the Caribbean. U.S. hands off Bolivia!  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


globalresearch--2019-11-11--The Military Coup Against Morales Won’t End the Hybrid War on Bolivia

President Morales resigned under duress following the military’s “request” that he do so after the US-backed OAS alleged that it uncovered evidence supposedly proving that his recent re-election was rigged, but the military coup won’t end the Hybrid War on Bolivia even in the unlikely “best-case” scenario that it ends the cycle of violence in the country because the structural-institutional consequences of this ongoing campaign will inevitably lead to a reversal of the socio-economic rights that were bestowed upon the majority-indigenous population and therefore risks returning millions of people to their prior position as slaves to the neoliberal-globalist system.  The Beginning Of The End?  The Hybrid War on Bolivia has thus far succeeded in removing the country’s democratically re-elected and legitimate head of state after President Morales resigned under duress following the military’s “request” that he do so, with this coup being made possible only because US intelligence had already co-opted the armed forces and therefore ensured that this outcome was a fait accompli even before it was officially announced. On the surface, it might appear as though the Hybrid War is over after it achieved its most visible victory of carrying out regime change in this lithium-rich and geostrategically located state smack dab in the center of South America, but the fact of the matter is that this campaign is far from over for several very important reasons.  The first one is the most obvious, and it’s that there might be some uncertain degree of physical resistance from (“former”) President Morales’ mostly indigenous supporters, whether in the form of street protests or possibly even a nascent insurgency that could represent the tangible beginning of a national liberation movement to liberate the country from the US-backed military-oligarchic yoke that it’s suddenly been returned under after 13 years of freedom. The military preemptively sought to offset this scenario just prior to the coup by commencing what Reuters reported was “air and land operations to ‘neutralize’ armed groups that act outside the laws”, which in the country’s political context could only have been a euphemism for beginning operations against President Morales’ mostly indigenous supporters and not their right-wing opponents allied with the armed forces who were rioting throughout the country for several weeks already.  This is an important detail that many observers missed amid the fast-moving events that transpired on Sunday but one which crucially reveals that the military went rogue even before demanding President Morales’ resignation by launching operations against what are presumably his supporters despite not legally having the authority to do so. In hindsight, this means that not only did a military coup occur, but that it was preceded by what was arguably the unofficial onset of a low-level civil war whereby the armed forces went outside the legal chain of command (considering that they had yet to demand his resignation at the time) in order to “confront the people” despite previously denying that they had any such intention. This dramatic move came after the “opposition” seized state media in the capital, the homes of President Morales’ sister and two of his governors were torched Saturday night, and an allied mayor was lynched in the streets by the “opposition” a few days prior.  It’s little wonder then that President Morales implored his countrymen during his resignation speech to “stop attacking the brothers and sisters, stop burning and attacking” since he feared for his supporters’ lives after what had recently just taken place, especially seeing as how he would have already had knowledge of the military’s ongoing operation against them that was commenced earlier that same day. Knowing this, he fled the capital before they could capture him and potentially carry out a Gaddafi-like regicide while serving a so-called “warrant” for his arrest (on the presumable basis of something having to do with electoral or another form of alleged “corruption”) and relying on what would have been the unsubstantiated claim that he “resisted” or was “armed” in order to “justify” killing him in cold blood just like their predecessors did to the famous Che Guevara a little over half a century ago.  If they don’t succeed in capturing him soon, the US-backed armed forces might even request American and/or Brazilian “anti-terrorist” assistance after possibly claiming that he and his supporters are connected to Iran’s IRGC and/or Colombia’s FARC considering President Morales’ close ties with the Islamic Republic and vehement support of socialism, respectively. They could also “justify” their request for a direct military intervention by reminding the region of his alliance with Venezuelan President Maduro and alleging that the latter is somehow involved in President Morales’ so-called “terrorist” and possibly even “drug-trafficking” activities. The deck is therefore stacked against him and his supporters even in the event that they resort to waging a national liberation campaign, which would be entirely within their legal rights after external forces took control of the state by proxy and commenced the ongoing low-level civil war.  That’s the worst-case scenario, but the “best-case” one isn’t much better, which would see the US-backed right-wing forces rapidly reversing the socio-economic rights that President Morales bestowed upon the majority-indigenous population throughout his 13 years in office without having to fight an intense civil war first. In other words, his supporters would simply surrender and allow the process to unfold without any physical resistance, which seems extremely unlikely but could nevertheless still occur if the campaign of terror presently being waged against them succeeds in scaring the population into submission. It should be taken for granted that some members of the riotous mobs will team up with the US-backed military in order to form death squads that will kill anyone who resists, beginning with members of his government (both currently serving and those who recently resigned in order to protect their families after their loved ones were at credible risk of being harmed) and their supporters who might take to the streets in protest against this illegal seizure of power.  Either way, the grand strategic outcome that the coup plotters are pursuing is to purge all state structures of socialists in order to more easily impose a hyper-neoliberal regime as soon as possible, with the only question being whether the population actively resists this “lustration” or not. Some of the most likely structural-institutional consequences would be the granting of fiscal (and possibly even political) autonomy to the gas-rich “opposition” strongholds of the so-called “Media Luna” lowlands where most of the mestizos live and the drastic reduction of taxes on foreign mining firms operating in the indigenous-populated highlands, which could altogether serve to deprive President Morales’ mostly indigenous supporters of the resources needed to subsidize their socio-economic programs. The end result would naturally be that millions of people risk returning to their prior position of undignified servitude that they toiled under prior to President Morales’ ascent to office.  Acutely aware of the future that awaits them if the military coup succeeds in stripping them of their hard-earned socio-economic rights and institutionalizing their status as slaves to the neoliberal-globalist system supported by their country’s oligarchy and its American/Brazilian backers, it wouldn’t be surprising if the “worst-case” scenario transpires of President Morales’ mostly indigenous supporters waging a full-fledged national liberation insurgency.  That, however, also dangerously carries with it the high risk that the state will “simplify” its “counter-insurgency” strategy by siccing death squads on anyone of native Bolivian heritage (especially in the rural areas), therefore leading to ethnic cleansing against them or even genocide if this strategy is taken to its “logical” conclusion. As such, it’s way too early to say that the Hybrid War on Bolivia is over just because President Morales was forced to resign under duress since this campaign will never truly end given the literally fascist outcome that it’s aiming to indefinitely perpetuate of informally returning the indigenous population to noeliberal slavery. Considering the dynamics at play, Bolivia might soon become known as the “Latin American Libya”, and the consequences could easily spread throughout the rest of South America just as Libya’s spread throughout Africa.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  This article was originally published on OneWorld.  Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


globalresearch--2019-11-13--Bolivia Coup Led by Christian Fascist Paramilitary Leader and Millionaire – with Foreign Support

Bolivian coup leader Luis Fernando Camacho is a far-right multi-millionaire who arose from fascist movements in the Santa Cruz region, where the US has encouraged separatism. He has courted support from Colombia, Brazil, and the Venezuelan opposition.  When Luis Fernando Camacho stormed into Bolivia’s abandoned presidential palace in the hours after President Evo Morales’s sudden November 10 resignation, he revealed to the world a side of the country that stood at stark odds with the plurinational spirit its deposed socialist and Indigenous leader had put forward.  With a Bible in one hand and a national flag in the other, Camacho bowed his head in prayer above the presidential seal, fulfilling his vow to purge his country’s Native heritage from government and “return God to the burned palace.”  Far-right Bolivian opposition leader Luis Fernando Camacho in Bolivia’s presidential palace with a Bible, after the coup  Bolivia’s extreme right-wing opposition had overthrown leftist President Evo Morales that day, following demands by the country’s military leadership that he step down.  Virtually unknown outside his country, where he had never won a democratic election, Camacho stepped into the void. He is a powerful multi-millionaire named in the Panama Papers, and an ultra-conservative Christian fundamentalist groomed by a fascist paramilitary notorious for its racist violence, with a base in Bolivia’s wealthy separatist region of Santa Cruz.  Camacho hails from a family of corporate elites who have long profited from Bolivia’s plentiful natural gas reserves. And his family lost part of its wealth when Morales nationalized the country’s resources, in order to fund his vast social programs — which cut poverty by 42 percent and extreme poverty by 60 percent.  In the lead-up to the coup, Camacho met with leaders from right-wing governments in the region to discuss their plans to destabilize Morales. Two months before the putsch, he tweeted gratitude: “Thank you Colombia! Thank you Venezuela!” he exclaimed, tipping his hat to Juan Guaido’s coup operation. He also recognized the far-right government of Jair Bolsonaro, declaring, “Thank you Brazil!”  Camacho had spent years leading an overtly fascist separatist organization called the Unión Juvenil Cruceñista. The Grayzone edited the following clips from a promotional historical documentary that the group posted on its own social media accounts:  While Camacho and his far-right forces served as the muscle behind the coup, their political allies waited to reap the benefits.  The presidential candidate Bolivia’s opposition had fielded in the October election, Carlos Mesa, is a “pro-business” privatizer with extensive ties to Washington. US government cables published by WikiLeaks reveal that he regularly corresponded with American officials in their efforts to destabilize Morales.  Mesa is currently listed as an expert at the Inter-American Dialogue, a DC-based think tank funded by the US government’s soft-power arm USAID, various oil giants, and a host of multi-national corporations active in Latin America.  Evo Morales, a former farmer who rose to prominence in social movements before becoming the leader of the powerful grassroots political party Movement Toward Socialism (MAS), was Bolivia’s first Indigenous leader. Wildly popular in the country’s substantial Native and peasant communities, he won numerous elections and democratic referenda over a 13-year period, often in landslides.  On October 20, Morales won re-election by more than 600,000 votes, giving him just above the 10 percent margin needed to defeat opposition presidential candidate Mesa in the first round.  Experts who did a statistical analysis of Bolivia’s publicly available voting data found no evidence of irregularities or fraud. But the opposition claimed otherwise, and took to the streets in weeks of protests and riots.  The events that precipitated the resignation of Morales were indisputably violent. Right-wing opposition gangs attacked numerous elected politicians from the ruling leftist MAS party. They then ransacked the home of President Morales, while burning down the houses of several other top officials. The family members of some politicians were kidnapped and held hostage until they resigned. A female socialist mayor was publicly tortured by a mob.  Following the forced departure of Morales, coup leaders arrested the president and vice president of the government’s electoral body, and forced the organization’s other officials to resign. Camacho’s followers proceeded to burn Wiphala flags that symbolized the country’s Indigenous population and the plurinational vision of Morales.  The Organization of American States, a pro-US organization founded by Washington during the Cold War as an alliance of right-wing anti-communist countries in Latin America, helped rubber stamp the Bolivian coup. It called for new elections, claiming there were numerous irregularities in the October 20 vote, without citing any evidence. Then the OAS remained silent as Morales was overthrown by his military and his party’s officials were attacked and violently forced to resign.  The day after, the Donald Trump White House enthusiastically praised the coup, trumpeting it as a “significant moment for democracy,” and a “strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua.”  Emerging from the shadows to lead a violent far-right putsch  While Carlos Mesa timidly condemned the opposition’s violence, Camacho egged it on, ignoring calls for an international audit of the election and emphasizing his maximalist demand to purge all supporters of Morales from government. He was the true face of the opposition, concealed for months behind the moderate figure of Mesa.  A 40-year-old multi-millionaire businessman from the separatist stronghold of Santa Cruz, Camacho has never run for office. Like Venezuelan coup leader Juan Guaidó, whom more than 80 percent of Venezuelans had never heard of until the US government anointed him as supposed “president,” Camacho was an obscure figure until the coup attempt in Bolivia hit its stride.  He first created his Twitter account on May 27, 2019. For months, his tweets went ignored, generating no more than three or four retweets and likes. Before the election, Camacho did not have a Wikipedia article, and there were few media profiles on him in Spanish- or English-language media.  Camacho issued a call for a strike on July 9, posting videos on Twitter that got just over 20 views. The goal of the strike was to try to force the resignation of Bolivian government’s electoral organ the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE). In other words, Camacho was pressuring the government’s electoral authorities to step down more than three months before the presidential election.  It was not until after the election that Camacho was thrust into the limelight and transformed into a celebrity by corporate media conglomerates like the local right-wing network Unitel,Telemundo, and CNN en Español.  All of a sudden, Camacho’s tweets calling for Morales to resign were lighting up with thousands of retweets. The coup machinery had been activated.  Mainstream outlets like the New York Times and Reuters followed by anointing the unelected Camacho as the “leader” of Bolivia’s opposition. But even as he lapped up international attention, key portions of the far-right activist’s background were omitted.  Left unmentioned were Camacho’s deep and well-established connections to Christian extremist paramilitaries notorious for racist violence and local business cartels, as well as the right-wing governments across the region.  It was in the fascist paramilitaries and separatist atmosphere of Santa Cruz where Camacho’s politics were formed, and where the ideological contours of the coup had been defined.  Cadres from the Unión Juvenil Cruceñista (UJC), the Bolivian fascist youth group that Luis Fernando Camacho got his start in  Luis Fernando Camacho was groomed by the Unión Juvenil Cruceñista, or Santa Cruz Youth Union (UJC), a fascist paramilitary organization that has been linked to assassination plots against Morales. The group is notorious for assaulting leftists, Indigenous peasants, and journalists, all while espousing a deeply racist, homophobic ideology.  Since Morales entered office in 2006, the UJC has campaigned to separate from a country its members believed had been overtaken by a Satanic Indigenous mass.  The UJC is the Bolivian equivalent of Spain’s Falange, India’s Hindu supremacist RSS, and Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov battalion. Its symbol is a green cross that bears strong similarities to logos of fascist movements across the West.  And its members are known to launch into Nazi-style sieg heil salutes.  Even the US embassy in Bolivia has described UJC members as “racist” and “militant,” noting that they “have frequently attacked pro-MAS/government people and installations.”  After journalist Benjamin Dangl visited with UJC members in 2007, he described them as the “brass knuckles” of the Santa Cruz separatist movement. “The Unión Juvenil has been known to beat and whip campesinos marching for gas nationalization, throw rocks at students organizing against autonomy, toss molotov cocktails at the state television station, and brutally assault members of the landless movement struggling against land monopolies,” Dangl wrote.  “When we have to defend our culture by force, we will,” a UJC leader told Dangl. “The defense of liberty is more important than life.”  Camacho was elected as vice president of the UJC in 2002, when he was just 23 years old. He left the organization two years later to build his family’s business empire and rise through the ranks of the Pro-Santa Cruz Committee. It was in that organization that he was taken under the wing of one of the separatist movement’s most powerful figures, a Bolivian-Croatian oligarch named Branko Marinkovic.  In August, Camacho tweeted a photo with his “great friend,” Marinkovic. This friendship was crucial to establishing the rightist activist’s credentials and forging the basis of the coup that would take form three months later.  Branko Marinkovic is a major landowner who ramped up his support for the right-wing opposition after some of his land was nationalized by the Evo Morales government. As chairman of the Pro-Santa Cruz Committee, he oversaw the operations of the main engine of separatism in Bolivia.  In a 2008 letter to Marinkovic, the International Federation for Human Rights denounced the committee as an “actor and promoter of racism and violence in Bolivia.”  The human rights group added that it “condemn[ed] the attitude and secessionist, unionist and racist discourses as well as the calls for military disobedience of which the Pro-Santa Cruz Civic Committee for is one of the main promoters.”  In 2013, journalist Matt Kennard reported that the US government was working closely with the Pro-Santa Cruz Committee to encourage the balkanization of Bolivia and to undermine Morales. “What they [the US] put across was how they could strengthen channels of communication,” the vice president of the committee told Kennard. “The embassy said that they would help us in our communication work and they have a series of publications where they were putting forward their ideas.”  In a 2008 profile on Marinkovic, the New York Timesacknowledged the extremist undercurrents of the Santa Cruz separatist movement the oligarch presided over. It described the area as “a bastion of openly xenophobic groups like the Bolivian Socialist Falange, whose hand-in-air salute draws inspiration from the fascist Falange of the former Spanish dictator Franco.”  The Bolivian Socialist Falange was a fascist group that provided safe haven to Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie during the Cold War. A former Gestapo torture expert, Barbie was repurposed by the CIA through its Operation Condor program to help exterminate communism across the continent. (Despite its antiquated name, like the German National Socialists, this far-right extremist group was violently anti-leftist, committed to killing socialists.)  The Bolivian Falange came into power in 1971 when its leader, Gen. Hugo Banzer Suarez, ousted the leftist government of Gen. Juan Jose Torres Gonzales. The government of Gonzales had infuriated business leaders by nationalizing industries and antagonized Washington by ousting the Peace Corps, which it viewed as an instrument of CIA penetration. The Nixon administration immediately welcomed Banzer with open arms and courted him as a key bulwark against the spread of socialism in the region. (An especially ironic 1973 dispatch appears on Wikileaks showing Secretary of State Henry Kissinger thanking Banzer for congratulating him on his Nobel Peace Prize).  The movement’s putschist legacy persevered during the Morales era through organizations like the UJC and figures such as Marinkovic and Camacho.  The Times noted that Marinkovic also supported the activities of the UJC, describing the fascist group as “a quasi-independent arm of the committee led by Mr. Marinkovic.” A member of the UJC board told the US newspaper of record in an interview, “We will protect Branko with our own lives.”  Marinkovic has espoused the kind of Christian nationalist rhetoric familiar to the far-right organizations of Santa Cruz, calling, for instance, for a “crusade for the truth” and insisting that God is on his side.  The oligarch’s family hails from Croatia, where he has dual citizenship. Marinkovic has long been dogged by rumors that his family members were involved in the country’s powerful fascist Ustashe movement.  The Ustashe collaborated openly with Nazi German occupiers during World War Two. Their successors returned to power after Croatia declared independence from the former Yugoslavia – a former socialist country that was intentionally balkanized in a NATO war, much in the same way that Marinkovic hoped Bolivia would be.  Marinkovic denies that his family was part of the Ustashe. He claimed in an interview with the New York Times that his father fought against the Nazis.  But even some of his sympathizers are skeptical. A Balkan analyst from the private intelligence firm Stratfor, which works closely with the US government and is popularly known as the “shadow CIA,” produced a rough background profile on Marinkovic, speculating, “Still don’t know his full story, but I would bet a lot of $$$ that this dude’s parents are 1st gen (his name is too Slavic) and that they were Ustashe (read: Nazi) sympathizers fleeing Tito’s Communists after WWI.”  The Stratfor analyst excerpted a 2006 article by journalist Christian Parenti, who had visited Marinkovic at his ranch in Santa Cruz. Evo Morales’ “land reform could lead to civil war,” Marinkovic warned Parenti in the Texas-accented English he picked up while studying at the University of Texas.  Today, Marinkovic is an ardent supporter of Brazil’s far-right leader Jair Bolsonaro, whose only complaint about Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was that he “didn’t kill enough.”  Marinkovic is also a public admirer of Venezuela’s far-right opposition. “Todos somos Leopoldo” — “we are all Leopoldo,” he tweeted in support of Leopoldo López, who has been involved in numerous coup attempts against Venezuela’s elected leftist government.  While Marinkovic denied any role in armed militant activity in his interview with Parenti, he was accused in 2008 of playing a central role in an attempt to assassinate Morales and his Movement Toward Socialism party allies.  He told the New York Times less than two years before the plot developed, “If there is no legitimate international mediation in our crisis, there is going to be confrontation. And unfortunately, it is going to be bloody and painful for all Bolivians.”  An assassination plot links Bolivia’s right to international fascists  In April 2009, a special unit of the Bolivian security services barged into a luxury hotel room and cut down three men who were said to be involved in a plot to kill Evo Morales. Two others remained on the loose. Four of the alleged conspirators had Hungarian or Croatian roots and ties to rightist politics in eastern Europe, while another was a right-wing Irishman, Michael Dwyer, who had only arrived in Santa Cruz six months before.  Image on the right: Alleged assassination plotter Michael Dwyer with his weapons  The ringleader of the group was said to be a former leftist journalist named Eduardo Rosza-Flores who had turned to fascism and belonged to Opus Dei, the traditionalist Catholic cult that emerged under the dictatorship of Spain’s Francisco Franco. In fact, the codename Rosza-Flores assumed in the assassination plot was “Franco,” after the late Generalissimo.  During the 1990s, Rosza fought on behalf of the Croatian First International Platoon, or the PIV, in the war to separate from Yugoslavia. A Croatian journalist told Time that the “PIV was a notorious group: 95% of them had criminal histories, many were part of Nazi and fascist groups, from Germany to Ireland.”  By 2009, Rosza returned home to Bolivia to crusade on behalf of another separatist movement in Santa Cruz. And it was there that he was killed in a luxury hotel with no apparent source of income and a massive stockpile of guns.  The government later released photos of Rosza and a co-conspirator posing with their weapons. Publication of emails between the ringleader and Istvan Belovai, a former Hungarian military intelligence officer who served as a double agent for the CIA, cemented the perception that Washington had a hand in the operation.  Marinkovic was subsequently charged with providing $200,000 to the plotters. The Bolivian-Croatian oligarch initially fled to the United States, where he was given asylum, then relocated to Brazil, where he lives today. He denied any involvement in the plan to kill Morales.  Image below: Rosza and Dwyer with their arms cache in Bolivia  As journalist Matt Kennard reported, there was another thread that tied the plot to the US: the alleged participation of an NGO leader named Hugo Achá Melgar.  “Rozsa didn’t come here by himself, they brought him,” the Bolivian government’s lead investigator told Kennard. “Hugo Achá Melgar brought him.”  Achá was not just the head of any run-of-the-mill NGO. He had founded the Bolivian subsidiary of the Human Rights Foundation (HRF), an international right-wing outfit that is known for hosting a “school for revolution” for activists seeking regime change in states targeted by the US government.  HRF is run by Thor Halvorssen Jr., the son of the late Venezuelan oligarch and CIA asset Thor Halvorssen Hellum. The first cousin of the veteran Venezuelan coup plotter Leopoldo Lopez, Halvorssen was a former college Republican activist who crusaded against political correctness and other familiar right-wing hobgoblins.  After a brief career as a firebrand right-wing film producer, in which he oversaw a scandalous “anti-environmentalist” documentary financed by a mining corporation, Halvorssen rebranded as a promoter of liberalism and the enemy of global authoritarianism. He launched the HRF with grants from right-wing billionaires like Peter Thiel, conservative foundations, and NGOs including Amnesty International. The group has since been at the forefront of training activists for insurrectionary activity from Hong Kong to the Middle East to Latin America.  Though Achá was granted asylum in the US, the HRF has continued pushing regime change in Bolivia. As Wyatt Reed reported for The Grayzone, HRF “freedom fellow” Jhanisse Vaca Daza helped trigger the initial stage of the coup by blaming Morales for the Amazon fires that consumed parts of Bolivia in August, mobilizing international protests against him.  At the time, Daza posed as an “environmental activist” and student of non-violence who articulated her concerns in moderate-seeming calls for more international aid to Bolivia. Through her NGO, Rios de Pie, she helped launch the #SOSBolivia hashtag, which signaled the imminent foreign-backed regime-change operation.  Courting the regional right, prepping the coup  While HRF’s Daza rallied protests outside Bolivian embassies in Europe and the US, Fernando Camacho remained behind the scenes, lobbying right-wing governments in the region to bless the coming coup.  In May, Camacho met with Colombia’s far-right President Ivan Duque. Camacho was helping to spearhead regional efforts at undermining the legitimacy of Evo Morales’ presidency at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, seeking to block his candidacy in the October election.  Camacho with Colombian President Ivan Duque in May  That same month, the rightist Bolivian agitator also met with Ernesto Araújo, the chancellor of Jair Bolsonaro’s ultra-conservative administration in Brazil. Through the meeting, Camacho successfully secured Bolsonaro’s backing for regime change in Bolivia.  This November 10, Araújo enthusiastically endorsed the ouster of Morales, declaring that “Brazil will support the democratic and constitutional transition” in the country.  Then in August, two months before Bolivia’s presidential election, Camacho held court with officials from Venezuela’s US-appointed coup regime. These included Gustavo Tarre, Guaido’s faux Venezuelan OAS ambassador, who formerly worked at the right-wing Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank in Washington.  After the meeting, Camacho tweeted gratitude to the Venezuelan coup-mongers, as well as to Colombia and Brazil.  Back in Bolivia, Carlos Mesa occupied the spotlight as the opposition’s presidential candidate.  His erudite image and centrist policy proposals put him in a seemingly alternate political universe from fire-breathing rightists like Camacho and Marinkovic. For them, he was a convenient front man and acceptable candidate who promised to defend their economic interests.  “It might be that he is not my favorite, but I’m going to vote for him, because I don’t want Evo,” Marinkovic told a right-wing Argentine newspaper five days before the election.  Indeed, it was Camacho’s practical financial interests that appeared to have necessitated his support for Mesa.  The Camacho family has formed a natural gas cartel in Santa Cruz. As the Bolivian outlet Primera Linea reported, Luis Fernando Camacho’s father, Jose Luis, was the owner of a company called Sergas that distributed gas in the city; his uncle, Enrique, controlled Socre, the company that ran the local gas production facilities; and his cousin, Cristian, controls another local gas distributor called Controgas.  According to Primera Linea, the Camacho family was using the Pro-Santa Cruz Committee as a political weapon to install Carlos Mesa into power and ensure the restoration of their business empire.  Mesa has a well-documented history of advancing the goals of transnational companies at the expense of his own country’s population. The neoliberal politician and media personality served as vice president when the US-backed President Gonzalo “Goni” Sanchez de Lozada provoked mass protests with his 2003 plan to allow a consortium of multinational corporations to export the country’s natural gas to the US through a Chilean port.  Bolivia’s US-trained security forces met the ferocious protests with brutal repression. After presiding over the killing of 70 unarmed protesters, Sanchez de Lozada fled to Miami and was succeeded by Mesa.  By 2005, Mesa was also ousted by huge demonstrations spurred by his protection of privatized natural gas companies. With his demise, the election of Morales and the rise of the socialist and rural Indigenous movements behind him were just beyond the horizon.  US government cables released by WikiLeaks show that, after his ouster, Mesa continued regular correspondence with American officials. A 2008 memo from the US embassy in Bolivia revealed that Washington was conspiring with opposition politicians in the lead-up to the 2009 presidential election, hoping to undermine and ultimately unseat Morales.  The memo noted that Mesa had met with the chargé d’affaires of the US embassy, and had privately told them he planned to run for president. The cable recalled: “Mesa told us his party will be ideologically similar to a social democratic party and that he hoped to strengthen ties with the Democratic party. ‘We have nothing against the Republican party, and have in fact gotten support from IRI (International Republican Institute) in the past, but we think we share more ideology with the Democrats,’ he added.”  Today, Mesa serves as an in-house “expert” at the Inter-American Dialogue, a neoliberal Washington-based think tank focused on Latin America. One of the Dialogue’s top donors is the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the State Department subsidiary that was exposed in classified diplomatic cables published on Wikileaks for strategically directing millions of dollars to opposition groups including those “opposed to Evo Morales’ vision for indigenous communities.”  Other top funders of the Dialogue include oil titans like Chevron and ExxonMobil; Bechtel, which inspired the initial protests against the administration in which Mesa served; the Inter-American Development Bank, which has forcefully opposed Morales’ socialist-oriented policies; and the Organization of American States (OAS), which helped delegitimize the Morales’s re-election victory with dubious claims of irregular vote counts.  When Carlos Mesa touched off nationwide protests in October by accusing the Evo Morales government of committing electoral fraud, the right-wing firebrand hailed by his followers as “Macho Camacho” emerged from the shadows. Behind him was the hardcore separatist shock force that he led in Santa Cruz.  Mesa faded into the distance as Camacho emerged as the authentic face of the coup, rallying his forces with the uncompromising rhetoric and fascist symbology that defined the Unión Juvenil Cruceñista paramilitary.  As he declared victory over Morales, Camacho exhorted his followers to “finish the job, let’s get the elections going, let’s start judging the government criminals, let’s put them in jail.”  Back in Washington, meanwhile, the Trump administration released an official statement celebrating Bolivia’s coup, declaring that “Morales’s departure preserves democracy.”  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and author, and the founder and editor of The Grayzone.  Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker, and the assistant editor of The Grayzone.  All images in this article are from The Grayzone


globalresearch--2019-11-18--Bolivia’s U.S.-backed Coup Government Has Given the Military a License to Kill Protestors

The de facto and unelected president of Bolivia, Jeanine Áñez, signed a decree that exempts all military personnel from being criminally responsible, even in the cases of murder, in the midst of demonstrations against the coup d’etat that ousted democratically elected first Indigenous President of Bolivia, Evo Morales. Effectively, Bolivian security forces have a license to kill now.  Since the decree was signed last Thursday, it has inevitably caused controversy with demonstrators and social media users alike. And it very well should – it is a blatant U.S.-orchestrated coup against Morales who helped his country reduce unemployment, poverty and illiteracy by at least 50% from 2006 to 2018, and liberated his country from strangling neoliberal policies of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.  The decree was immediately denounced by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), by Morales, and by regional leaders such as the newly elected president of Argentina, Alberto Fernández.  Although the decree is dated November 14, it was only made public on Saturday, a day after an anti-government march of coca growers in the department of Cochabamba left at least nine dead and 115 injured, according to the Office of the Ombudsman. For its part, the United Nations High Commissioner, Michel Bachelet, has expressed concern about the growing violence in the Andean country and the actions taken by the unelected government.  However, this should not even be the least bit surprising for the UN commissioner since the U.S. has a long history of violent regime change in Latin America. It was revealed in a report by the Gray Zone that at least six of the main coup plotters were alumni of the infamous School of the Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, a notorious training center that since the times of the Cold War has orchestrated regime operations against anti-U.S. Latin American leaders. The report explained that “brutal regime change and reprisal operations from Haiti to Honduras have been carried out by SOA graduates, and some of the most bloodstained juntas in the region’s history have been run by the school’s alumni.” While U.S. President Donald Trump cheered on a “a significant moment for democracy in the Western Hemisphere,” the U.S.-trained Bolivian military have now killed at least 23 people, mostly Indigenous.  Although the U.S. espouses the endless mantra of ‘freedom and democracy’, it has continuously demonstrated, such as in Venezuela and Syria, that it is willing to move away from its ‘peaceful’ liberal ideology and utilize reactionary forces when its political and economic interests are under threat. Morales managed to re-found the country politically and economically by embracing the Multipolar World, where the U.S. is no longer the sole power in the world, by improving ties with China and Russia, and by nationalizing natural resources and strategic companies.  Evo Morales said during an interview in June 2016:  Although Morales ran Bolivia, one of Latin America’s poorest countries, mostly uninterrupted for 13 years unlike Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro and Brazil’s Lula, the discovery of massive amounts of lithium was a gamechanger. The precious resource is necessary to power all batteries, a demand that is ever increasing for our technological world.  Although Morales’ impressive records speaks for itself, as he never prioritized the indoctrination of the Bolivian military, the SOA-trained officers were able to remain dormant until called upon by the U.S. to conduct a coup in the South American country. Two days before the Gray Zone report, in a previous article I already made the argument that former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez had radicalized and ideologized the military to the constitutional national ideology and built a people’s militia capable of defending the government from internal and external, which is why even to this day, Maduro has not been ousted in a coup despite endless U.S.-backed attempts. This is something Morales did not do, allowing the U.S. to gain a strong foothold in the Bolivian military.  Morales created the Anti-Imperialist Command School in 2016. Completing several courses related to the ideology of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas (ALBA), as well on geopolitics and imperialism, became the only way to become a Captain in the Bolivian military. However, this is only a recent initiative, that began a decade after he became president, not even nearly enough time for him to reform the military ideology, especially since he never expelled pro-U.S. officers from the military, opting to wait for their retirements.  And now that Áñez is running the country with the military’s blessing, the years of advancements in Indigenous rights and living standards made by Morales will surely be reversed, especially as she considers their culture to be “Satanic” that is not compatible with modern life and should remain in the mountains or swamplands. Áñez criticizes socialism and expresses her fear that one day Bolivia will become like “Cuba” – this is mostly influenced by her adherence to radical Christian Evangelicalism that believes socialism to be the work of the devil.  Guided by her Evangelical beliefs, she is now an ally of Evangelical Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch supporter of the Brazilian dictatorship and has said that “too bad the Brazilian cavalry was not as efficient as the American cavalry that exterminated the Indians,” in reference to the American Indian genocide. Supporting reactionary pro-U.S. forces in Latin America has always meant a contempt and hatred of the Indigenous people – and it has often been the Evangelicals that were used in Latin Americaalongside paramilitaries or coup plotters to carry out U.S. interests in this region.  Although Bolsonaro dreams of a Brazil that is purged of most of its native population, like what was achieved in the U.S., Áñez has begun her own U.S.-backed campaign against the Indigenous populations by already greenlighting the murder of Morales supporters, who are overwhelmingly Indigenous just as the population of Bolivia is.  Her license to kill has not just seen many Indigenous murdered, but it will mean we will continue to see the Indigenous being murdered by the Bolivian military as they continue their peaceful mass demonstrations in support of the exiled Morales.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  This article was originally published on InfoBrics.  Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.


hotair--2019-01-21--Trump leaving military option on the table for Venezuela Is a coup coming

Trump leaving military option on the table for Venezuela. Is a coup coming?

We’ve been watching the deteriorating situation in Venezuela quite closely here over the past couple of years, with one question always hanging over the discussion. What, if anything, should the United States be doing about the dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro aside from the sanctions we already have in place? While rumors have circulated in the past, some recent revelations appear to indicate that President Trump has never entirely taken the idea of either military intervention or at least logistical support of a Venezuelan military coup off the table. One of his former NSC members clarified that during a recent speech. (Business Insider)  The Trump administration had several clandestine meetings with rebellious Venezuelan military officers in 2018 but ultimately rebuffed their requests to support a coup. At a Wilson Center event in Washington, DC, in September, [former Trump administration National Security Council staffer Fernando] Cutz said the White House “never debated supporting a coup” or providing support for a coup while he worked there but was always open to listening when a player in Venezuela wanted to talk. Cutz also said at the event the administration had escalatory steps for developments in Venezuela, including a military response, for which he specifically mentioned the killing of US citizens or a massacre of Venezuelans as potential triggers. The steps also included “a full-fledged oil embargo,” he said.  I will once again suggest that any consideration of a direct military intervention in Venezuela by the United States, particularly if we were going in alone, would be a terrible idea. Not only have such nation-building exercises been unmitigated disasters in the past (particularly when we’re talking about Central and South America), but we have far more to lose than to gain in that nation.  We already know that the Chinese are heavily invested in Maduro’s government and they would most certainly want to protect their economic interests. Even worse, the Russians not only own a large stake in Venezuela’s oil industry now, but they also have a military presence in the country, including both ships and air force units. If we started a shooting war down there we would very likely wind up taking on the Russians and that opens up an entirely unpleasant can of worms.  But supporting a coup might not be as dangerous if the attempt had any chance of succeeding. With that in mind, it’s worth looking at this headline that showed up in the past 24 hours. Is there a coup coming? (Reuters)  Reuters hasn’t been able to confirm the authenticity of the video and there’s no action in the streets at the moment. And even if it’s real, if this guy is speaking only for himself he’s likely to “disappear” in short order. But if there is indeed growing unrest in the military about the way Maduro has eviscerated the nation, they’re probably the only ones who could remove him from office.  That’s not any sort of guaranteed panacea. Even if the military were to remove Maduro and lock him up, what would we get as a replacement? The military might turn over control to the National Assembly and restore the old order, but they might just as easily decide to keep power and set up a junta. If that’s the case, it probably couldn’t be any worse than what they’ve got now, but it also might not be much better.


instapundit--2019-04-30--LIVE UPDATES Juan Guaido Launches Military Coup in Venezuela Against Socialist Maduro Im not

LIVE UPDATES: Juan Guaidó Launches Military Coup in Venezuela Against Socialist Maduro.  I’m not …

I’m not sure “coup” is the right word here.  InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com


instapundit--2019-11-18--AND SEE, THERE’S MILITARY AND THERE’S MILITARY:  A military coup and Trump’s the good guy in all …

AND SEE, THERE’S MILITARY AND THERE’S MILITARY: A military coup and Trump’s the good guy in all this.


mintpressnews--2019-01-25--Amnesty International Should Oppose US Economic Sanctions and Incitement of a Military Coup in Venez

Amnesty International Should Oppose US Economic Sanctions and Incitement of a Military Coup in Venezuela

The following letter to Amnesty International was signed by various writers, academics and political activists including Australian filmmaker, John Pilger; Canadian journalist and author, Linda McQuaig; former UN independent investigator on Venezuela, Afred de Zayas; the Venezuela-based academic Steve Ellner and journalists working the reader-supported media outlet VenezuelAnalysis.com.  Last year, Amnesty International was asked if it denounced US-led economic sanctions on Venezuela and remarks by various US officials (Trump, Rex Tillerson) encouraging a military coup in Venezuela. Amnesty said it took no position on these matters.  Now the US has “recognized” a Venezuelan legislator as Venezuela’s new president. This strategy has been applauded by prominent Venezuelan opposition members as a way to prevent Venezuela’s state oil company from getting paid for oil sales to the United States without the authorization of the “new government” named by Trump. It amounts to an effort to impose an oil embargo on Venezuela aimed at driving Venezuela’s government from office through a military uprising.  US-backed military coups in the Western Hemisphere have cost hundreds of thousands of lives in the post WWII era. In this century alone, a US-perpetrated coup in Haiti (in 2004) cost thousands of lives.  Before this recent escalation, US financial sanctions have already cost the Venezuelan government over $6 billion USD in lost revenue since August of 2017 in an economy that was only able to import $11.7 billion USD worth of goods in 2018. As US economist Mark Weisbrot noted the sanctions “do actually kill people by depriving them of access to medicines”  Amnesty has denounced governments and even non-state actors for saying things that encourage attacks on vulnerable people. Amnesty should similarly object when the world’s most powerful government produces a steady stream of comments that make it crystal clear a military coup in Venezuela would be welcome – as indeed the Bush administration made clear in 2002 when it welcomed the dictatorship of Pedro Carmona. This kind of support for a military coup is, just like other statements that Amnesty has previously denounced, aiding and abetting of human rights violations. For example Secretary of State Mike Pompeo just stated the following on January 10.  Amnesty should change its position. US economic sanctions and remarks like these from US officials should be strongly opposed.  Top Photo | Activist Medea Benjamin with the group Code Pink, heckles remarks by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during an extraordinary session about the crisis in Venezuela held by the Organization of American States, Jan. 24, 2019 in Washington. Luis Alonso Lugo | AP  Joe Emersberger is a Canadian engineer and UNIFOR member with Ecuadorian roots. He writes primarily for Telesur English and Znet.


mintpressnews--2019-04-30--Venezuelan Coup Attempt Sputters as Majority of Military Remain Loyal to Maduro

CARACAS, VENEZUELA — (Analysis) In an act described by the Venezuelan government as a small coup attempt, self-declared “President” of Venezuela Juan Guaidó appeared in a video alongside uniformed men who he claimed were a number of military defectors, declaring this as the “final phase” of Nicolás Maduro’s presidency.  The Venezuelan military generals and the vast majority of the military have pledged their loyalty to Maduro, who urged them to have nerves of steel.  The counter-revolutionary “activist” backed by the US State Department Leopoldo Lopez was among the instigators of this “final phase” coup. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza claims that the U.S. likely paid a guard to let him out of house arrest to join the coup.  Arreaza assured the public that this coup attempt will be contained and thousands of pro-Maduro protesters have taken to the streets and have surrounded the presidential palace.  The government of Mexico has expressed concern over possible bloodshed, as live rounds were being used as well as tear gas. Mexico has not recognized Guaidó as the leader of Venezuela, but has offered to broker a peace process.  Bolivian President Evo Morales has expressed his disdain for the coup attempt. He released a statement via twitter:  The Venezuelans leading the coup see it quite differently. They seem to acknowledge that their efforts won’t end with today’s brazen actions. In a statement earlier today, they doubled down on their mission towards a mixed military and civilian coup. However, they denied that their undertaking is a coup. Opposition leader Carlos Vecchio held a press conference earlier today:  This is only the beginning…This is an operation that is developing right now. We will see more events in the hours and the days to come. This is a constitutional process led by the Venezuelan people under the leadership of a civilian — the interim president of Venezuela Juan Guaidó. He’s calling for the restoration of our Constitution and of course, the restoration of our democratic system…” Venezuela is ready for a change. You must facilitate the transition in our country. You must allow the Venezuelan people to re-establish the democratic system. The time is now. Venezuela is ready for a change. Nobody is going to stop it.”  It’s quite astonishing that Vecchio would invoke the democratic process while leading a violent coup in support of a “president” who earned the title by standing at a podium and declaring himself president.  The Russians have registered a much more level-headed response to the coup attempt, invoking the United Nations. That long-standing pan-global institution was created in no small part to respond to this type of situation. The Russian Foreign ministry had this to say:  The radical opposition in Venezuela has once again turned to confrontation with the use of force. Instead of peaceful resolution of political disagreements, a course was chosen that is aimed to incite conflict, provoking disruptions of public order, clashes involving the armed forces. We urge [Venezuelans] to say no to violence. It’s important to avoid turmoil and bloodshed. Issues that Venezuela is facing right now must be resolved via a responsible process of talks without any preset conditions. Any action must be taken exclusively within the framework of the legal field, in full accordance with the Constitution and without any destructive outside interference. We confirm our principled position supporting political, civilized ways of resolving inner disagreements by the Venezuelans themselves. We appeal to all members of the international society, including the closest neighbors of this country, with an urge to affirm their adherence to the UN Charter, and norms and principles of international law, and to support Venezuela’s return onto a path of stable and incremental development through a dialogue that includes all responsible political powers within the country.”  The Russians call for peace at a time when the media, the United States, Europe and their hired Venezuelan plotters are all beating the drums of war. Russia has spent most of the last decade as a reasonable counterweight to aggression from the U.S. and NATO.  Guaidó’s plan seems to follow the same cynical formula used time and again for regime change. The opposition will not be able to achieve success on its own. Instead, leaders of the opposition will try to pull larger world powers like the U.S. and NATO into the conflict so that they can topple the Maduro regime.  Somehow the media will spin this as a victory for the people of Venezuela. Even though before Guaidó declared himself “president,” 80 percent of those people didn’t know who he was.  Feature Photo | Venezuela’s Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, Remigio Ceballos, speaks during military drills in response to President Trump’s threat of military action, at Fort Tiuna, Caracas, Venezuela, Aug. 25, 2017. Ricardo Mazalan | AP  Nick Rehwaldt is a MintPress News intern. He is an author, artist, and standup comedian focused on political issues, with much of his material ripped from the headlines on any given week. He’s also a proud non-voter and global citizen who happens to live in the U.S.


mintpressnews--2019-11-11--5 Fast Facts About the Military Coup in Bolivia and What You Can Do

The United States is currently backing a military coup against Bolivia’s first indigenous president, Evo Morales, who recently won re-election. Bolivia has enjoyed relative calm during the length of Morales’ presidency which began in January 2006. In 2008, Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador and counter-narcotics agents. The two countries have not had an ambassadorial relationship since 2009.  Despite what the mainstream media headlines would have you believe, a military coup is underway in Bolivia. Morales was forced to step down in an attempt to avert further violence and destruction at the ends of the violent right-wing opposition.  “Bolivian President Evo Morales steps down following accusations of election fraud“  “President of Bolivia steps down amid allegations of election rigging”  Nowhere in these headlines do we see the word “coup” or any mention of the history or the violence at the hands of the opposition that includes the burning of a governor’s home, the dragging of a mayor through the streets after her hair was cut off and her body painted red, and most recently the destruction of Evo Morales’ home.   Here’s what you need to know:    A Bolivian court gave Morales the “green light” to run for a fourth term as president after opponents said doing so would be unconstitutional. Bolivians went to the polls on October 20, only weeks ago, to select their president. When all was said and done, Morales walked away with 47.1 percent of the vote while his main opponent, who came in second place, had 36.5 percent of the vote. Because Morales secured more than 40 percent and had higher than a 10-point margin over the runner up, in accordance with the rules, a first-round win was declared with no need for a runoff.    Even before the election was concluded, Mesa declared that he would not accept the results if Morales were declared the winner.  The following day, after much outrage from the opposition, the Organization of American States (OAS) released a statement. While the statement did say that the elections took place in a “peaceful and orderly manner,” the OAS expressed “its deep concern and surprise at the drastic and hard-to-explain change in the trend of the preliminary results revealed after the closing of the polls.”  The statement failed to include any actual evidence or data.  Prior to that statement, Senator Marco Rubio tweeted the following false information:  The main criticism of the OAS is the significant increase in votes for Morales that came in near the end of the count. While this can sometimes be a red flag, simply looking at the voting records shows that it is a result of the geography of Bolivia. Morales has more support in poor and rural areas, areas whose votes often come in later.  The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) said in a statement on Friday:  It should be noted that the OAS was created by a U.S. official and anti-communist leaders from South America in 1948 with the sole purpose of disputing democratic elections in which a communist or socialist candidate wins. In effect, the OAS is an agent of regime change, often driven by US imperialism.  In 2000, the OAS flip-flopped on Haiti’s national election, first declaring it “a great success” before changing their position, paving the way for Washington’s regime change efforts of 2000-04 that resulted in the murder of thousands of people. The OAS then interfered in Haiti’s 2010 election by literally reversing the results.  Secretary General of the OAS, Luis Almagro, recognized the U.S.-backed opposition leader and self declared “interim president” of Venezuela in January, just prior to the failed coup attempt.    3. Carlos Mesa has a cozy relationship with the U.S.  Morales’ main opponent, Carlos Mesa, served as president of Bolivia from 2003-2005. U.S. hostilities against Bolivia have increased steadily since Mesa left office and he is Washington’s preferred candidate.  Government cables released by WikiLeaks reveal communications between Mesa and U.S. officials.  4. 50-70% of the world’s lithium supply is found in Bolivia  Some have called Bolivia the “Saudi Arabia of lithium.” The global demand for the alkali metal has steadily increased as technology such as cell phones, laptops, and hybrid cars have become woven into the fabric of our everyday lives. And the demand for it isn’t expected to slow anytime soon.  Bolivia has invested significantly in lithium mining in the country with Morales having once said:  But those same salt flats are also a major nature reserve that includes flamingos, cacti, geysers, and hot springs. Thousands of tourists visit the area each year to enjoy the hot springs.  Foreign companies have repeatedly expressed interest in Bolivia’s mining operations, but Morales has been understandably wary of foreign intervention. Bolivia has been left one of the poorest countries in Latin America despite possessing large reserves of oil and gas as well as the world’s largest silver mine.  As the world attempts to transition to greener fuels, it should come as no surprise that eyes are on Bolivia and its massive lithium supply.    And most importantly, Evo Morales has been in direct opposition of U.S. imperialism throughout his entire presidency. In 2016, Morales opened an “anti-imperialist” military academy in direct opposition to U.S. policies and military involvement throughout Latin America, to counter the influence of the School of the Americas. Morales said:  Morales went on to say, “Each time that the United States invades nations, launches missiles, or finances regime change, it does so behind a propaganda campaign which incessantly repeats the message that it is acting in the course of justice, freedom and democracy, in the cause of human rights or for humanitarian reasons.”  And in 2017, Morales declared that Bolivia had “total independence” from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.  Many leaders from around the world have described the situation in Bolivia as a military coup.


newsbiscuit--2019-01-08--Gabon foils military coup by having a Peoples Vote

Gabon foils military coup by having a ‘People’s Vote’

The Gabonese government has managed to avoid open rebellion by having offering a second Brexit referendum. This follows five soldiers taking control of the national radio station, demanding an end to the presidency of Omar Bongo, no more straight bananas and £350million extra a week for the NHS.  Despite it being 3,500 miles from Brussels, 48% of Gabon are strongly in favour of a European customs union, while 52% back malaria, intestinal worms and 17% infant mortality. Sleeping sickness is particularly prevalent among those having to listen to Chuka Umunna.  Tony Blair has demanded a second referendum, although this is not the first time an African republic has fallen under the spell of a known war-criminal. Said one Gabonese voter: ‘The recent coup in Zimbabwe showed us you can easily get rid of a corrupt Prime Minister – unless of course you are the 1922 Committee.’


newsbusters--2019-11-24--Carole Simpson: Nets Feared Military Coup During Nixon Resignation Address

How paranoid were the Nixon-hating TV networks during Watergate? Far enough out there that, according to liberal former ABC correspondent Carole Simpson, they feared that instead of resigning, President Nixon would announce a military coup supporting him.  Appearing on Joy Reid's MSNBC show AM Joy this morning, Simpson testified about the media conspiracy theories during Nixon's televised address to the nation of August 8, 1974, in which he announced his resignation:  CAROLE SIMPSON: I have to tell you, though, on the night he gave the resignation speech, I was a baby reporter then. But they had me out in Chicago, we were in major cities across America waiting for the riots or whatever that's going to happen after his announcement because people weren't sure that he wasn't -- the camera wouldn't pull back on Nixon and he’d be surrounded by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying he’s going to take over the government. The networks were really thinking something like that may happen."  Of course, back in the Watergate day, all of the TV networks were of a liberal bent, along with all leading newspapers other than the Wall Street Journal. And Simpson herself, as our Brent Baker has documented, has a long history—both as an ABC correspondent and later in her career—of pushing the liberal line.       Simpson's comments came during a segment on media coverage of the impeachment process currently unfolding against President Trump. Simpson blamed Fox News for the fact that during the impeachment hearings, President Trump's approval ratings have gone up, and support for impeachment has gone down. Fretted Simpson:  I don't understand what's happening in the country. [Laughter] You know, his approval ratings have gone up, support have done up, despite what we heard in two weeks of public hearings. So I don't know what's going on with the American people, but I have one suspicion, and I think it is Fox News. And the fact that most people are getting their news from Fox, and they believe Trump and Fox tell the truth, and the rest of us are enemies of the people. And it scares me that if people are just watching Fox, they have a completely skewed idea of what it is happening here. So it is very scary.  >> Help us fight back against the media’s impeachment crusade. <<


newsweek--2019-01-25--Russian Secret Military Mercenaries Deployed to Venezuela to Protect Maduro From Coup Capture Repo

Russian Secret Military Mercenaries Deployed to Venezuela to Protect Maduro From Coup, Capture: Report

As Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro faces the biggest challenge to his rule since coming to power in 2013, Russia has quite literally come to the strongman leader’s defense.  On Friday, Reuters reported that Kremlin-linked military contractors from the Wagner group had traveled to Venezuela in the past several days to provide security for Maduro. At least one source told Reuters that there were around 400 Russian military contractors in the country.  After the head of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Juan Guaido, declared himself president of Venezuela on Wednesday, Russian officials have offered their full-throated support for the embattled Maduro. President Donald Trump and other leaders from the European Union and Canada, however, have recognized Guaido as Venezuela’s interim president and have backed the position of Venezuelan opposition leaders who say Maduro’s presidency is illegitimate.  Maduro’s approval rating is currently hovering at around 20 percent, but experts say Russia is unlikely to give up its support for Maduro even if he faces widespread opposition at home. Moscow has continued to support Maduro even as he oversaw a severe economic decline that provoked a humanitarian and regional refugee crisis.  “As the financial situation of the Venezuelan government became precarious due to a lack of oil profits, the Venezuelan leaders have been forced to look to other countries to bring in hard currency, and Russia has been all too eager to support a regime in Caracas that is anti-United States and has taken a number of actions to threaten the interests of not just the U.S. but other countries in the region,” Jason Marczak, director of the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center at the Washington, D.C.-based Atlantic Council, told Newsweek.  “Russia has gained a strong ally in the Americas as Russia looks to counter the U.S. Also Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, so Rosneft has acquired access to oil fields in Venezuela, and Russia supplies arms to Maduro and the military,” Marczak added.  Russia has also helped Venezuela develop a cryptocurrency to avoid U.S. sanctions. Maduro announced in February last year that Venezuela would launch an online currency called the petro, which would be backed by the value of one barrel of oil. The move mimicked Moscow’s attempt to launch its own digital currency to avoid U.S. sanctions. The petro was widely deemed a desperate and risky attempt to attract foreign currency to the cash-strapped country.  Meanwhile, other Russia-aligned countries such as China and Turkey have also thrown their weight behind Maduro. Researchers at the Atlantic Council who track disinformation online noted that some of the most prominent pro-Maduro Twitter hashtags originated out of Turkey.  The Russian military contractor group Wagner is a secretive organization headed by a Russian lieutenant named Dmitri Utkin who is a member of the Russian military intelligence the GRU. The group has been linked to the death of three Russian journalists who were producing a documentary about Wagner’s work in the Central African Republic.  Aside from its incursions into Africa, Wagner is also present in Syria and Ukraine. Russian media claims that Wagner is coordinated by Yevgeniy Prigozhin, a man who has been nicknamed “Putin’s chef.” Prigozhin allegedly ordered the Russian mercenaries to attack U.S. troops in Syria in February 2018.  Special counsel Robert Mueller indicted Prigozhin, alleging that his St. Petersburg-based troll farm the Internet Research Agency played a major role in Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election. Both Prigozhin and Utkin are also subject to U.S. sanctions.


prisonplanet--2019-04-05--Top Tory Brexiteer King Letwin and Remain MPs Have Carried Out Military Coup Without Guns

Top Tory Brexiteer: ‘King Letwin’ and Remain MPs Have Carried Out ‘Military Coup’ Without Guns

Leader of the House of Commons Andrea Leadsom has described moves by Remain MPs to seize control of the parliamentary timetable and block a No Deal Brexit as a kind of “military coup” without the firearms.  Mrs Leadsom, who also serves as Lord President of Her Majesty’s Privy Council, said that, “If these people had guns, we would be describing it as a military coup. But it is certainly a coup by King Letwin,” after MPs voted by a majority of one for an anti-Brexit bill, rammed through the House in just four hours with the help of a criminal MP released from prison on an electronic tag.  A source close to Mrs Leadsom later confirmed that she was clarifying what the bill’s passage meant.  “She said it’s a complicated day for procedure and I want to explain it: ‘It’s a coup but using paper rather than guns’.”  Leadsom’s reference to “King Letwin” was aimed at Sir Oliver Letwin MP (pictured above), the Tory Remainer who along with Labour’s Yvette Cooper was one of the main players behind the bill — with the name coming partly because he is regarded as having appointed himself as a kind of ad hoc prime minister, and partly because he has earned the sobriquet “Oliver F***king Letwin” among party colleagues.  This article was posted: Friday, April 5, 2019 at 6:06 am


prisonplanet--2019-05-01--Pompeo Threatens Military Intervention After Maduro Declares Victory Over Attempted Coup

Pompeo Threatens Military Intervention After Maduro Declares Victory Over ‘Attempted Coup’

Update (7:16 am ET): Here we go again…  Now that the monthslong simmering rebellion against Maduro has exploded into a full-fledged uprising – one that’s in danger of being brutally suppressed by the Maduro regime – it’s time for the US to revive its threats of military intervention with the added subtext of ‘this time, we mean it’.  After footage from yesterday’s riots showed regime tanks brutally crushing opposition supporters, Mike Pompeo appeared on Fox Business this morning and said that the US hasn’t ruled out military intervention.  His comments come as supporters of the regime and opposition prepare to take to the streets for another wave of massive demonstrations on Wednesday.  Venezuelan opposition leader and self-proclaimed president Juan Guaido has called for a second day of street protests on Wednesday, but after the Venezuelan government successfully beat back the Guaido-led “popular uprising” – as the vast majority of Venezuela’s military remained loyal to Nicolas Maduro – it’s looks like the Russia- and China-backed socialist regime has resisted this latest challenge to its rule.  The coup attempt was hardly bloodless – there were horrifying incidences of extreme violence – but for all the jawboning from President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and NSA John Bolton, it appears Guaido’s most prolific attempt yet to force Maduro from power was a spectacular failure. Some members of the military defected, but Maduro by and large retained control over the military and other levers of power. Presenting a surprising lack of confidence in Guaido, opposition supporters celebrated the release of Leopoldo Lopez from house arrest, the former opposition leader immediately sought refuge in the Chilean embassy.  Late on Tuesday, Maduro took to twitter to thank the supporters of his regime who took to the streets to help suppress the rebellion, and the leaders who stood up for the Bolivarian revolution.  Flanked by military leaders, Maduro delivered a speech where he demanded that all opposition supporters who participated in the day’s violent skirmishes must be identified and arrested, and he bragged that the military base at La Carlota resisted a takeover attempt.  In honor of May Day, widely celebrated as International Workers Day, Maduro called for supporters to take to the streets for a ‘millions-strong march’.  Forming an  unusual alliance, it appears CNN has joined the Trump administration in spreading disinformation about the events in  Venezuela to try and destabilize the regime.  Still, Guaido hasn’t given up yet, calling for his “Operation Liberty” to continue on Wednesday, he asked opposition supporters to take to the streets for the ‘largest march in history’ (though, after seeing footage of opposition supporters being crushed by a tank on Tuesday, we imagine that some might have second thoughts).  Meanwhile, Russia’s foreign ministry has said Pompeo’s claim that Moscow had convinced Maduro to resist the coup and cling to power was “fake news”.  Pompeo said Tuesday that Maduro had intended to step down, but Russia had convinced him to stay. “Washington tried its best to demoralise the Venezuelan army and now [has] used fakes as a part of an information war,” Moscow spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told CNN on Wednesday.  As Venezuelans prepare for a second day of unrest, the number of dead and wounded in Tuesday’s clashes hasn’t yet been reported.  This article was posted: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 6:50 am


rawstory--2019-02-01--Odds of military coup in Venezuela rise every day Maduro stays in office

It would be reasonable to expect the worst for Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s embattled president.  Two weeks after Maduro’s re-inauguration, opposition leader Juan Gauidó has declared himself the country’s rightful president. The power struggle follows a failed military mutiny against Maduro, whose easy re-election in May 2018 during an economic, political and humanitarian crisis has lead many to say Venezuela is a dictatorship.  Analysts worldwide are already debating whether a coup against Maduro – with or without U.S. backing – would be good or bad for Venezuelan democracy.  As a political risk analyst, it is my job to predict when leaders will be overthrown. Surprisingly, the coup forecaster I use, CoupCast, shows Maduro hanging on – at least for now.  Why won’t Maduro be overthrown soon?  Using historic data on the conditions behind every coup and coup attempt since 1950, CoupCast has identified six factors that can suggest a leader is at imminent risk of overthrow. • How long regime has been in power – Young regimes are at most risk of a coup. • Time since last coup attempt – The longer a country goes without a coup, the less its risk of a leader being overthrown. • Incumbent electoral defeat – Recent electoral defeats increase risk. So do long periods of incumbent victories. • Relative precipitation – Extreme drought and excessive rainfall both raise coup risk because they can disrupt agricultural and market dynamics. • Gross domestic product (GDP) per person – This measure of wealth distribution can provide clues into whether a leader can buy off potential rivals within the military.  Beyond Venezuela’s economic crisis, the Maduro regime does not stand out on any CoupCast factors.  Maduro has been in office since 2013 – not long enough to be high-risk. Likelihood of a coup begins to rise after 15 years, on average.  The current Socialist Party regime, which began with Hugo Chávez in 1999, has also matured enough to avoid the initial period of vulnerability that young regimes face.  The last coup attempt in Venezuela was a failed plot against Chávez in 2002, a healthy 17-year buffer. The average lapse between coups is five years.  Venezuela’s Socialist regime has not lost a presidential election since Chávez first won, in 1998, which also bodes well for Maduro.  Finally, in 2019, Venezuela is not expected to have droughts, floods or other weather that is out of the norm.  Taken together, these factors do not suggest an imminent coup against Maduro.  However, Venezuela’s risk of coup increases the longer Maduro stays in power, as CoupCast’s trove of historic data shows.  Maduro’s biggest vulnerability is the prospect of further economic decline. Venezuela’s oil-fueled government is going bankrupt due to declining petroleum production, U.S. and EU sanctions and seized assets. Eventually, Maduro’s strategy of paying the military brass for its loyalty will be unsustainable.  Maduro’s position becomes especially precarious over time if he continues to stand for election. Authoritarians who hold elections are at higher risk of being deposed – especially if they lose and stick around anyway. Venezuela’s coup risk increases the longer Maduro continues to “win” elections as well.  However, even the most powerful forecasting models cannot account for everything.  Venezuela’s deep economic crisis, for example, is somewhat misleading. Citizens are hurting badly, but the Maduro government still has enough funds to offer military leaders governmental appointments and economic kickbacks. That make a serious plot against him less likely.  Russia, China, and Turkey have also expressed support for the regime – potentially even military backing – likely depressing coup risk further.  The recent power struggle most similar to what’s happening in Venezuela occurred in Zimbabwe in 2008.  Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai claimed to be the legitimate winner of a flawed election against long-time President Robert Mugabe. Mugabe retaliated with a campaign of violence and intimidation to secure his victory in a dubious runoff.  Tsvangirai’s power struggle didn’t unseat Mugabe, but it likely hurt his legitimacy internally. Mugabe was overthrown in a military coup in November 2017.  In my assessment, Guaidó’s challenge won’t result in Maduro’s immediate exit – but it will further weaken his base of support, both among the Venezuelan people and within the government.  The longer Maduro stays in power, the more likely he is to be removed by force.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.