題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
掲示板,ＭＬを含むこのサイトすべての
一切の引用、転載、リンクを許可いたします。確認メールは不要です。
引用元リンクを表示してください。
| ★阿修羅♪ ★阿修羅♪ |
|
●英国『ガーディアン』紙が、米国海軍諜報部の元部員の証言として、
先日のベネズエラのクーデターが昨年来の米国政府の計画によるもので、
海軍の支援によって実施されていた、と報じました。
●このクーデターの資金は、アメリカ議会のテコ入れで生まれた
「National Endowment for Democracy」という機関から出ていた可能性
が高い、とのこと。 80年代に実現したフィリッピンのマルコス政権打倒
“クーデター”もそうでしたが、米国の利益に対峙するような外国政府は
「民主主義確立」の名の下に打倒するというのが、もはや古典芸能（笑）
の域に達した米国の手口であります。democracy というよりも、dema-
cracyですな。ようするに、虚偽的扇動(デマゴギー)によって国内・国際世論をダマして
ゲヴァルト（強制力）によって支配する、というやり方……。
●なお、80年代にレーガン政権が第三世界の各地で実施した“民主主義
実現という名目での国際テロ”の政治的背景については、『インサイド・
ザ・リーグ：世界を覆うテロネットワーク』（社会思想社刊）という
名著が出ています。（古本屋で入手できるかもしれません。）
●ベネズエラの政変劇を、米国のメディアは「民主主義の勝利」だなどと
絶賛したそうですが、オメデてーな、と言っておきましょう。ワシントン
大本営発表を鵜呑みにして文字どおりの“国際テロ”を絶賛した米国主要
メディアの醜態についても、「Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting」
（報道の公正と正確）という団体が、実態を報じていますので、紹介して
おきます。
（原文のままでごめんなさい）
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,706802,00.html
American Navy 'Helped Venezuelan Coup'
【米国海軍が「ベネズエラのクーデターを支援していた」ことが発覚した】
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
The Guardian
April 29, 2002
The United States had been considering a coup to overthrow the elected Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, since last June, a former US intelligence officer claimed yesterday.
【米国は昨年６月以来、選挙で選ばれたベネズエラ大統領ウゴ・チャベス氏を失墜
させるためにクーデターを計画してきた――元米国諜報部員が昨日そう打ち明けた。】
It is also alleged that the US navy aided the abortive coup which took place in Venezuela on April 11 with intelligence from its vessels in the Caribbean. Evidence is also emerging of US financial backing for key participants in the coup.
【この元諜報部員は、さらに、４月11日に勃発し結局は失敗に終わったベネズエラ
のクーデターは、米国海軍がカリブ海に艦船を出動させて支援までしていたと、
主張している。しかもクーデターの中心人物たちが米国から資金援助を受けていた
証拠も、現在現われてきている。】
Both sides in Venezuela have blamed the other for the violence surrounding the coup.
Wayne Madsen, a former intelligence officer with the US navy, told the Guardian yesterday that American military attaches had been in touch with members of the Venezuelan military to examine the possibility of a coup.
"I first heard of Lieutenant Colonel James Rogers [the assistant military attache now based at the US embassy in Caracas] going down there last June to set the ground," Mr Madsen, an intelligence analyst, said yesterday. "Some of our counter-narcotics agents were also involved."
He said that the navy was in the area for operations unconnected to the coup, but that he understood they had assisted with signals intelligence as the coup was played out.
Mr Madsen also said that the navy helped with communications jamming support to the Venezuelan military, focusing on communications to and from the diplomatic missions in Caracas belonging to Cuba, Libya, Iran and Iraq - the four countries which had expressed support for Mr Chavez.
Navy vessels on a training exercise in the area were supposedly put on stand-by in case evacuation of US citizens in Venezuela was required.
In Caracas, a congressman has accused the US ambassador to Venezuela, Charles Shapiro, and two US embassy military attaches of involvement in the coup.
Roger Rondon claimed that the military officers, whom he named as (James) Rogers and (Ronald) MacCammon, had been at the Fuerte Tiuna military headquarters with the coup leaders during the night of April 11-12.
And referring to Mr Shapiro, Mr Rondon said: "We saw him leaving Miraflores palace, all smiles and embraces, with the dictator Pedro Carmona Estanga [who was installed by the military for a day] ... [His] satisfaction was obvious. Shapiro's participation in the coup d'etat in Venezuela is evident."
The US embassy dismissed the allegations as "ridiculous". Mr Shapiro admitted meeting Mr Carmona the day after the coup, but said he urged him to restore the national assembly, which had been dissolved.
Mr Carmona told the Guardian that no such advice was given, although he agreed that a meeting took place.
A US embassy spokesman said there were no US military personnel from the embassy at Fuerte Tiuna during the crucial periods from April 11 to 13, although two members of the embassy's defence attache's office, one of them Lt Col Rogers, drove around the base on the afternoon of April 11 to check reports that it was closed.
Mr Rondon has also claimed that two foreign gunmen, one American and the other Salvadorean, were detained by security police during the anti-Chavez protest on April 11 in which around 19 people were killed, many by unidentified snipers firing from rooftops.
"They haven't appeared anywhere. We presume these two gentlemen were given some kind of safe-conduct and could have left the country," he said.
The members of the military who coordinated the coup have claimed that they did so because they feared that Mr Chavez was intending to attack the civilian protesters who opposed him.
Mr Chavez's opponents claim pro-Chavez gunmen shot protesters while his supporters say the shots were fired by agents provocateurs .
In the past year, the United States has channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to US and Venezuelan groups opposed to Mr Chavez, including the labour group whose protests sparked off the coup. The funds were provided by the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit agency created and financed by the US Congress.
The state department's human rights bureau is now examining whether one or more recipients of the money may have actively plotted against Mr Chavez.
============================
t r u t h o u t | Report
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting | http://www.fair.org
U.S. Papers Wrongly Depict Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move
April 18, 2002
When elements of the Venezuelan military forced president Hugo Chavez from office last week, the editorial boards of several major U.S. newspapers followed the U.S. government's lead and greeted the news with enthusiasm.
In an April 13 editorial, the New York Times triumphantly declared that Chavez's "resignation" meant that "Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator." Conspicuously avoiding the word "coup," the Times explained that Chavez "stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader."
Calling Chavez "a ruinous demagogue," the Times offered numerous criticisms of his policies and urged speedy new elections, saying "Venezuela urgently needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate." A casual reader might easily have missed the Times' brief acknowledgement that Chavez did actually have a democratic mandate, having been "elected president in 1998."
The paper's one nod to the fact that military takeovers are not generally regarded as democratic was to note hopefully that with "continued civic participation," perhaps "further military involvement" in Venezuelan politics could be kept "to a minimum."
Three days later, Chavez had returned to power and the Times ran a second editorial (4/16/02) half-apologizing for having gotten carried away:
"In his three years in office, Mr. Chavez has been such a divisive and demagogic leader that his forced departure last week drew applause at home and in Washington. That reaction, which we shared, overlooked the undemocratic manner in which he was removed. Forcibly unseating a democratically elected leader, no matter how badly he has performed, is never something to cheer."
The Times stood its ground, however, on the value of a timely military coup for teaching a president a lesson, saying, "We hope Mr. Chavez will act as a more responsible and moderate leader now that he seems to realize the anger he stirred."
The Chicago Tribune's editorial board seemed even more excited by the coup than the New York Times'. An April 14 Tribune editorial called Chavez an "elected strongman" and declared: "It's not every day that a democracy benefits from the military's intervention to force out an elected
president."
Hoping that Venezuela could now "move on to better things," the Tribune expressed relief that Venezuela's president was "safely out of power and under arrest." No longer would he be free to pursue his habits of "toasting Fidel Castro, flying to Baghdad to visit Saddam Hussein, or praising Osama bin Laden."
(FAIR called the Tribune to ask when Chavez had "praised" bin Laden. Columnist and editorial board member Steve Chapman, who wrote the editorial, said that in attempting to locate the reference for FAIR, he discovered that he had "misread" his source, a Freedom House report. Chapman said that if the Tribune could find no record of Chavez praising bin Laden, the paper would run a correction.)
The Tribune stuck unapologetically to its pro-coup line even after Chavez had been restored to power. Chavez's return may have come as "good news to Latin American governments that had condemned his removal as just another military coup," wrote the Tribune in an April 16 editorial, "but that doesn't mean it's good news for democracy." The paper seemed to suggest that the coup would have been no bad thing if not for "the heavy- handed bungling of [Chavez's] successors."
Long Island's Newsday, another top-circulation paper, greeted the coup with an April 13 editorial headlined "Chavez's Ouster Is No Great Loss." Newsday offered a number of reasons why the coup wasn't so bad, including Chavez's "confrontational leadership style and left- wing populist rhetoric" and the fact that he "openly flaunted his ideological differences with Washington."
The most important reason, however, was Chavez's "incompetence as an executive," specifically, that he was "mismanaging the nation's vast oil wealth."
After the coup failed, Newsday ran a follow-up editorial (4/16/02) which came to the remarkable conclusion that "if there is a winner in all this, it's Latin American democracy, in principle and practice." The incident, according to Newsday, was "an affirmation of the democratic process" because the coup gave "a sobering wake-up call" to Chavez, "who was on a path to subverting the democratic mandate that had put him in power three years ago."
The Los Angeles Times waited until the dust had settled (4/17/02) to run its editorial on "Venezuela's Strange Days." The paper was dismissive of Chavez's status as an elected leader-- saying "it goes against the grain to put the name Hugo Chavez and the word 'democracy' in the same sentence"-- but pointed out that "it's one thing to oppose policies and another to back a coup." The paper stated that by not adequately opposing the coup, "the White House failed to stay on the side of democracy," yet still suggested that in the long run, "Venezuela will benefit" if the coup teaches Chavez to reach out to the opposition "rather than continuing to divide the nation along class lines."
The Washington Post was one of the few major U.S. papers whose initial reaction was to condemn the coup outright. Though heavily critical of Chavez, the paper's April 14 editorial led with an affirmation that "any interruption of democracy in Latin America is wrong, the more so when it involves the military."
Curiously, however, the Washington Post took pains to insist that "there's been no suggestion that the United States had anything to do with this Latin American coup," even though details from Venezuela were still sketchy at that time. The New York Times, too, made a point of saying in its April 13 editorial that Washington's hands were clean, affirming that "rightly, his removal was a purely Venezuelan affair."
Ironically, news articles in both the Washington Post and the New York Times have since raised serious questions about whether the U.S. may in fact have been involved. Neither paper, however, has returned to the question on its editorial page.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。