Embajada de Estados Unidos en Venezuela entregó 10 millones de dólares en 2009 a la oposición

Por Eva Golinger

Esta vez, la embajada estadounidense en Caracas solicitó 10 millones de dólares para apoyar los gobiernos locales y campañas de la oposición venezolana además de contrarrestar el poder del Presidente Hugo Chávez


“Los programas de la Embajada a través de USAID/OTI en apoyo a la democracia y la sociedad civil son vitales para preservar y fortalecer las instituciones y prácticas democracias que quedan en Venezuela”. Así comenzó un cable enviado al Departamento de Estado del Encargado de la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Caracas, John Caulfield, a principios de marzo 2009 solicitando 3 millones de dólares adicionales para ayudar las gobernaciones y alcaldías ganadas por la oposición en noviembre 2008 y para preparar las campañas electorales del 2010. El presupuesto que ya manejaba la Embajada para financiar la oposición en Venezuela en 2009 era de 7 millones de dólares.

“Debido a que las elecciones de noviembre 2008 y el referéndum de febrero 2009 crearon un nuevo mapa político para Venezuela, la Embajada solicita tres millones de dólares más para incrementar los esfuerzos con los gobiernos estatales y municipales recién electos, además de continuar programas para fortalecer la sociedad civil y preparar las próximas elecciones en 2010”.

Según el documento oficial, el objetivo de la embajada estadounidense en Venezuela era trabajar con las gobernaciones y alcaldías de la oposición para “fortalecerlas” con dinero y apoyo estratégico desde Washington. Al mismo tiempo, el cable evidencia una vez más la grave intromisión de Estados Unidos en la política interna de Venezuela. “Nuestros programas hasta la fecha han sido exitosos en aumentar el pluralismo político en Venezuela, y reforzando nuestros esfuerzos es necesario para contrarrestar el autoritarianísmo creciente del gobierno de Chávez”.

A través de la Agencia Internacional del Desarrollo de Estados Unidos (USAID), un brazo financiero del Departamento de Estado, y su Oficina de Iniciativas hacia una Transición (OTI), que se estableció ilegalmente en Venezuela en 2002 para promover acciones contra el gobierno de Hugo Chávez, el gobierno de Estados Unidos ha canalizado fondos multimillonarios a sectores anti-chavistas en Venezuela durante los últimos 9 años. Este último documento oficial divulgado por Wikileaks revela que no solamente desde Washington solicitaban el dinero para financiar la oposición venezolana, sino que la propia Embajada en Caracas solicitaba y manejaba fondos millonarios para financiar actividades políticas en el país suramericano, en plena violación del Convenio de Viena sobre Relaciones Diplomáticos y Consulares.
El cable de la Embajada también destaca como gastaron los 10 millones de dólares en diferentes actividades políticas en Venezuela: 5 millones fueron para apoyar las gobernaciones locales de la oposición; 4 millones para las ONGs que trabajaban con temas de derechos humanos, participación democrática y el movimiento estudiantil/juvenil de la oposición; y 1 millón para apoyar las preparaciones para las elecciones de la Asamblea Nacional en 2010. Posterior a este financiamiento, en 2010, las agencias estadounidenses y algunas europeas otorgaron 57 millones de dólares a los grupos opositores para apoyar sus campañas electorales.

SIN EEUU, LA OPOSICIÓN NO SOBREVIVE

Para justificar el incremento en financiamiento a la oposición en Venezuela, Caulfield afirmó en el cable que “Sin nuestra asistencia continua, es posible que las organizaciones que nosotros ayudamos crear...podrían ser forzadas a cerrar...Nuestro financiamiento asegurará que esas organizaciones tengan una línea de vida muy necesaria”.

Esta afirmación del alto funcionario de la Embajada evidencia aún más que la oposición en Venezuela depende totalmente de Estados Unidos. Como dijo Caulfield, Washington hasta “ayudó crear” las organizaciones de la oposición en Venezuela, como Súmate, Radar de los Barrios, el movimiento estudiantil, Espacio Público, Instituto Prensa y Sociedad, Ciudadanía Activa, Futuro Presente, Nuevas Generaciones, Liderazgo y Visión, e incluso partidos políticos como Primero Justicia y Un Nuevo Tiempo. Sin el dinero estadounidense, estas organizaciones no existirían, afirma el mismo representante del gobierno estadounidense.

Wikileaks: Traducción del documento donde Ismael Garcia pide intervención de Estados Unidos en Venezuela

DOCUMENTO WIKILEAKS: 09CARACAS1194

FECHA: SEPTIEMBRE 2009

ASUNTO: ISMAEL GARCIA Y OTROS MIEMBROS DEL PARTIDO PODEMOS SOLICITAN FINANCIAMIENTO E INTERVENCIÓN DEL GOBIERNO DE ESTADOS UNIDOS PARA DERROCAR AL PRESIDENTE CHÁVEZ



1.(Clasificado) Resumen: A solicitud del partido político PODEMOS, el Embajador se reunió el 9 de septiembre con los diputados de la Asamblea Nacional (AN) Ricardo Gutiérrez, Juan José Molina e Ismael García. Ellos argumentaron que las elecciones de la AN en 2010 representaban “el último chance para la democracia” en Venezuela debido a que el Presidente Chávez estaba desmontando todas las instituciones democráticas del país e incrementando las presiones contra los medios independientes. No obstante, ellos no fueron capaces de presentar una plataforma o estrategia para ampliar la atracción de la oposición para los votantes, y en su lugar, pidieron a Estados Unidos intervenir para ayudar a Podemos contrarrestar el Presidente Chávez. Como el único partido de la oposición representado en la AN, Podemos enfrenta una batalla difícil para retener sus curules bajo las nuevas reglas electorales - y su posición única como la “voz de la oposición” en la AN. Fin de Resumen.

SOBRE PODEMOS

2.(Clasificado) Podemos fue co-fundado en 2002 por García como un ramo saliente del partido Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), cuando MAS comenzó a oponerse a Chávez. En 2007, Podemos rompió con el chavismo por la unificación de los partidos en el Partido Socialista Unida de Venezuela (PSUV). Luego, García anunció que Podemos representaba “una tercera vía” entre la oposición y el PSUV, y el partido continúa diciendo que se fundamenta en una ideología socialista y sus líderes son antiguos defensores de la Constitución del 1999. Además de García, Molina y Gutiérrez (quien es considerado el estratego del partido) son los de más alto perfil de los seis diputados de Podemos en la AN. García y Gutiérrez frecuentemente destacan sus credenciales “revolucionarias”, habiendo trabajado anteriormente como jefe de campaña de Chávez y como un miembro del Partido Comunista de Venezuela, respectivamente. Podemos sigue siendo un partido relativamente pequeño, con su base electoral geográfica concentrada principalmente en el pequeño y poblado estado Aragua, y menos en el estado Bolívar. Algunos disidentes que antes eran pro-gobierno podrían ver a Podemos como su futura casa. (Nota: El chavista convertido en disidente, el diputado de la AN Wilmer Azuaje, le dijo al funcionario político de la embajada que el pensaba unirse a Podemos. Fin de la nota). A pesar de su pequeño tamaño, Podemos ha disfrutado de una atención pública desproporcionada como la “voz de la oposición” dentro de la AN. Por parte de Podemos, García ha adoptado un papel principal como vocero de la oposición y su “mesa de unidad” para crear una estrategia política unificada para contrarrestar a Chávez en las elecciones legislativas del 2010.

2010 EL ÚLTIMO CHANCE PARA LA DEMOCRACIA?

3.(Clasificado) Los diputados comenzaron detallando lo que ven como la destrucción sistemática de Chávez de las estructuras democráticas en Venezuela y la subordinación de las instituciones del estado al ejecutivo. Ellos destacaron el cierre de emisoras de radio y la intimidación de los medios por parte del GBRV (Gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela), y consideraron que las elecciones en la AN en 2010 representaban el último espacio democrático que está disponible para la oposición, y su “último chance para la democracia”. Los diputados notaron su participaron en la “mesa de unidad” de la oposición, pero desestimaron su efectividad para contrarrestar a Chávez.

4.(Clasificado) Los diputados reconocieron la necesidad de ofrecer al público un camino alternativo al chavismo durante la campaña electoral para la AN, pero se mostraron perdidos a la hora de presentar una plataforma concreta y positiva. García sugirió que Podemos apoyaría la idea de una “tarjeta única” para la elecciones de la AN, un asunto que ha sido un punto de tensión en los esfuerzos de la “mesa de unidad” de prepararse para las elecciones. (Nota: una tarjeta única forzaría a los partidos de registrarse y conducirse efectivamente como un partido único combinado, parecido al PSUV. Algunos de los partidos grandes de la oposición han rechazado esta idea, argumentando que socavaría sus estructuras individuales y confundiría a los votantes. Fin de la Nota).

5.(Clasificado) Los diputados de Podemos sugirieron que el clima político durante el año que viene sería favorable para la oposición. Ellos citaron la probabilidad de que Chávez empujaría adelante una polémica Ley de Trabajo, lo cual podría producir una reacción negativa de los trabajadores que ya están movilizados. También dijeron que un supuesto aumento en los precios de la gasolina podría crear un nivel de descontento social significativo. Además, los diputados notaron el creciente fracaso del gobierno de Chávez de suministrar servicios públicos debido a las restricciones presupuestarias y la corrupción, que podría traducirse en apoyo para la oposición durante las elecciones. Cuando el Embajador destacó que las encuestas indican la popularidad duradera de Chávez, los diputados descartaron la veracidad de las encuestas, argumentando que los que responden a las encuestas son demasiados intimidados por una percibida falta de protecciones de privacidad para responder negativamente a preguntas sobre Chávez o su gobierno.

PIDIENDO INTERVENCIÓN DE EEUU

6.(Clasificado) Los diputados subrayaron los crecientes vínculos de Chávez con Irán y notaron el descontento de muchos en Venezuela sobre el nivel de participación de Cuba en Venezuela, incluyendo en los puertos. Hasta alegaron la participación de asesores cubanos e izquierdistas españoles en escribir leyes para la AN que están siendo propuestas por la Presidencia. Los diputados dijeron repetidamente que aunque Chávez podría ser personalmente popular, las encuestas indicaron que hasta 80% de los que respondieron rechazaron el modelo cubano.

7.(Clasificado) Como ha hecho repetidamente en el pasado, García preguntó francamente que los Estados Unidos, a través de la National Endowment for Democracy (NED) u otros canales del Gobierno de Estados Unidos, podrían hacer para ayudar a Podemos. Molina y García sugirieron que el apoyo de Estados Unidos podría ser utilizado por Podemos para construir una red de comunicaciones en Internet - televisión por cable - para contrarrestar el cierre e intimidación contra otros medios. El Embajador enfatizó que Estados Unidos no está interviniendo actualmente en Venezuela, a lo cual respondió García, “Sí, pero ahora es el momento para comenzar”.

COMENTARIO

8.(Clasificado) Aunque los diputados de Podemos dieron casi el mismo mensaje que han dado en otras ocasiones, había un elemento de pánico en su solicitud a la Embajada para su apoyo. Esta urgencia podría resultar de su sentimiento de que la democracia en Venezuela está entrando en una fase vulnerable y que su partido, a pesar de su presencia prominente, enfrenta un nuevo desafío significativo para sobrevivir como resultado de la nueva ley electoral. Su petición a Estados Unidos fue enmarcada en los potenciales riesgos que existen para los intereses estadounidenses por la participación de Cuba e Irán en Venezuela. Fin del Comentario.
DUDDY

Washington planifica más acciones contra Venezuela

El Departamento de Estado dijo hoy que está considerando “seriamente” clasificar a Venezuela como un “estado terrorista”

Por Eva Golinger


24 junio 2011- Durante una audiencia hoy en el Comité de Relaciones Exteriores de la Cámara de Representantes del Congreso de Estados Unidos sobre “Actividades Sancionables en Venezuela”, congresistas demócratas y republicanos pidieron al gobierno de Barack Obama tomar acciones más agresivas contra el gobierno de Hugo Chávez en Venezuela. El jefe del Sub-Comité de Relaciones Exteriores para el Hemisferio Occidental, Connie Mack, republicano de Florida, tildó al gobierno venezolano de “terrorista”, declarando que “es hora de actuar para contener la peligrosa influencia de Hugo Chávez y su relación con Irán”.

Mack es conocido por su postura rábidamente anti-chavista. No obstante, el congresista republicano tiene peso en el cuerpo legislativo debido a su alto cargo en el Comité de Relaciones Exteriores. Sus esfuerzos, junto a la jefa del Comité de Relaciones Exteriores, la republicana Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, lograron convencer a la Casa Blanca de imponer sanciones contra la empresa petrolera estatal de Venezuela, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) el pasado 24 de mayo. Mack ha declarado que su misión única este año es “ir por Hugo Chávez”.

La audiencia de hoy, dedicada en su entero a Venezuela, contó con la presencia de altos funcionarios del Departamento de Estado, el Departamento del Tesoro, y la Oficina de Control de Bienes Extranjeras. En declaraciones ante el Comité, el asistente Sub-Secretario de Estado para América Latina, Kevin Whitaker, reveló que la administración de Barack Obama está “seriamente considerando” clasificar a Venezuela como un “estado terrorista”. “Ninguna opción está fuera de la mesa y el departamento continuará estudiando cualquier acción adicional que pueda ser necesaria en el futuro", señaló Whitaker.

Las sanciones impuestas contra PDVSA el 24 de mayo cayeron dentro de una ley de sanciones contra Irán (Iran Sanctions Act) de Estados Unidos, e incluyeron la prohibición de entrar en contratos con el gobierno estadounidense, el uso del banco de importaciones y exportaciones de Estados Unidos y la aprobación de ciertas licencias tecnológicas. Está acción hostil de Washington hacia Venezuela no tuvo mayor impacto económico contra el país suramericano y su empresa petrolera debido a que ya no mantenía contratos con el gobierno estadounidense ni créditos de sus bancos. Las sanciones no afectaron al importante suministro del petróleo desde Venezuela a Estados Unidos, ni a la empresa venezolana en territorio norteamericano, CITGO.

No obstante, las sanciones tuvieron un impacto en la relación diplomática entre Caracas y Washington, que anteriormente ya estaba en un periodo de deterioración. Luego de éstas últimas acciones agresivas, el gobierno venezolano declaró “congelada” la relación con Estados Unidos.

PELIGROSO HACER NEGOCIOS CON PDVSA

Según el Departamento del Estado, las sanciones contra PDVSA, aunque no impactan al país económicamente, “dan un mensaje al mundo que es peligroso hacer negocios con Venezuela y PDVSA”, indicando que en el futuro próximo, Washington podría actuar contra quienes entran en contratos o acuerdos con las empresas venezolanas.

SANCIONES CONTRA CONVIASA

Los congresistas también exigieron al Departamento de Estado imponer sanciones contra la línea aérea venezolana CONVIASA, debido a lo que consideran su “apoyo al terrorismo” porque ha mantenido un vuelo entre Caracas, Siria e Irán. Sin presentar ni una sola prueba, los congresistas dijeron que ese vuelo, lo cual ya no está funcionando, “transportaba material radioactiva, armas, drogas y conocidos terroristas de Hizbolá e Irán”.

Para respaldar esa “acusación” peligrosa, los congresistas citaban al periódico alemán, Die Welt, que había publicado en días anteriores que Venezuela e Irán estaban construyendo una base de misiles en la costa-occidental venezolana para “atacar a Estados Unidos”. Frente a esa falsa información, el Presidente Hugo Chávez mostró imágenes de una finca de molinos de viento en el lugar donde las
“fuentes” del periódico habían indicado que estaba ubicada la ficticia base militar iraní.

MÁS SANCIONES

El congreso también imploró al Departamento de Estado de considerar aplicando más sanciones contra Venezuela, incluyendo “la prohibición de importaciones de Estados Unidos” y las “transacciones en dólares”. Los representantes de la Casa Blanca dijeron que aunque están considerando más acciones contra el gobierno de Hugo Chávez, lo cual consideran “un gobierno enemigo”, tienen que tomar en cuenta el importante suministro de petróleo venezolano, lo cual compone 15% de las importaciones estadounidenses. Hace días, el Presidente Barack Obama autorizó la explotación petrolera en el estado Alaska, en una zona protegida por su riqueza ambiental, indicando que Washington está buscando primero asegurar sus necesidades energéticas antes de romper la relación con Venezuela.

SANCIONES HASTA HOY

Además de las sanciones impuestas contra PDVSA el pasado 24 de mayo, Washington ya ha tomado acciones agresivas contra el gobierno venezolano. En junio 2006, clasificaron a Venezuela como un país que “no coopera suficientemente con la lucha contra el terrorismo” e impuso una sanción prohibiendo la venta de armamento a Venezuela de Estados Unidos o de cualquier empresa en el mundo que utiliza tecnología estadounidense.

Desde 2005, Washington también ha clasificado a Venezuela como país que no “coopera con la lucha contra el narcotráfico”, lo cual debe llevar una sanción económica contra el país suramericano. No obstante, Washington aclaró que como Venezuela no tiene préstamos de Estados Unidos, el único apoyo que se podría cortar serían aquellos millones de dólares que entregan anualmente a grupos anti-chavistas en el país caribeño que trabajan a diario para derrocar al gobierno de Chávez. Incluyeron una excepción en esa sanción diciendo que “no afectaría el apoyo económico que Estados Unidos otorga para las organizaciones ‘democráticas’ de la sociedad civil”, así asegurando su apoyo continúo para la desestabilización en Venezuela.

En 2007, el Departamento del Tesoro de Estados Unidos sancionó a tres altos funcionarios del gobierno venezolano, acusándolos de mantener vínculos con terrorismo y narcotráfico, aunque nunca presentaron pruebas. Los funcionarios incluyeron al Director de la Dirección de Inteligencia Militar, General Hugo Carvajal, el entonces Director del Servicios de Inteligencia Bolivariana (SEBIN), General Henry Rangel, y el entonces Ministro de Interior y Justicia, Ramón Rodríguez Chacín.

El año siguiente, el Departamento del Tesoro designó a dos venezolanos, de origen sirio, Fawzi Kan’an y Ghazi Nasr al Din, de ser “terroristas” por tener vínculos con Hizbolá, grupo considerado terrorista por Estados Unidos.

Todo indica que Washington seguirá aumentando sus agresiones contra Venezuela con próximas sanciones y acciones de aislamiento.

Venezuela Rejects US Sanctions, Evaluates Oil Supply to US

By Eva Golinger

Venezuela’s government strongly rejected the Obama administration’s attempt to sanction its state-owned oil industry, PDVSA, and interrupt its relations with other nations. Latin American nations and groups worldwide have expressed support for Venezuela’s defiant stance


“Sanctions against the homeland of Bolivar? Imposed by the US imperialist government”, declared Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Twitter this Tuesday (@chavezcandanga), “Bring it on, Mr. Obama. Do not forget that we are the children of Bolivar”, he exclaimed, reminding his more than one and a half million followers on the social network that “the true impact of this latest US aggression is the strengthening of our nationalistic and patriotic morale in Venezuela!”

On Tuesday morning, the US State Department, announced it was imposing unilateral sanctions against seven international companies, including Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). This decision marks the first time the US government has taken direct hostile action against the Venezuelan state-owned oil company, which is one of the largest oil companies in the world.

According to State Department releases, the sanctions fall under the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) of 1996, as amended by the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act (CISADA) of 2010, for alleged “activities in support of Iran’s energy sector”. In the case of Venezuela, the State Department claims PDVSA “violated” the US legislation by “selling at least two cargoes of reformate to Iran between December 2010 and March 2011”. Reformate is a blending component that improves the quality of gasoline, which somehow, the US government alleges, can help enable Iran to make nuclear bombs.

The State Department clarified that in the case of PDVSA, the sanctions “prohibit the company from competing for US government procurement contracts, from securing financing from the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and from obtaining US export licenses”. The US sanctions do not affect Venezuela’s supply of oil to the United States, as clearly the Obama administration would not want to directly affect its own interests. Nor do the sanctions apply to PDVSA subsidiaries, such as CITGO, a US corporation owned by PDVSA which has seven oil refineries and over 10,000 gas stations throughout the United States.

BRING IT ON

The Venezuelan government reacted firmly to the unilaterally imposed sanctions, clearly stating it will no adhere to any decision made by the US government regarding its oil business, nor will it accept any US interference in its relations with other nations. During a joint press conference late Tuesday afternoon, Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro, and PDVSA President and Oil Minister, Rafael Ramirez, labeled the US sanctions as a “hostile act of aggression” against the South American nation. They also announced that Venezuela is “thoroughly evaluating its response” and whether the US decision will “affect the supply of 1.2 million barrels of oil daily to the US”.

On Wednesday, thousands of workers at PDVSA’s installations throughout Venezuela protested the US sanctions and stated they would “defend their oil sovereignty” in the face of “US aggression and interference”. “PDVSA is a sovereign, dignified company that no longer bows down to US agenda”, workers declared, rallying at the company’s headquarters in Caracas.

President Chavez, who is recovering from a knee injury and has been forced to limit his public appearances, tweeted throughout the day. “We don’t just have the largest oil reserves in the world. We also have the most revolutionary oil company in the world!”

In another tweet, he exclaimed, “So, they wanted to see and feel the flame of the people of Bolivar defending the independence of the Venezuelan homeland? Well, there you have it!”

Venezuela’s legislative body also issued a firm declaration on Tuesday rejecting the US-imposed sanctions and warning the US to cease the hostilities against the South American country or Venezuela could stop its oil supply northward. The 40% opposition, anti-Chavez coalition in the Venezuelan parliament refused to adhere to the declaration, instead expressing approval for the US sanctions. Many Venezuelans saw this as a posture betraying their own sovereignty and national security.

INCREASING AGGRESSION

The US government, which supported a briefly successful coup d’etat against President Chavez in 2002 and has since been heavily funding anti-Chavez groups with millions of dollars in order to build an opposition movement in Venezuela, has been increasing its aggressive policies towards the Chavez administration during the past few years. In 2006, the State Department imposed its first sanction against Venezuela for allegedly “not fully cooperating with the war on terrorism”, and prohibited the sale of military equipment to the South American country from the US or any company in the world that uses US technology. In a clear attempt to leave Venezuela defenseless, this sanction has been renewed each year to the present date, though the Chavez government has found other suppliers of defense materials not subject to US pressures, such as Russia and China.

In 2008, the Bush administration evaluated placing Venezuela on its unilateral “state sponors of terrorism” list, but concluded it wasn’t possible, due to US dependence on Venezuelan oil. This year, calls from ultra-conservative members of Congress, including Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Connie Mack, both Florida Republicans who run the House Foreign Relations Committee, have vowed to take “direct actions against Hugo Chavez”. These latest sanctions are a clear result of their pressure, and that of the still influential anti-Castro Cuban-American lobby, on the Obama administration.

In addition to the multi-million dollar US funding of anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela, which feeds an ongoing internal conflict and climate of destabilization, the US government has also been waging a severe demonization campaign against the Chavez government in international media. In 2010, the US Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI), labeled President Chavez as the regional “Anti-US Leader” in its annual “Worldwide Threat Assessment Report”. The Venezuelan President is also regularly referred to as authoritarian, dictatorial and anti-democratic in US media, despite his overwhelming victories in several elections and his oversight of Venezuela’s most vibrant democratic process in history.

Ros-Lehtinen and Mack have again requested the White House place Venezuela on the list of state sponsors of terrorism this year. Though this is a far-fetched objective, this week’s sanctions pave the road towards an even more aggressive policy towards Venezuela, the country with the world’s largest oil reserves.

Chavez faces reelection in 2012, and opposition candidates are bickering over who could unify their parties to challenge the overly-popular head of state. So far, Washington’s hostility is not aiding the opposition, but is actually unifying Venezuelans against foreign interference. Some fear the Obama administration could attempt a “Libya-esque” plan against Venezuela: demonizing the President, funding and supporting the opposition, building up military presence in the region and sanctioning the government, all with the goal of provoking regime change “by any means”.

Meanwhile, Venezuelans stand strong against US efforts to undermine their democratic process.

We Reject United States Sanctions Against Venezuela

On Tuesday, May 24, 2011, the United States Department of State unilaterally imposed sanctions against Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), for its alleged relations with the government of Iran. The sanctions are a desperate and weak attempt to link Venezuela to Iran’s nuclear energy program as part of an ongoing campaign to justify further aggressive action against the South American oil producing nation.

As citizens of the United States, we unequivocally reject this latest attempt of our administration to demonize the Venezuelan government and undermine the vibrant democracy of the Venezuelan people. The Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez has already been victim of a coup d’etat in 2002, backed by Washington, which briefly ousted the President from power. Fortunately for the health of Venezuela’s democracy, the people fought back, rescued their President, and reinstated constitutional order. Then, as now, the United States stood alone in its support for hostilities against Venezuela’s democratically-elected government.

The government of Hugo Chavez has used its oil wealth to invest heavily in improving the wellbeing of its people. Currently, more than 60% of oil industry profits are directed towards social programs in Venezuela, including free healthcare, education, job training, community media, grassroots organizations and subsidized food and housing. The results are notable. Poverty in Venezuela has been reduced by over 50% during the Chavez administration, illiteracy has been eradicated and free, universal healthcare and education are available and accessible to all. These policies of social justice have extended well beyond the borders of Venezuela to the United States though programs that supply free, discounted or subsidized heating oil and fuel to low income neighborhoods, indigenous peoples’ communities and homeless shelters throughout the nation.

More than 250,000 US citizens in 25 states and the District of Columbia have benefited to date from the Venezuelan government’s subsidized heating oil program, which is run through PDVSA’s subsidiary in the United States, CITGO. No other oil company in the world - including US companies - has offered to help low income families suffering from the inflated cost of heating oil during the past six years, except for CITGO. Venezuela’s solidarity with the people of the United States has enabled thousands of families to survive through these difficult economic times.

We find it outrageous that the United States government would attempt to demonize the one company, and country, that has been there for our neighbors, putting people before profits. And we call on our representatives in Washington to suspend these sanctions against Venezuela immediately.

-Friends of Venezuela

-------------------------

Rechazamos las sanciones de Estados Unidos contra Venezuela

El martes, 24 de mayo de 2011, el Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos unilateralmente impuso sanciones contra la empresa estatal de Venezuela, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), por sus supuestas relaciones con el gobierno de Irán. Estas sanciones son un intento desesperado y débil de vincular a Venezuela con el programa de energía nuclear de Irán, como parte de una campaña continua para justificar más acción agresiva contra la nación suramericana.

Como ciudadanos de Estados Unidos, rechazamos contundentemente este último intento de nuestra administración de satanizar al gobierno de Venezuela y socavar la vibrante democracia del pueblo venezolano. El gobierno de Hugo Chávez ya ha sido víctima de un golpe de estado en 2002, apoyado por Washington, que brevemente sacó al Presidente del poder. Afortunadamente para la salud de la democracia venezolana, el pueblo luchó, rescató su Presidente y reinstaló el orden constitucional. En aquel momento, como hoy, el gobierno de Estados Unidos estuvo solo en su apoyo para las hostilidades contra el gobierno democráticamente electo de Venezuela.

El gobierno de Hugo Chávez ha usado su riqueza petrolera para invertir masivamente en el mejoramiento del bienestar de su pueblo. Actualmente, más de 60% de las ganancias petroleras son dirigidas hacia programas sociales en Venezuela, incluyendo la atención médica gratuita, educación, trabajo, medios comunitarios, organizaciones comunitarias, y comida y viviendas subsidiadas. Y los resultados son notables. La pobreza en Venezuela ha sido reducido en más de 50% durante la administración de Chávez, el analfabetismo ha sido erradicado, y ahora hay acceso para todos a la educación y atención médica gratuita. Éstas políticas de justicia social se han extendido más allá de las fronteras venezolanas hasta los Estados Unidos, a través de programas que suministran aceite para calefacción gratis o con descuentos a comunidades de bajos recursos, tribus de nativos estadounidenses y albergues para personas sin vivienda o en situación de indigencia por toda la nación.

Más de 250 mil estadounidenses en 25 estados y el Distrito de Columbia han sido beneficiados hasta hoy a través de este programa de aceite para calefacción, gratis o con descuentos, del gobierno venezolano, lo cual se maneja a través del subsidio de PDVSA en Estados Unidos: CITGO. Ninguna otra empresa en el mundo - incluyendo empresas estadounidenses - ha ofrecido ayudar a las familias de bajos recursos en Estados Unidos que sufren de los costos inflados del aceite para calefacción, con la excepción de CITGO. La solidaridad de Venezuela con el pueblo de Estados Unidos ha ayudado a miles de familias sobrevivir estos tiempos difíciles.

Nos indigna que el gobierno de Estados Unidos intente satanizar la única empresa, y el único país, que ha estado allí apoyando a nuestros vecinos, poniendo a las necesidades del pueblo antes de las ganancias. Y llamamos a nuestros representantes en Washington a que suspendan inmediatamente estas sanciones contra Venezuela.

- Amigos de Venezuela

Venezuelans Celebrate Rescue of Democracy as Threats Continue

By Eva Golinger

This week, Venezuelans commemorated the 9-year anniversary of the failed coup d’etat that briefly ousted President Chavez from power and dissolved the nation’s democracy, installing a US-backed dictatorship. In an extraordinary turn of events, a popular uprising crushed the coup just hours later


This Wednesday, April 13, thousands of Venezuelans marched on the nation’s capital, celebrating what has come to be known as the “Day of Civil-Military Strength and Dignity”. It was nine years ago on this day that millions of Caracas residents, together with loyal armed forces and the Presidential Guard, defeated a US-backed coup d’etat that had forcefully taken power just 48 hours prior.

The coup, executed by business leaders, corrupt union officials, private media owners, power-hungry military officers, former ruling-party politicians and “civil society” organizations - all financially and politically supported by US government agencies, the State Department and the White House (see “The Chavez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela” by Eva Golinger, Olive Branch Press 2006) - succeeded briefly in ousting President Chavez and his government from power on April 11, 2002.

Utilizing images manipulated by private television station, Venevision, the coup forces justified their actions by blaming the violence and deaths that occured that day on the Venezuelan head of state. In reality, as top secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents have revealed, the coup was planned in the days and weeks prior to its execution. The objective was to use an anti-Chavez protest to provoke violence and unrest in the capital, Caracas, putting into action a detailed plot using snipers to fire on the crowds, causing deaths and injuries, which would be blamed on the government, justifying its ouster. As one top secret, now partially-declassifed CIA document from April 6, 2002 (5 days before the coup took place) outlines, after the violence was provoked by coup forces, “President Chavez and other top members in his cabinet...would be arrested” and a “transitional government” would be installed.

Chavez was detained by force on the evening of April 11, 2002, and kidnapped by dissident military officers, on the orders of the coup leaders. Meanwhile, the US ambassador in Caracas, Charles Shapiro, was coordinating the actions on the ground with media owners, metropolitan police forces involved in the sniper shootings, and of course the business and political leaders that forcefully took over the government. Documentary evidence proves that Shapiro held several meetings and conversations during the events of April 11, 2002, with the metropolitan police commissioner, Henry Vivas, as well as with Gustavo Cisneros, owner of Venevision, and Pedro Carmona, who subsequently took over the presidency and declared himself head of state.

PEOPLE’S POWER

As the coup unfolded and Carmona, then head of Venezuela’s chamber of commerce, Fedecamaras, unilaterally and illegally swore himself into office as president, the constitutional president, Hugo Chavez, was held hostage and incomunicado on a small island military base off Venezuela’s coast. The only non-private national television station, state-owned VTV, was taken off the air by then governor of the state of Miranda, Enrique Mendoza, in an effort to silence pro-Chavez forces and conceal information and events from the people. Private media - all involved in the coup - broadcast cartoons, old movies and soap operas, while print media published articles justifying and supporting the “transition government”.

Before an audience of about 400 people in the presidential palace, Miraflores, Pedro Carmona issued a decree dissolving all of the nation’s democratic institutions: the Supreme Court, the National Assembly (Congress), the Attorney General, Public Defender, Comptroller, the Executive cabinet, and even the national Constitution. Police forces, under the control of the coup regime, repressed pro-Chavez protestors in the streets, killing and injuring over 100 people during those hours.

But despite the media blackout on the real events that were taking place, millions of Venezuelans, unwilling to accept the disappearance of their constitutionally-elected president and the imposition of a dictatorship that openly dissolved their democracy, took to the streets in protest. Armed forces loyal to President Chavez began taking over military barracks and urging people to come out in the streets to express their popular will. Within hours, the presidential palace was flooded with demonstrators, demanding the return of President Chavez and the ouster of the coup government.

Meanwhile, a low-ranking soldier guarding Chavez, urged the Venezuelan chief to write a note saying he was alive and still President of Venezuela, pledging he would find a way to get the letter into the public light. He succeeded. The famous letter, written in Chavez’s unmistakable handwriting, declaring the Venezuelan president had never “renounced the legitimate power given to him by the people”, made it into the hands of military forces loyal to their Commander in Chief. A rescue mission was immediately activated and Chavez was flown back in a helicopter to the presidential palace right around midnight on April 13.

The millions that surrounded the palace, together with the loyal presidential guard, were able to force out the coup leaders, who incredulously emptied the presidential safes and stole as much as they could before escaping. As Chavez descended from the helicopter, cries and cheers were heard from the crowd. An extraordinary feeling of community power, justice and love eminated from those who had risked their lives to rescue their democracy, their constitution, their president, and most of all, their dignity.

THREATS CONTINUE

During the celebration this Wednesday, President Chavez, speaking before a volumunious crowd that marched to the presidential palace grounds, reaffirmed that “Nobody can topple our Revolution again”, warning those who continue with destabilization plans that they will be “swept away” and “never return”.

As the crowds chanted “The people united will never be defeated”, the Venezuelan President, reflected on the events 9 years ago, “They came at us with a coup backed by powerful interests, the US government and the elite, but they were met but something even more powerful: the people of Venezuela and our real soldiers”.

Nonetheless, the majority of those involved in the coup remain present in Venezuelan politics today, still aiming to oust Chavez’s government and put an end to the Bolivarian Revolution. During the 9 years since the coup, US government funding for opposition groups and parties in Venezuela has increased exponentially, reaching nearly $15 million annually from State Department agencies alone.

Several of the key members of the coup, who were given amnesty by President Chavez in 2007 in an attempt to promote national dialogue, today hold positions in regional governments (governors and mayors), and in the nation’s National Assembly. From these legitimate platforms, they continue to conspire against the Chavez administration.

Ironically, during this week’s coup anniversary, one participant in the April 2002 events, Maria Corina Machado, now a member of the National Assembly, was invited by the Department of State to dictate several conferences in the US, including one in Miami titled “600 Days to Eradicate Authoritarianism: Transforming Venezuela”. While in Miami, Machado “celebrated” with a community of self-exiled Venezuelans, many of whom played key roles in the coup. Machado is slated to be an opposition contender in Venezuela’s presidential elections in 2012.

Obama Requests Funding For Venezuelan Opposition in 2012 Budget

BY EVA GOLINGER

The US government is setting the terrain for the 2012 presidential elections in Venezuela, soliciting funding to back anti-Chavez groups and help prepare a "candidate" to oppose Chavez. Republicans call for an "embargo" against the oil-producing nation

This week, US President Barack Obama presented Congress with a $3.7 trillion dollar budget for 2012, the most expensive budget in United States history. Within his massive request, which proposes cuts in important social programs and federal jobs throughout the country, is a partition for special funding for anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela.

Included in the whopping $3.7 trillion request is over $670 billion for the Pentagon's ever-increasing annual budget, nearly $75 billion for the intelligence community and $55.7 billion for the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

For the first time in recent history, the Foreign Operations Budget (State Department) openly details direct funding of at least $5 million to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela. Specifically, the budget justification document states, "These funds will help strengthen and support a Venezuelan civil society that will protect democratic space and seek to serve the interests and needs of the Venezuelan people. Funding will enhance citizens' access to objective information, facilitate peaceful debate on key issues, provide support to democratic institutions and processes, promote citizen participation and encourage democratic leadership".

While the descriptive language justifying the diversion of millions in US taxpayers dollars to fund political groups in a foreign nation may sound "pretty", this type of funding has been a principal source of promoting subversion and destabilization in Venezuela against the democratic and majority-supported government of Hugo Chavez during the past eight years. According to public documents, just between the years 2008 to 2011, the US State Department channeled more than $40 million to the Venezuelan opposition, primarily directing those funds to electoral campaigns against President Chavez and propaganda slated to influence Venezuelan public opinion.

The funding requested in Obama's 2012 budget for anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela comes from a State Department division titled "Economic Support Fund" (ESF), which per State spokesman Philip Crowley, is used to fund NGOs and other non-governmental groups in "key strategic and important countries" for Washington. On top of the ESF funds for the Venezuelan opposition, additional multimillion-dollar financing for political campaigns, media propaganda and other destabilization activities in the South American nation is channeled through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI) and various other US and international agencies that support groups around the world who promote US agenda.

ILLEGAL FUNDING

The State Department's public disclosure of 2012 funding for the Venezuelan opposition comes just after the Venezuelan National Assembly passed a law prohibiting foreign funding for political activities in late December 2010. The Law in Defense of Political Sovereignty and National Self-Determination clearly renders all foreign funding for political campaigns, parties and organizations, including NGOs, that engage in political activities, illegal. How exactly does Washington propose to channel those $5 million to Venezuelan groups, when such financing clearly constitutes a violation of Venezuelan law?

In previous years, the Foreign Operations Budget never explicity detailed direct State funding to political groups in Venezuela. Since 2002, Washington has used an office of USAID, the Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI), to filter its multimillion-dollar funding to its Venezuelan counterparts. The OTI office, which was run like a clandestine operation in Caracas and never had authorization from the Venezuelan government to set up shop in the country, abruptly closed its doors at the end of 2010 and transferred its activities to Washington, and Miami. It was the longest running OTI operation in US history.

Clearly, funding and political support for the Venezuelan opposition has now been given a top priority and will be handled directly by the State Department.

The funds requested in the State Department's budget for 2012 most likely will be directed towards political campaigns, since Venezuela has both key presidential and regional elections that year.

The State Department budget also requests $20 million in funding for anti-Castro groups in Miami and elsewhere to continue efforts to undermine the Cuban Revolution.

Do US taxpayers know their hard-earned dollars are going to fund political activities in other nations instead of being invested in jobs, healthcare and social programs in their own country?

EMBARGO AGAINST VENEZUELA

This week Republican congressman and Head of the House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs for the Western Hemisphere, Connie Mack, called on the Obama administration to impose an economic embargo against Venezuela, citing alleged links to terrorist groups as justification.

Mack, a neoconservative representing Southern Florida, also requested the US include Venezuela on this year's "state sponsors of terrorism" list, a petition the congressman has made unsuccessfully during the last three years.

During a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Mack referred to the democratically-elected Venezuelan President as a "thugocrat" who uses "weapons" such as "oppression, aggression, terrorism and drugs" to "destroy liberty and democracy in Latin America".

Mack did not present any evidence to back his outrageous claims. The Floridian Republican went so far as to allege that President Hugo Chavez "has become the Osama bin Laden and the Ahmadineyad of the Western Hemisphere".

During the past several years, right-wing sectors in Washington have escalated calls for direct aggression and intervention against Venezuela. Their cries have been accompanied by an increased funding for anti-Chavez groups with the hopes of fomenting destabilization and unrest in Venezuela, while working internationally to "isolate" the Venezuelan government and demonize President Chavez himself.

Nonetheless, the Venezuelan head of state retains a near 60% popularity at home and is one of the most admired leaders worldwide.

USAID Cierre Programa Injerencista en Venezuela

Por Eva Golinger

Creada en 2002, la llamada Oficina de Iniciativas hacia una Transición (OTI, por sus siglas en inglés), que financió con millones de dólares a esfuerzos para desestabilizar a Venezuela y remover al Presidente Chávez del poder, por fin ha cerrado sus puertas luego de múltiples denuncias sobre sus actividades subversivas



Cuando Russell Porter, el director de la Oficina de Iniciativas hacia una Transición (OTI), (una división de la Agencia International del Desarrollo de Estados Unidos (USAID) dedicada a la promoción de "transiciones" en países estratégicamente importantes para Washington), vino a Venezuela por primera vez en enero 2002, su tarea era "evaluar la situación política" para determinar como USAID mejor podría ayudar con una "transición hacia la democracia".

Pero el objetivo real no era apoyar la democracia en Venezuela, ya que Venezuela tenía un gobierno democrático apoyado por la mayoría del país. La misión de la USAID, junto a otras agencias de Washington, era impulsar un "cambio de régimen" favorable a los intereses estadounidenses, y eso significaba sacar al Presidente Hugo Chávez del poder.

De un principio, el programa de la USAID en Venezuela - que fue establecido pocas semanas después de la visita de Porter - estaba dedicado a financiar y asesorar a partidos políticos, organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG), y medios de comunicación vinculados con el sector anti-chavista. Tres meses después del viaje de Porter al país suramericano, hubo un golpe de estado contra el Presidente Chávez, que luego de su éxito inicial, fue derrotado en menos de 48 horas por el pueblo venezolano. La mayoría de los grupos y actores involucrados en el golpe habían ya recibido un financiamiento multimillonario de la USAID y otra agencia estadounidense, la National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

PRESUPUESTO MULTIMILLONARIO

Durante sus primeros dos años de operaciones, la USAID/OTI en Venezuela manejó un presupuesto de más de 10 millones de dólares, financiando alrededor de 64 grupos y programas de la oposición en Venezuela. Gran parte de este financiamiento fue dirigida a la propaganda anti-chavista en los medios de comunicación durante un "paro patronal" a finales del 2002, y luego para respaldar la campaña del referéndum revocatorio para intentar revocar el mandato del Presidente Chávez.

Grupos opositores como Súmate, CEDICE, Primero Justicia, la CTV, Fedecámaras y otros, fueron los principales receptores de estos fondos, y los líderes de los esfuerzos de desestabilización en el país.

Fracasando en sus intentos de remover al Presidente venezolano de su cargo legítimo, en 2005, la USAID/OTI aumentó su presupuesto y reorientó su estrategia en Venezuela, está vez enfocando en un sector que aún no había sido explotado: la juventud.

Del 2006 al 2010, más de 34% del presupuesto multimillonario de la USAID/OTI en Venezuela - que llegó hasta 15 millones de dólares anuales - fue dirigido al financiamiento y asesoría de un movimiento "estudiantíl" y juvenil de la oposición. Talleres sobre como mejor utilizar redes sociales, como Twitter y Facebook, para facilitar un "cambio de régimen", o programas de capacitación del "liderazgo" entre jóvenes, fueron promovidos por todo el país, con el sello de la USAID.

El dinero fue efectivo. Nació un "movimiento estudiantíl" de la oposición - las "manos blancas" - que atrajo la atención mundial con sus protestas contra el gobierno venezolano y sus tácticas innovadoras, todas tomadas de los manuales y guiones de las agencias de Washington y sus socios, como el Instituto Albert Einstein y Gene Sharp - el "guru" de las llamadas "revoluciones de colores" en Europa Oriental.

Pero a pesar de la inversión multimillonaria en la oposición venezolana, no lograban su objetivo principal. Más bien, la popularidad del Presidente Hugo Chávez seguía creciendo, y los vínculos entre los grupos opositores y sus financistas y asesores estadounidenses los hacían menos atractivos.

EVIDENCIAS IRREFUTABLES

Para el año 2010, el financiamiento externo a grupos de la oposición en Venezuela llegó a más de 57 millones de dólares. Esta inmensa injerencia en los asuntos internos en Venezuela, y la violación de su soberanía, fue comprobada con documentos desclasificados del gobierno estadounidense, tanto como por informes públicos emitidos por instituciones internacionales, como la Fundación de Relaciones Internacionales y Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE) en España.

Al mismo tiempo, la presencia de la USAID en Venezuela nunca fue legítima - jamás fue autorizada por el estado venezolano, algo que evidenciaba una extrema violación de la soberanía nacional. A cambio de sus programas en otros países, que normalmente son realizados a través de acuerdos con las autoridades, en el caso de Venezuela, la USAID/OTI operaba de forma ilegal, semi-clandestina y subversiva.

Desde Venezuela, las denuncias sobre ese financiamiento desestabilizador por fin fueron escuchadas por las autoridades, y a finales del 2010 fue aprobada la Ley de Defensa de la Soberanía Política y la Auto-Determinación Nacional, prohibiendo el financiamiento externo para fines políticos en el país.

¿Será que USAID decidió obedecer la ley venezolana? ¿Se dio cuenta que había perdido sus millones de dólares en una oposición fraudulente e incapáz de retomar el poder? ¿O simplemente está reestructurando su estrategia contra el gobierno venezolano, buscando otros canales para seguir financiando y apoyando a sus aliados?

Lo cierto es que no terminará ni el flujo de dólares a los grupos que promueven la agenda estadounidense en Venezuela, ni acabará la injerencia imperial en el país. Pero, el cierre de la oficina de USAID en Venezuela es un logro de la Revolución y un paso gigante hacia la soberanía nacional.

PD: La denuncia persistente a veces funciona, aunque el adversario sea poderoso, el compromiso con la justicia y la verdad siempre vencerá.


[Página oficial de la USAID en Venezuela: Programa Ahora Cerrado! http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/transition_initiatives/country/venezuela/index.html]

A NOTE ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE BELOW

Thanks to all for reading my work. While I am pleased to be mentioned in the New York Times, I am a bit disappointed with the profile piece about me that was published today, Saturday, February 5, 2011. The article makes me sound like some kind of propaganda queen for the Venezuelan government, which I am not. I was very clear during the interview that I am independent, nobody tells me what to do. I choose my work, I choose my subjects, I write what I wish, and as far as the newspaper, Correo del Orinoco International goes, (for which I am proudly Editor-in-Chief), it is publicly-funded by not "run" by the government. It is a public foundation with funding from the annual public budget approved by parliament. However, in the little more than a year that I have been Editor-in-Chief of the English-language newspaper, not once has anyone ever told me what to write, or not write, about. I have 100% editorial discretion. All my books (there are six of them) have been published by different publishers worldwide, not just in Venezuela and Cuba. The Chavez, Code, my first book, which is being made into a feature film by an independent French film company, has been translated and published in 8 languages - English (original), Spanish, French, Italian, German, Russian, Farsi and Turkish. And my new television show, Detrás de la Noticia (Behind the News) on RT Spanish, which can be viewed worldwide on different cable and satellite servers, is also completely under my own discretion. I choose the topics and say what I wish, no censorship, no orders, just full independence.

So, I am disappointed that the Times article made me sound otherwise and just wanted to include this brief disclaimer about the piece. It's also unfortunate that there is little or no mention of my motivations for the work I do. I am and will always be a fighter for social justice. Venezuela is undergoing a profound transformation process based on principles of social justice, and I defend its path. I am proud and privileged to participate in the construction of this new patria and will forever fight against and denounce any illegitimate attempts to undermine or destroy the will and sovereignty of the Venezuelan people.

In Venezuela, an American Has the President’s Ear

By Simon Romero, The New York Times
original: here

SLIP into Librerías del Sur, a chain of state bookstores. Read a state newspaper. Turn on state television. Listen to state radio. Eva Golinger, a New Yorker who speaks Spanish with a thick American accent, seems to be expounding everywhere these days on the threats to this country’s so-called “Bolivarian revolution.”

Welcomed into President Hugo Chávez’s fold to such an extent that she accompanied him on a recent trip to Iran, Libya and Syria, Ms. Golinger, a lawyer who first came to Venezuela in the 1990s to research her family’s history, has created a unique niche for herself here: an American with the president’s ear.

She details in her writings what she contends are Washington’s efforts to destabilize Venezuela’s government, interpreting documents obtained in the United States through the Freedom of Information Act. Publishers here and in Cuba have printed more than 200,000 copies of her 2006 book on these claims, “The Chávez Code.”

She has since emerged as one of the most prominent fixtures of Venezuela’s expanding state propaganda complex. Reviled by the president’s critics, she appears on state television whenever tension ratchets up between Washington and Caracas, as it did recently in a spat over ambassadors, to explain the motives of the “empire,” the term used here for the United States.

She also edits the English-language edition of Correo del Orinoco, Venezuela’s equivalent of the Cuban newspaper Granma, and maintains a widely read blog called “Postcards from the Revolution,” which features a photograph of her clad in red, the color of Mr. Chávez’s movement.

“I’m a soldier for this revolution,” Ms. Golinger, 37, said in an interview at a cafe near her apartment in La Florida district. “I’d do whatever asked of me for this country.”

Her zeal invokes earlier waves of political pilgrims in Latin America from rich countries, like the volunteers who cut Cuban sugar cane in the 1960s or the Sandalistas, the idealists who flocked to Nicaragua in the 1980s (often clad in sandals) to support the Sandinistas.

But Ms. Golinger is a far cry from a Sandalista. She eschews the self-effacing style of some other leftist American transplants here. Instead, she has stepped to the fore and emerged as a symbol of Venezuela’s simmering polarization, with her televised claims of American-backed coup-plotting and conspiracy.

Some affected by Ms. Golinger’s accusations say they amount to a modern-day witch hunt.

“Golinger has systematically attacked defenders of human rights and freedom of expression by presenting them as puppets of Washington, something far from the truth,” said Andrés Cañizález, who came under her scrutiny for heading a press freedom group that received financing from the National Endowment for Democracy.

“Paradoxically she uses a right established in the United States, of access to public information, which Venezuelans do not have,” Mr. Cañizález said.

HER influence here has increased to the point where the National Assembly approved in December what is often called the “Golinger Law,” a measure intended to limit foreign financing for rights groups, political parties and other nonprofit organizations, some of which are critical of Mr. Chávez.

Her influence extends to the president himself. In October, she accompanied Mr. Chávez on a seven-country tour that included visits with Venezuelan allies like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran. “Chávez presented me as his defender to Ahmadinejad,” said Ms. Golinger, describing the Iranian leader as “gentle” after giving him her book at a dinner.

She came away from the trip with her own appreciation of other Venezuelan allies like President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko of Belarus, who is often called Europe’s last dictator.

After meeting Mr. Lukashenko in person, she described him as “really nice.” As for Belarus itself, she said its Western critics were mistaken because it is “not a dictatorship.” Rather, she said, “It is socialism.” She praised a Belarussian agricultural town she visited. “People seemed really into their communal work and stuff like that,” she said.

A seat on Mr. Chávez’s Airbus was not always in the cards for the woman born Eve Golinger at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. Her father, a psychiatrist, served as an officer during the Vietnam War. She grew up without speaking Spanish and attended Sarah Lawrence College, near New York City.

Curiosity about her roots brought her to Venezuela in the 1990s. She said the family of her mother, an American lawyer, had lived in Cuba and Venezuela before immigrating to New York in the early 20th century. Ms. Golinger settled in Mérida, a student city in the Andes, singing in a jazz band to pay her rent.

After several years in Venezuela, she married one of the band members and they moved back to New York, where she earned a law degree at the City University of New York. But she said the marriage came under strain as she grew more involved in pro-Chávez political activities.

“He didn’t like what I was doing, so it was the reason for the split,” Ms. Golinger said. She then settled here in 2005, after obtaining Venezuelan citizenship in 2004 thanks to legislation that she said allowed her to “reclaim” it because of her ancestry.

CRITICS and supporters alike agree that she has influenced the public debate here and in neighboring countries. While much of her activism is rooted in distrust over American financing for groups that were critical of Mr. Chávez during the chaotic events surrounding his brief ouster in 2002, governments in several other countries, including Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, have heightened scrutiny of financing sources for nongovernmental groups.

“No one else has been able to bring so much attention to declassified documents over such a long period,” said Jeremy Bigwood, an investigative journalist in Washington who has collaborated with Ms. Golinger.

Still, some who have worked with her question her methods. Before a 2007 vote on constitutional reforms, she helped publicize a document that she said was intercepted by Venezuelan counterintelligence officials. It described “Operation Pliers,” presumably a C.I.A. “psyops” destabilization project.

“It sounded like it was lifted from a second-rate story on TV,” said Mr. Bigwood, questioning why it was written in Spanish, not in English, and how a C.I.A. field officer could have written directly to the agency’s head. He compared it to a notorious 1924 British forgery of a Bolshevik letter that ended the first Labour government.

“Like the Zinoviev letter, it was a fake designed to change the course of an election,” Mr. Bigwood said. Ms. Golinger called the Operation Pliers episode “unfortunate,” saying that she had since grown more skeptical of some documents she was asked to analyze.

Coincidentally, Americans will soon get more exposure to Ms. Golinger by way of Russia. This year she began hosting a weekly program called “Behind the News” for the Spanish-language operation of RT, a multilingual news network financed by Russia’s government. The program will be available on some cable channels in the United States.

At the same time, she said, she planned on continuing to appear on state television programs like “La Hojilla,” or “The Razor Blade,” a nightly talk show that the government here often uses to attack its critics.

When asked whether it was appropriate to use state media to go after the president’s critics, she contended that his opponents were just as quick to heap scorn on the government.

“I don’t think it’s a question of validity,” she said. “It’s the reality of the situation.”