US State Dept Spends $1 Million Funding Venezuela Opposition

(ANTIWAR.COM — U.S. officials seem to be pretty much unanimous on the need to meddle in Venezuela’s seemingly endless government crises. Yet a very core difference in how to approach this is leading to considerable dispute over the State Department’s latest program.

State is paying some $900,000 to the Atlantic Council to “promote non-violent conflict resolution” in Venezuela, which is their subtle way of saying they’re trying to buy a regime change and the installation of a “democratically-run government,” obviously run by someone the U.S. likes.

What this boils down to is indirect funding for the Venezuelan opposition, one of many times when the State Department has put money into the hands of a think-tank to get them to try to coach a U.S.-friendly opposition movement into being both more successful politically and more beholden to U.S. interests.

Those for whom U.S.-imposed regime change usually means coup or war, particularly Congressional hawks, are expressing major opposition to the State Department plan, saying it is a waste of money and “buys Maduro time,” in as much as so long as the State Department is trying something short of an invasion, they’re not invading.

Absent from the debate on Venezuela is the option of staying out of the matter entirely. That’s something Venezuelan opposition figures have long urged of the U.S., noting that any whiff of U.S. meddling gives the government an excuse to paint the whole opposition as American puppets, and justify another crackdown.

Indeed, the simple fact that the State Department effort is public knowledge probably more than negates any impact at might have, as the damage done to opposition groups for taking this money will likely outstrip the $900,000 in aid they got.

By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / ANTIWAR.COM / Report a typo

This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
Since you’re here…

…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us