The Book That Changes the World Is Wide Open in Venezuela
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.


The Book That Changes the World Is Wide Open in Venezuela


VENEZUELA – February 9, 2019

Scenarios for the coup d'état in Venezuela and other countries were developed more than a decade ago, according to a recent publication by WikiLeaks.

The document, officially titled “Field Manual (FM) 3-05.130, Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare,” written in September 2008, had originally been released by WikiLeaks in December 2008 and has been described as the military’s “regime change handbook.”

In light of current events in Venezuela as well as the years-long, U.S.-led economic siege of the country through sanctions and other means of economic warfare, the document has generated new interest in recent days, especially given that Venezuela is mentioned there as a significant area of focus with dedicated “mission manager”, who serve as the principal IC officials overseeing all aspects of intelligence related to their targets.

“Field Manual (FM) 3-05.130, Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare, establishes keystone doctrine for Army special operations forces (ARSOF) operations in unconventional warfare (UW). It is based on lessons learned from both historical and contemporary UW operations. It is also based on existing, long-standing Army Special Forces (SF) UW doctrine; recently developed doctrine, such as counterinsurgency (COIN); and emerging affiliated concepts, such as irregular warfare (IW),” the preface reads.

In this manual, the U.S. Army states that major global financial institutions — such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — are used as unconventional, financial “weapons in times of conflict up to and including large-scale general war,” as well as in leveraging “the policies and cooperation of state governments.”

Earlier in January, WikiLeaks tweeted:

“What's happening with Venezuela? @WikiLeaks' publication of US coup manual FM3-05.130, Unconventional Warfare [UW], provides insight DOS=Department of State IC=Intelligence Community UWOA=UW operations area ARSOF=US Army Special Operations Forces”

This single section of the 248-page-long document is titled “Financial Instrument of U.S. National Power and Unconventional Warfare.” This section in particular notes that the U.S. government applies “unilateral and indirect financial power through persuasive influence to international and domestic financial institutions regarding availability and terms of loans, grants, or other financial assistance to foreign state and nonstate actors,” and specifically names the World Bank, IMF and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as well as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), as “U.S. diplomatic-financial venues to accomplish” such goals.

No big surprise that the manual also touts the “state manipulation of tax and interest rates” along with other “legal and bureaucratic measures” to “open, modify or close financial flows” and further states that the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) – which oversees U.S. sanctions on other nations, like Venezuela — “has a long history of conducting economic warfare valuable to any ARSOF [Army Special Operations Forces] UW [Unconventional Warfare] campaign.”

On January 25, The U.S. Treasury Department said in a statement that Trump recognized Juan Guaidó as the interim President of Venezuela.

“The United States will use its economic and diplomatic tools to ensure that commercial transactions by the Venezuelan Government, including those involving its state-owned enterprises and international reserves, are consistent with this recognition,” the statement reads.

The next day, the UK joined the US and a host of other countries by saying it would recognize Guaidó as the country's interim President if new elections were not called within the next eight days.

"We stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in saying that the National Assembly and its President Juan Guaidó are best placed to lead Venezuela to the restoration of its democracy, its economy and its freedom," said UK Minister of State Alan Duncan.

After top U.S. officials urged the British government to help cut off Maduro's access to his country's assets and instead steer them towards opposition leader Juan Guaido, the Bank of England blocked Nicolas Maduro's officials from withdrawing $1.2 billion worth of gold, according to Bloomberg.

Then this section of the “U.S. coup manual” goes on to note that these financial weapons can be used by the U.S. military to create “financial incentives or disincentives to persuade adversaries, allies and surrogates to modify their behavior at the theater strategic, operational, and tactical levels” and that such unconventional warfare campaigns are highly coordinated with the State Department and the intelligence community in determining “which elements of the human terrain in UWOA [Unconventional Warfare Operations Area] are most susceptible to financial engagement.”

Furthermore, the manual states that the U.S. military “understand[s] that properly integrated manipulation of economic power can and should be a component of UW [Unconventional Warfare],” meaning that these weapons are a regular feature of unconventional warfare campaigns waged by the United States.

The unconventional warfare manual is notable for stating so openly that “independent” financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF are essentially extensions of U.S. government power.

Financial incentives and disincentives can build and sustain international coalitions waging or supporting U.S. UW campaigns, the document reads. As part of an interagency effort, the U.S. Treasury can recommend changes to U.S. policy that can provide such incentives to state governments and others at the national strategic policy level. Participation in international financial organizations, such as the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), offers the U.S. diplomatic-financial venues to accomplish such coalitions.

Several international financial institutions are described in detail in an appendix to the manual titled “The Financial Instrument of National Power.” The World Bank and the IMF are listed as both “Financial Instruments” and “Diplomatic Instruments” of U.S. National Power as well as integral parts of what the manual calls the “current global governance system.” Analysts have noted for decades that these institutions have consistently pushed U.S. geopolitical goals abroad.

Fully in line with the Monroe Doctrine for Latin America and the Caribbean, one of the fundamental U.S. regime’s strategic objectives is privileged and unlimited access to Venezuela’s natural resources: the world’s largest petroleum reserves and second largest gold deposits, according to declassified document, “US Goals, Objectives and Resource Management (GORM) for FY 81- Venezuela”:

Still, Venezuela remains one of the largest suppliers to U.S. refineries. Venezuela shipped an average of 580,000 bpd of crude oil and petroleum products to the country in the year through October 2018, the last month data was available. Venezuela is a major supplier of heavy oil, which is largely used to produce distillates like diesel and jet fuel.

Top among Guaidó’s objectives, in addition to privatizing Venezuela’s massive oil reserves, MintPress correctly noted, is to again shackle the country to the U.S.-controlled debt machine. Given the close relationship between the U.S. government and these international financial institutions, it should come as little surprise that – in Venezuela – the U.S.-backed “interim president” Guaidó – has already requested IMF funds, and thus IMF-controlled debt, to fund his parallel government.

As a consequence of the lopsided influence of the U.S. on these institutions’ behavior, these organizations have used their loans and grants to “trap” nations in debt and have imposed “structural adjustment” programs on these debt-saddled governments that result in the mass privatization of state assets, deregulation, and austerity that routinely benefit foreign corporations over local economies. Frequently, these very institutions – by pressuring countries to deregulate their financial sector and through corrupt dealings with state actors – bring about the very economic problems that they then swoop in to “fix.”

Another point of interest is that these financial weapons are largely governed by the National Security Council (NSC), which is currently headed by John Bolton. The document notes that the NSC “has primary responsibility for the integration of the economic and military instruments of national power abroad.”

When looking at the structure and funding of both financial institutions, we can find many evidences of their strong connection with the US administration as well. In the case of the World Bank, the institution is located in Washington and the organization’s president has always been a U.S. citizen chosen directly by the president of the United States. In the World Bank’s entire history, the institution’s Board of Governors has never rejected Washington’s pick.

This past Monday, it was reported that President Trump nominated Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs and former Bear Stearns economist David Malpass to lead the World Bank.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Malpass served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Developing Nations and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Economic Affairs, respectively. In these roles, he focused on an array of economic, budget, and foreign policy issues, the Latin American debt crisis, and the administration’s involvement in multilateral institutions, including the World Bank. He also served as Senior Analyst for Taxes and Trade at the Senate Budget Committee, and as Staff Director of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. Malpass has served on the boards of the Council of the Americas, Economic Club of New York, National Committee on U.S.–China Relations, Manhattan Institute, and Gary Klinsky Children’s Centers, as well as various for-profit entities.

In addition to choosing its president, the U.S. is also the bank’s largest shareholder, making it the only member nation to have veto rights. Indeed, as the leaked unconventional warfare manual notes, “As major decisions require an 85% supermajority, the United States can block any major changes” to World Bank policy or the services it offers. Furthermore, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs banker Steve Mnuchin, functions as the World Bank’s governor, as MintPress pointed out.

Though the IMF is different from the World Bank in several respects, such as its stated mission and focus, it too is largely dominated by U.S. government influence and funding. For instance, the IMF is also based in Washington and the U.S. is the company’s largest shareholder — the largest by far, owning 17.46 percent of the institution – and also pays the largest quota for the institution’s maintenance, paying $164 billion in IMF financial commitments annually. Though the U.S. does not choose the IMF’s top executive, it uses its privileged position as the institution’s largest funder to control IMF policy by threatening to withhold its IMF funding if the institution does not abide by Washington’s demands.

However, other countries in Latin America are being targeted as well by these financial weapons masquerading as “independent” financial institutions. For instance, Ecuador – whose current president has sought to bring the country back into Washington’s good graces – has gone so far as to conduct an “audit” of its asylum of journalist and WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange in order to win a $10 billion bailout from the IMF. Ecuador granted Assange asylum in 2012 and the U.S. has fervently sought his extradition for still sealed charges ever since.

In addition, last July, the U.S. threatened Ecuador with “punishing trade measures” if it introduced a measure at the UN to support breastfeeding over infant formula, in a move that stunned the international community but laid bare the willingness of the U.S. government to use “economic weapons” against Latin American nations, MintPress reminded.

Beyond Ecuador, other recent targets of massive IMF and World Bank “warfare” include Argentina, which awarded the largest IMF bailout loan in history just last year. That loan package was, unsurprisingly, heavily pushed by the U.S., according to a statement from Treasury Secretary Mnuchin released last year. Notably, the IMF was instrumental in causing the complete collapse of the Argentinian economy in 2001, sending a poor omen for last year’s approval of the record loan package.

Venezuela’s previous elected socialist president, Hugo Chávez, broke ties with the IMF and World Bank, which he noted were “dominated by U.S. imperialism.” Instead Venezuela and other left-wing governments in Latin America worked together to co-found the Bank of the South, as a counterbalance to the IMF and World Bank,” the Grayzone Project wrote.

The financial instrument of U.S. national power is just one of many more various instruments aiming to divide and conquer foreign nations. Competition in the international environment using all instruments of power, however, remains timeless and continuous. Competitors now concentrate on the nonmilitary instruments of power in the natural intercourse between nations, USG strategists say in the UW field manual.

Since ancient times, kingdoms and empires have employed psychological warfare to terrorize, demoralize, and subvert their opponents. Guerrillas have attacked and sabotaged where possible to weaken a superior contending power. Combined with political purpose, such guerrillas and political warriors have sought to resist the occupier, or subvert and overthrow the oppressor. The postcolonial, modern era especially saw the widespread expansion of such unconventional methods.

The United States is not unpracticed in using many of these methods. It is accustomed to wielding all instruments of national power. It has effectively done so in the past. At the dawn of the 21st century, the United States still enjoys the largest economy in the world and continues to wield enormous economic and financial influence. The tangible and cultural products produced by the United States are spread across the planet. In addition to its military power, the combined weight and multifaceted appeal of this national output enhances the influence of the diplomatic and informational message of the United States.

USG’s strategists provide the following definition of Unconventional Warfare (UW): Operations conducted by, with, or through irregular forces in support of a resistance movement, an insurgency, or conventional military operations. (FM 3-05.201, (S/NF) Special Forces Unconventional Warfare (U) 28 September 2007). This definition reflects two essential criteria: UW must be conducted by, with, or through surrogates; and such surrogates must be irregular forces. Moreover, this definition is consistent with the historical reasons that the United States has conducted UW.

UW has been conducted in support of both an insurgency, such as the Contras in 1980s Nicaragua, and resistance movements to defeat an occupying power, such as the Mujahideen in 1980s Afghanistan where the United States was able to achieve its goals by waging UW through third-party actors without directly confronting the Soviet Union. UW has also been conducted in support of pending or ongoing conventional military operations; for example, OSS/Jedburgh activities in France and OSS/Detachment 101 activities in the Pacific in WWII and, more recently, SF operations in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF)/Afghanistan in 2001 and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF)/Iraq in 2003. Finally and in keeping with the clandestine and/or covert nature of historical UW operations, it has involved the conduct of classified surrogate operations.

Along with many other operations, UW is now considered a component part of irregular warfare (IW). IW is about people, not platforms. IW does not depend on military prowess alone. It also relies on the understanding of such social dynamics as tribal politics, social networks, religious influences, and cultural mores. Although IW is a violent struggle, not all participating irregulars or irregular forces are necessarily armed, the U.S. military strategists teach their “students”.

People, more so than weaponry, platforms, and advanced technology, will be the key to success in IW. Successful IW relies on building relationships and partnerships at the local level. It takes patient, persistent, and culturally savvy people within the joint force to execute IW. Waging protracted IW depends on building global capability and capacity. IW will not be won by the United States alone but rather through combined efforts with multinational partners. Combined IW will require the joint force to establish a long-term sustained presence in numerous countries to build partner capability and capacity.

In the case of Venezuela, numerous right-leaning Latin American governments, including Brazil, Colombia and Argentina, also recognized Guaidó shortly thereafter the United States showed full support on Jan. 23. Britain, Germany, France and Spain and more than a dozen other members of the European Union recognized Guaidó in a coordinated action on Feb. 4 following the expiration of an ultimatum they gave for Maduro to call a new presidential election. Australia, Canada, Israel and Morocco also recognized the self-proclaimed president.

USG military strategists emphasize that it is important for the official agencies of government, including the armed forces, to recognize the fundamental role of the media as a conduit of information. The USG uses strategic communication (SC) to provide top-down guidance for using the informational instrument of national power through coordinated information, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the other instruments of national power.

Where direct conflict between states is absent or low, the United States attempts to influence other states’ populations through so-called Public Diplomacy (PD).

The USG created the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) as a federal agency in 1994 to produce political radio and TV broadcasts intended for audiences in foreign countries. The IBB replaces the defunct Bureau of Broadcasting agency that superseded the Voice of America. The legislation that originally placed the IBB within the United States Information Agency (USIA) also created a Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) with oversight authority over all nonmilitary USG international broadcasting. When the government disbanded USIA in 1999, it established the IBB and BBG as independent federal government entities. The IBB and BBG do not fall under the oversight of the Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. The IBB includes: The Voice of America (VOA); Radio Martí and TV Martí (broadcasting exclusively to Cuba); an office of engineering and technical services.

The BBG funds other international broadcasting services as private corporations that are not part of the IBB. These include Radio Sawa (Arab world), Radio Farda (Persian Farsi to Iran), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. The IBB provides the technical support of transmission sites in three U.S. states and operates shortwave and medium wave relay stations in Europe, Africa, and Asia.

This is exactly what we’re witnessing nowadays, when the unprecedented informational attack on elected President Maduro is in full throttle. Hundreds of American MSM echoed by their foreign branches tirelessly produce and spread tons of content attacking Maduro and positioning Guaidó as a new President. Another recent example involves the so-called “humanitarian crisis” in Venezuela following increased migration levels.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued an ultimatum to the Venezuelan government of President Nicolas Maduro on Wednesday, demanding that it throw open its borders to a U.S.-orchestrated scheme to deliver “humanitarian aid.” Washington’s aim is either to provoke a fissure within the country’s armed forces or set the stage for a U.S.-led military intervention.

The sudden concern for the “starving people” of Venezuela comes from a U.S. government that has systematically worked to strangle the Venezuelan economy, imposing a financial blockade in August 2017 and an oil embargo last week. The embargo aims to block all sales to and from the state-owned energy company PDVSA, threatening the country with the loss of its main source of foreign exchange and its ability to import food and medicine. The American corporate media, meanwhile, has fallen into line behind Washington’s regime-change operation in the same manner as it did in advance of the U.S. wars in Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. On cue from the State Department, the White House and the CIA, it is broadcasting reports on hunger in Venezuela and casting Maduro as a villain for failing to throw his borders open to the U.S.’s “aid.”

Caracas has frequently denounced a media-based campaign to undermine its sovereignty, democratic credentials, and social advances in recent years. Venezuelan authorities claim that U.S.-led media outlets, as well as important European outlets such as El Pais in Spain, look to damage the reputation of the nation and create spin which justifies coercive measures against the country, such as sanctions and an international intervention.

“There have been attacks against the Venezuelan demonym, not just against the country, its political authorities, its government, or Chavismo any more, but now against the people, the average folk, our national identity,” Venezuelan Vice Minister for International Communication William Castillo explained.

Coordinated media attacks are an integral part of Psychological Operations (PSYOP). These are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately, the behavior of their governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of PSYOP is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator’s objectives. PSYOP are a vital part of the broad range of U.S. activities to influence foreign audiences and are the only DOD operations authorized to influence foreign target audiences directly through radio, print, and other media.

U.S. coup manual FM3-05.130 seems to be the perfect playbook for such “young democratic leaders” like Juan Guaidó. In 2007, Guaidó graduated from Andrés Bello Catholic University of Caracas. He moved to Washington, D.C., to enroll in the governance and political management program at George Washington University under the tutelage of Venezuelan economist Luis Enrique Berrizbeitia, one of the top Latin American neoliberal economists. Coincidentally, Berrizbeitia is a former executive director of the International Monetary Fund who spent more than a decade working in the Venezuelan energy sector under the oligarchic old regime that was ousted by Chavez.

That year, Guaidó helped lead anti-government rallies after the Venezuelan government declined to renew the license of Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV). This privately-owned station played a leading role in the 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez. RCTV helped mobilize anti-government demonstrators, falsified information blaming government supporters for acts of violence carried out by opposition members, and banned pro-government reporting amid the coup, Grayzone wrote in its piece dedicated to Guaidó.

WikiLeaks published an email that American ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield sent in 2007 to the State Department, National Security Council and Department of Defense Southern Command praising a group of U.S.-backed regime change activists “Generation of ’07” for having “forced the Venezuelan president, accustomed to setting the political agenda, to (over)react.” Among the “emerging leaders” Brownfield identified were Stalin Gonzalez, Freddy Guevara and Yon Goicoechea. He applauded the latter figure as “one of the students’ most articulate defenders of civil liberties.”

In 2008, Yon Goicoechea was recognized by an intelligence firm Stratfor and Center for Applied Non-Violent Action and Strategies, or CANVAS which is funded largely through the National Endowment for Democracy, a CIA cut-out that functions as the U.S. government’s main arm of promoting regime change, as a “key factor” in defeating the constitutional referendum. For his efforts, Guaidó’s ally Goicochea was rewarded with the Cato Institute’s Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty, along with a $500,000 prize, which he promptly invested into building his own Liberty First (Primero Justicia) political network. Another street organizer Stalin Gonzalez is an aide to Guaidó.

In November 2010, according to emails obtained by Venezuelan security services and presented by former Justice Minister Miguel Rodríguez Torres, Guaidó, Goicoechea, and several other student activists attended a secret five-day training at the Fiesta Mexicana hotel in Mexico City. The sessions were run by Belgrade-based regime change trainers from Otpor, organization backed by the U.S. government. The meeting had reportedly received the blessing of Otto Reich, a fanatically anti-Castro Cuban exile working in George W. Bush’s Department of State, and the right-wing former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. At the Fiesta Mexicana hotel, the emails stated, Guaidó and his fellow activists hatched a plan to overthrow President Hugo Chavez by generating chaos through protracted spasms of street violence.

In December 2018, Guaidó snuck across the border and junketed to Washington, Colombia and Brazil to coordinate the plan to hold mass demonstrations during the inauguration of President Maduro. The night before Maduro’s swearing-in ceremony, both Vice President Mike Pence and Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland called Guaidó to affirm their support.

As we can see, these so called “democratic revolutions” that happen from time to time in various countries around the globe, all have actually one scenario in common, which is written by military strategists from the United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. Ironically, Field Manual (FM) 3-05.130 is the only book that really changes the world.

Author: USA Really