The Nation Institute is against Venezuelan democracy

Roberto Lovato is a member of the Latin America/U.S. political left who, in 2011, was awarded a grant from the Pulitzer Center  to prove “how the Obama Administration’s proposed drug enforcement and security policies in El Salvador — and across Latin America — represent an attempt by the U.S. to assert new influence through old means: militarization”, see: http://www.robertolovato.com/  This candid admission on the pre-established conclusions  of the paper shows that impartial investigation might not be Lovato’s strong point. 

Lovato is a lucky man who seemingly goes from grant to grant and from funding to funding obtained from “progressive” organizations, to write ideologically charged pieces about the wonders of  dictatorial regimes, such as the piece he wrote for the Nation Institute about  “the Venezuelan neo-fascist creeps”, see :  http://www.thenation.com/article/why-media-are-giving-free-pass-venezuelas-neo-fascist-creeps/.  

Lovato’s latest work, financed by the Nation Institute is a disgraceful attempt at linking Leopoldo Lopez, the Venezuelan democratic leader who has been in prison for the last 18 months, with terrorist acts, a claim made by the Venezuelan regime that the rest of the world almost unanimously denies. This piece has been published by Foreign Policy and can be read in: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/27/the-making-of-leopoldo-lopez-democratic-venezuela-opposition/ .

The Nation Institute

When reading a book published by the Nation Institute, “Wages of Rebellion” by Chris Hedges I ran into a paragraph, pages 18,19 that said: “Revolutions can be faux revolutions when , through the careful manipulation of counterrevolutionary forces, they demand not reform but the restoration of retrograde power elites”. As an example the author mentions the 2014 protests in Venezuela, where, in his view, “street action was used with western backing to target elected governments in the interest of elites”. For the author of this book the protesters, led by Leopoldo Lopez, did not represent democracy or social justice since Venezuela was an established democracy.  In the same book, page 145, Cuban exile groups are placed in the same category of the Klux Klux Klan.

 It could be just an unfortunate coincidence but the Nation Institute seems to have decided that Leopoldo Lopez should be targeted and deserves to be in prison. Its financing of Lovato’s piece on Lopez, which was over a year in the makings, came via the so-called Investigative Fund, see:

http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/files/managed/2009-990.pdf

It is not difficult to see strong political bias in the works financed by this fund.  Five of the first six works listed in the site as financed by the Institute are furious attacks against the World Bank, with titles such as: “Rights Denied, new evidence ties the World Bank to human rights violations in Ethiopia”, “The Uncounted”, how a power plant backed by the World Bank threatens a way of life. Or “Making Partnerships work”:   How power plants, dams and other big projects bankrolled by the World Bank Group can harm people and the environment.  

It would seem that the Nation Institute has pet targets. The World Bank is one. Could the Venezuelan opposition be another? Could the Nation Institute be discreetly supporting the abusive and dictatorial Venezuelan regime, in the name of democracy and social justice? It looks like it.

Where did Lovato’s money come from?

How did Lovato get his funding from the Nation Institute? The requisites to obtain money from the Institute’s investigative fund include an evaluation of:

·      What is new and enterprising about the investigation

·      How will the author approach his, her reporting

·      What will be the story’s potential impact

·      What publication is interested in publishing it

We wonder what Lovato said in reply to these questions in order to receive the funding he was looking for.  The resulting report could be called enterprising only in the sense that it attempts to justify Leopoldo Lopez’s unjust prison and it seems to validate the dictatorial and corrupt regime of Venezuela. The report clearly was written to justify the imprisonment of the democratic leader. The story’s potential impact could only be to support the notion that the Venezuelan regime represents the “good guys” and Leopoldo Lopez the “bad guy”. And, as to what publication was interested in publishing it, we doubt that Lovato could have found his way unaided into the pages of Foreign Policy. Who spoke on his behalf?

Could it be The Nation Institute itself? We cannot say. I am asking Ms. Esther Kaplan, the Editor of the Nation Institute’s investigative fund about this, to hear what she has to say and will report on what she tells me, if anything.  

Since Lovato’s piece does not seem to fit the requirements listed by the Institute, a possibility exists that financing for Lovato might have come into the Nation Institute from a third party and that the Nation Institute served as a credible vehicle. If this was the case it would not speak well of this organization because they receive contributions from many legitimate sources, including the Lear family, the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, the Ford Foundation and many individual donors.

Who, in their right minds, could be interested in having this grotesque piece published?

With the evidence at hand I have no doubt that the Nation Institute is working against Venezuelan democracy. I believe this the result of ideological bias. I am sorry to see them siding with an abusive and corrupt regime.