On the issue whether the coup farce staged in Venezuela not long ago had an "American background," the world media have made many reports, comments, and conjectures. Although the White House and the Pentagon have denied supporting the oppositions in Venezuela to stage this coup, the world will not be easily fooled as it can judge from the several official statements made by the US Government both before and after the coup. At the time when the abortive coup had just taken place, the United States "did not show the slightest sympathy," still less "the least regret," for the breaking-off of Venezuela's democratic system. Both the White House and the US State Department expressed "satisfaction" over the stepping-down of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's constitutional president, and no one "wept over him." Besides, they also claimed that Chavez "had only himself to blame" for the coup. When Chavez resumed power, a senior US official in charge of national security commented that "Chavez should reflect on himself," as "his ship has been sailing towards a wrong direction for far too long." As for the recent event in which Jose Bustani, director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW], was voted out of office at the organization's special plenary session, there clearly existed an "American background." This special meeting was initiated by the United States, with only one single goal to fulfill, that is, instigating OPCW member states to vote out Bustani. It has been reported that the United States had earlier held a secret meeting with a number of countries, promising to pay for their long due OPCW membership fees if they could vote according to the wish of the United States. Why has the United States been picking on Chavez and Bustani all this time? After Chavez took office as Venezuelan president, he has pursued an independent foreign policy, and has been out of step with the United States in many areas. During his visits to some OPEC member states in 2000, he also paid a visit to Baghdad; meanwhile, he has all along maintained a close relationship with Cuba. All these are eyesores to the United States. As for Bustani, he hoped that Baghdad could become a member of the OPCW so that the United Nations could conduct arms inspections in the country. To the United States, what Bustani wanted to do was even more intolerable, as it would disrupt the US plan of launching a military strike against Iraq. Even some major media in the United States have thoroughly unmasked the attitude taken by the US Government towards the cope farce in Venezuela. They have pointed out: When will a "coup" not be called a "coup"? It will not be a "coup" so long as the United States thinks it is not! According to New York Times, the United States is inclined to put friendly faces in the Presidential Palace of Latin American nations, no matter whether or not these faces are wearing army uniforms. This reminds one of a witty remark made by US President Franklin Roosevelt in the old days. When questioned by a reporter "why the United States has supported a certain cold-blooded dictator in Latin America," Roosevelt gave a vivid reply: This dictator "may be a son of bitch, yet he is our (the United States) son of bitch." It turns out that in the dictionary used by the United States, the definition of a "democratic regime" is subjected to double standards. In simpler terms, the interests of the United States are always above everything else, not only above the sovereignty of other nations, but also above the so-called values of "democracy" and "human rights" that the US always likes to dwell on. Other than that, nothing will count. Attachments: JFJB 29 apr 2002.pdf