When is it considered legitimate to try to overthrow a democratically-elected government? In Washington, the answer has always been simple: when the US government says it is.
Not surprisingly, that is not the way Latin American governments generally see it.
On February 16, the governments in the Mercosur trading bloc (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela) on the past week's demonstrations in Venezuela. They described 鈥渢he recent violent acts鈥 in the country as 鈥渁ttempts to destabilise the democratic order鈥.
The governments stated, 鈥渢heir firm commitment to the full observance of democratic institutions and ... reject the criminal actions of violent groups that want to spread intolerance and hatred in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as a political tool鈥.
When much larger demonstrations rocked Brazil last year, there were no statements from Mercosur or neighbouring governments. That is not because they oppose President Dilma Rousseff; it's because these demonstrations did not seek to topple Brazil's democratically-elected government.
The Obama administration was a bit more subtle, but also made it clear where it stood.
When Secretary of State , 鈥淲e are particularly alarmed by reports that the Venezuelan government has arrested or detained scores of anti-government protesters鈥, he is taking a political position.
Because there were many protesters who committed crimes: they attacked and injured police with chunks of concrete and Molotov cocktails, and they burned cars, trashed and sometimes set fire to government buildings, amid other violent acts.
An was even clearer when he responded to the protests by expressing concern about the government's 鈥渨eakening of democratic institutions in Venezuela鈥. He was joining the opposition's efforts to de-legitimise the government, a vital part of any 鈥渞egime change鈥 strategy.
We know who the US government supports in Venezuela. They do not really try to hide it: there is US$5 million in this year's US federal budget for funding opposition activities inside Venezuela. This is almost certainly the tip of the iceberg 鈥 adding to the hundreds of millions of dollars of overt support over the past 15 years.
But what makes the latest US statements important is they are telling the Venezuelan opposition that Washington is again backing regime change.
Kerry did last April when the United Socialist of Venezuela (PSUV) candidate Nicolas Maduro was elected president and opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles claimed the election was stolen. Kerry refused to recognise the election results.
Kerry's aggressive, anti-democratic posture brought such a strong rebuke from South American governments that he was forced to reverse course and tacitly recognise the Maduro government. There was .
Kerry's recognition of the results put an end to the opposition's attempt to de-legitimise the elected government. After the PSUV won municipal elections by a wide margin in December, the opposition was pretty well defeated.
Inflation was running at 56% and there were widespread shortages of consumer goods, yet a solid majority had still voted for the government. Their choice could not be attributed to the personal charisma of Hugo Chavez, who died nearly a year ago; nor was it irrational.
Although the past year or so has been rough, the past 11 years 鈥 since the government got control over the oil industry 鈥 have brought to the majority of Venezuelans who were previously marginalised and excluded.
There were plenty of complaints about the government and the economy, but the rich, right-wing politicians who led the opposition did not reflect their values nor inspire their trust.
Opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez 鈥 competing with Capriles for leadership 鈥 has portrayed the demonstrations as something that could force Maduro from office. It was obvious there was no peaceful way that this could happen.
The government has everything to lose from violence in the demonstrations, and the opposition has something to gain.
By February 17, Capriles, initially wary of a potentially violent 鈥渞egime change鈥 strategy, was apparently down with the program. Bloomberg News he accused the government of 鈥渋nfiltrating鈥 the peaceful protests 鈥渢o convert them into centres of violence鈥.
US undoubtedly inflames the situation, since Washington has huge influence within the opposition and the hemispheric media.
It took a long time for the opposition to accept the results of democratic elections in Venezuela. They tried a military coup, , in 2002. When that failed they tried to topple the government with an oil strike.
They lost a vote to recall the president in 2004 and cried foul; then they boycotted National Assembly elections for no reason the next year.
The failed attempt to de-legitimise last April's presidential election was a return to this dark but not-so-distant past. It remains to be seen how far they will go this time to win what they could not win at the ballot box.
[Abridged from . Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. ]
