Jackson Diehl
Deputy Editor, Editorial Page
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20071
March 25, 2008

Dear Mr. Diehl,

Over the past several years, we have informed you of our concerns regarding the hostile, distorted and inaccurate coverage of Venezuela in your newspaper, and particularly on the Editorial Page. Previously, we communicated our alarm at the unbalanced reporting and writing on Venezuela during the period 2000-2006, which evidenced one-sided analyses and false claims regarding President Chávez's tendencies and events within the country. Since then, however, the Post coverage has gotten worse. More editorials and OpEds have been written this past year about Venezuela than ever before, 98% of which are negative, critical, and aggressive and contain false or manipulated information. We are therefore led to believe that the Washington Post is promoting an anti-Venezuela, anti-Chávez agenda.

President Chávez has been referred to in Washington Post editorials and OpEds during the past year as a "strongman", "crude populist", "autocrat", "clownish", "increasingly erratic", "despot" and "dictator" on 8 separate occasions and his government has been referred to 7 times as a "dictatorship", a "repressive regime" or a form of "authoritarianism". Such claims are not only false, but they are also extremely dangerous. The U.S. government has used such classifications to justify wars, military interventions, coup d'etats and other regime change techniques over the past several decades.

Far from a dictatorship, President Chávez's government has the highest popularity rating in the Venezuela's contemporary history and Chávez has won three presidential elections with landslide victories and several other important elections, including a recall referendum against his mandate in August 2004, which he won with a clear 60-40 majority. Hugo Chávez is the first president in Venezuela's history to include the country's majority poor population in key decision and policy-making. The creation of community councils that govern locally and the increase in voter participation are clear signs of a vibrant, open democracy, demonstrating that Venezuela is far from a dictatorship.

The Editorial Page inaccuracies and distortions extend beyond the mere labeling of President Chávez. On more than 11 occasions, editorials and OpEds have falsely claimed that President Chávez "controls the courts and the television media". Venezuela has five branches of government - all of which are autonomous from one other by Constitutional mandate: the Executive, the Legislative, the Judiciary, the Electoral and the People's Power. Unlike the United States, which allows for the Executive to appoint supreme court justices, in Venezuela, the high court magistrates are determined through a selection process and a vote in the National Assembly. The Executive branch in Venezuela plays no role in the assignment of judges to the courts. Communications media in Venezuela continues to be majority controlled by the private sector, despite what the Post Editorial Page claims.

Post editorials and OpEds also erroneously referred to the constitutional reform package last December on more than 8 occasions as enabling President Chávez to "rule indefinitely" or become a "de facto president-for-life". The Constitutional reform did seek to abolish term limits, but not elections. Venezuelans would still have the right and duty to nominate candidates and vote for them in transparent electoral processes. Interestingly, the Post made no similar accusations against President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia when he twice made moves to change constitutional law to permit reelection to a second term. Uribe succeded in 2004 and is now again seeking to amend that law so he can run for a third term. Where are the Post's cries about dictatorship and de facto president-for-life in Colombia?

The Post has also severely manipulated and outrighted censored information about economic growth in Venezuela. Twice, recent publications on the editorial page described the Venezuelan government economic measures as "disastrous, crackpot economic policies". Under Chávez's economic policies, extreme poverty has diminished to an all-time low of 9.4% (2007) from a high of 42.5% in 1996. Unemployment has been reduced to 6.9% (2007) from 16.6% in 1998. Minimum wage has been raised substantially during the Chávez government to become one of the highest in the developing world, and there has been a significant reduction in Venezuela's public debt. Chávez also paid off Venezuela's loans to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and has increased investment in the nation's agricultural production industry.

Nevertheless, the Post fails to reflect any of these positive, progressive advances in its coverage and statements on Venezuela. Instead, Post editorials are dedicated to accusing President Chávez of engaging in an "arms race" (4 occasions), "violating human rights" (3 times), "facilitating/endorsing drug-trafficking" (6 times) and "promoting an anti-American agenda" (6 times). Worst of all, despite Chávez's own statements to the contrary, the Post continues to perpetuate the dangerous myth that Chávez is an "anti-semite" "aligned with terrorist nations or groups" (9 times).

Mr. Diehl, you should certainly know that the United States is currently waging an international war against terrorism. Within that framework, the Bush administration has clearly stated that those nations associated with or friendly to terrorist states or groups can be subject to preemptive invasion or intervention. Are you seeking such an end in Venezuela?

Your editorial on February 15, 2008, "Mr. Chávez's Bluff", goes one step too far. The piece is an outright call for a boycott of Venezuelan oil, an act that would irreparably harm both the peoples of Venezuela and the United States. As the Post applauds the mafia tactics of one of the world's wealthiest corporations, ExxonMobil, it's evident that its allegiance lies with corporate profits over people's rights.

And your latest editorial on March 5, 2008, "Allies of Terrorism" is well beyond a mere criticism of President Chávez's policies; it's a direct threat to the people of Venezuela. By accepting at face value - with absolutely no investigation or verification - the documents alleged to have been found on a computer belonging to Rául Reyes from the FARC, the Post recklessly condemns both Venezuela and Ecuador as nations that promote and harbor terrorism and justifies the most violating, reviled and dangerous Bush doctrine of modern times: Preventive War. By comparing Colombia's violation of Ecuador's sovereignty to a US attack against al-Qaeda, the Post shamelessly validates the most irrational war in history and calls for its expansion into Latin America. We find the Post's defense of the violation of Ecuador's sovereignty and its satisfaction with such aggressive - and illegal - tactics, together with the warning that Venezuela is in "danger", extremely disturbing.

We are outraged with the Washington Post's editorial coverage of Venezuela. The Post was once the bastion of genuine investigative reporting and truth-seeking. Those days are well gone and the Washington Post has now become nothing more than a tabloid serving special interests. The noble principles Eugene Meyer envisioned for the Washington Post in 1935, including "telling the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained", "telling ALL the truth so far as it can be learned, concerning the important affairs of America and the world and "the newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public persons," have been violated by editors like you, Mr. Diehl, who have chosen to promote a harmful personal agenda instead of ensure the ongoing greatness of your newspaper.

Sincerely,

Andrés Izarra
Journalist
Minister of Communication and Information
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Source URL: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/
Printed: May 11th 2008

Hold your nose!  This writer is very, very angry and claims the right to the healthy exercise of public wrath and open contempt toward incorrigible evil.  The French call unregulated capitalism "savage capitalism."  They are too polite.  I call it (take your pick) "diabolical capitalism," "infernal capitalism," or, more accurately, "satanic capitalism."

Here is an example of satanic corporate behavior that stinks to high heaven, enough to drive the saints to drink!
 
Let me first try to sketch the enormity of the event in a single outraged, wordy, and rambling paragraph, hoping the English language can provide adequate burning frames and sufficient force to leave an unforgettable impression in the popular consciousness of the abysmal darkness of our oppressors and our (only apparent) helplessness until we wake up in utter rage.

EXXON and other capitalist gangsters are viciously scraping food out of the mouths of Venezuelan and American poor children, with a lynch-mob attack against one of the few brave benefactors of the poor.  The assault is happening in the dark labyrinth of international alleys where the corrupt, legal-oid, colonialist, court systems of oppressors operate, masquerading greed and more plunder as –believe it or not — justice!  Yes!  Justice for the unfortunate obscenely rich and conniving oil companies.  These carnivorous capitalist cannibals use main sewer media deception power and privatized black water military terrorism to impose and whitewash their crimes with transparent coats of pseudo respect for international law.  EXXON, the good guy, versus Chavez, the mean dictator, with the help of a legal system that protects only the very rich.  A fair contest, wouldn't you say?

Exxon claims to have been robbed of some of its holy profits by Hugo Chavez's mania for feeding the poor of Venezuela and his keeping poor American children warm in the northeastern winter  by offering low cost heating oil.  Isn't that terrible?  Poor EXXON!  Let's raise some donations to help Big Oil in distress.

EXXON has lavishly spent millions to sabotage international climate change negotiations and to block agreements leading to greenhouse gas reductions. It has funded groups to produce junk science that denies climate change and supports climate hogwash research, thus delaying urgently needed action.  EXXON has joined Arctic Power, the lobby trying to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling devastation.  (Once you've seen a polar bear in the zoo, you've seen them all.  Just ask Ronald Reagan who said:  "If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all.")  The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that in 2004 alone EXXON funded 29 global warming denial groups.  Since 1990, the oil giant has spent more than $19,000,000 to promote groups that rebuff global warming facts through print and online publications that are not peer reviewed by the scientific community.  So, EXXON will proudly go down in history as one of those diabolical companies that helped end civilization and destroy the planet.  It deserves our admiration for insolent, malicious impudence as the world's richest bunch of assholes.

EXXON recently reported the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company.  Let's all keep in mind, chimes the media-whores, that oil companies have no choice but to raise gas prices to keep up with the cost of stealing crude oil from our commonwealth and from victim countries.  Imagine that!  Benevolent EXXON was forced to react to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by milking $100.72 billion from us all.  Don't you feel compassion for those fat, useless parasites?  At the same time, at risk of repetition, bad boy Hugo Chavez's PDVSA national oil company kept thousands of poor Americans from freezing by providing discounted heating oil.  Now that shows you!  There is a bad guy giving back to the American people some of the money they spent at Venezuelan GITCO stations.  What a slap in the face to EXXON!  No wonder the sleazy oil boys want to sue him!

If it ever surfaced for a moment from its loathsome cesspool of greed and financial terrorism to take just one breath of honest clean air, EXXON might conceive of the idea of giving back to the American people a few of the billions it pinched, plucked, and bagged from the pockets of hard working families trying to survive in the most oppressive, corrupt, and dishonest period in American history.  Enough!  What, am I dreaming?  That is the hope of an American dream long dead.  How could a mega-corporation competing in the morally lowest satanic materialism ever give a rotten fig about the suffering of ordinary people and for children dying for lack of medical care?

CNNMoney.com, a net service of CNN, Fortune, and Money Magazine, is one of the most revolting gang of media bordellos ever, surpassed only by the ultimate putrefaction of FOX News, yet CNNMoney.com had the brass impudence to re-publish the vomit article by Investors Business Daily titled "Big Oil Strikes Back At Petrotyrants," in which — among a string of distortions and misinformation — they growl to the effect that EXXON's 12 billion dollar suit against Venezuela and Hugo Chavez will show the "dictator" just who is BIGGER:  a 400 billion predator corporation that rules Western puppet governments or Venezuela's puny democratically elected president - who, by the way, won in a landslide and enjoys very high support of his people and growing approval from billions of oppressed people the world over.  That fact alone turns capitalist fascists green with rage and yellow with fear.

According to CNNMoney.com and other of the boot-licking capitalist press, EXXON has shown that the rule of law is a far better way to win and play with the big boys than to break contracts (read "fraudulent"), steal (read "gain back") national assets (read "stolen") and violate internationally recognized capitalist devouring norms. Of course, these blathering business pimps do not refer to the preposterous lack of respect shown to international law by other international oil thieves like the Bush Gang, the Cheney-Halliburton Cabal, and a whole pack of bloodthirsty thieves now murdering and plundering Iraq of all it owns, while starving millions of children, including Americans, without a moment of conscience or media report to the world.

I and others sounding the alarm bell sound angry because we are very, very angry indeed.  A quote from that pompous evil CNNMoney.com article, provides a perfect example of current prostitute media style reaching from the bottom of trash-pit minds and worthy of the Nobel Hypocrisy Prize:

Last year, the power-mad petrotyrant declared Exxon and Venezuela's other foreign investors "robbers" and vowed to conquer them like Simon Bolivar taking the Andes.  He hurled leftist nationalistic rhetoric against these private companies whose only 'crime' was to invest in and bring jobs to Venezuela.

Emphasis on the word "only" is ours and represents a "thank you" for being so self-evident and so clearly a bunch of "pendejos."  I thank you also for the comedy relief you provide in your BS articles.

Once in a long while a book appears with the power to change the world. It remains little noticed until, one by one, perceptive minds gravitate to the core of its ideas and coalesce into an expanding circle. These minds intuitively perceive its potential to launch explosive global social change and wait for enough people to read it to form a critical mass capable of igniting a spiritual nuclear reaction that gives birth to a different world.

POWER AND Powerlessness cannot be easily summarized on risk of diluting the force that helps the reader understand what he/she vaguely suspected to be true: that most human suffering is caused by oppressors masquerading as protectors. The book starkly exposes the deliberate attack of private interests on our collective right to live in peace, security, and abundance.

Susan Rosenthal so devastates the false values of Capitalism, the horrors of the military industrial fake-democracy, and the despicable deceit of the so-called "free" market, that no one can read her book without being first shocked, then outraged in the irrefutable realization that our lives, the lives of our families, and all good people have been deeply damaged by them. Medical statistics confirm that a healthy mind and body are next to impossible in a society based on lies, exploitation, and fear.

Dr. Rosenthal's arguments and insights are supported by voluminous authority, references, and historical data. Indeed, no one can read her book without being inspired. Here are few excerpts:

Some people despair that we have passed the "tipping point," the point of no return, that the earth is damaged beyond recovering. Such a point can be known only in hindsight. On more than one occasion, past catastrophes have dramatically altered the planet and wiped out the majority of existing species. Nevertheless, life has recovered and new species have flourished. It’s never over until it’s over.

The fact that past revolutions have not succeeded is no reason to give up, especially when the alternative is certain extinction.

Capitalism is dragging humanity into an abyss of barbarism, but we can choose another road. Humanity is Nature’s youngest child, standing on the threshold of the most exciting journey imaginable. We can build the world that our ancestors dreamed about, struggled, and died for. The few who act for the many will never be as powerful as the many who act as one. We will go forward together or not at all.

This book is the most important this reviewer has found for our collective survival and is an absolute must for all who would choose to take–in the language of The Matrix–the Red Pill.

By Gregory Wilpert

A review by Aldo Vidali

Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution is an auspicious social phenomenon that opens visions of progress and renewal. Gregory Wilpert's book is a balanced, informative, and gripping study of it. Wilpert explores the 21st Century political challenge of a free and just participatory democracy and suggests that if errors can be overcome in time, a truly different world is possible.
 
Some have opined that the book's title should have been: Changing Venezuela by Sharing Power, but "sharing" misses the reality the title evokes. Here is why. Disconnected as they are from reality, mass media spinners, upon seeing the book's cover photo of Hugo Chavez waving to the revolutionary multitude, assume that Taking Power refers to one man's dictatorship. However, Taking Power is right on point because it refers to the awakening and empowerment of the brave PEOPLE of Venezuela. Indeed, it is evident that no one in corporate media dared study the magnificent new Bolivarian Constitution, which states:

Venezuela constitutes itself as a Democratic and Social State of Law and Justice, which holds as superior values of its legal order and actions those of life, liberty, justice, equality, solidarity, democracy, social responsibility and, in general, the preeminence of human rights, ethics and political pluralism.

This fascinating study—deeply informed, penetrating in its analysis, comprehensive in scope—explores the historical and socioeconomic roots of the Venezuelan initiatives of recent years, the conflicts they have engendered, the achievements and pitfalls, the animating ideals of a genuinely participatory society, and the prospects for realizing them in ways that, if successful, might have significant impact not only for Latin America but well beyond.

Millions of smart citizens are quite aware of the deliberate deceptions corporate mass media inserts in almost every politics and economics story. The most effective antidote to that daily poison comes from the sharp pen and devastating documentaries of Greg Palast.

A daring investigative reporter, Greg is one of a handful of free press champions defending the last shreds of our democracy.  In his last documentary, The Assassination of Hugo Chavez, he again exposes the U.S. government, phony media, and violent right-wingers who foam at the mouth as they call for "the assassination of Hugo Chavez."  After seeing this shocking video, one cannot help but worry about Greg's own safety.  We are living in a criminal era.

The Assassination of Hugo Chavez reveals the abysmal pro-war deception the public has been fed ad nauseam by the fourth estate.  His unveiling of frightening assassination schemes shows just how far our country has fallen from greatness into the sordid cesspool of imperial conspiracies.  It is astonishing to witness the brutal masquerade of pseudo-Christians pretending to fight for democracy while betraying our Constitution and destroying any foreign elected government that protects its national assets (which the U.S. covets).

Greg spotlights irrefutable facts, making reality stare us in the face.  Real facts are always the foundation of his courageous work.  His gift to us all comes softened by tongue-in-cheek humor, offering relief from the horror we must protest to retain some civilized dignity.  We owe Greg a debt of gratitude.

We at Communication-Evolution.org consider Greg Palast our brother in the mighty struggle to hold back the hordes of the "oids," — human-oids, Christian-oids, patriot-oids, — all those hypocrites pretending to be what they are not.  This planet of collective lunacy needs a big change now.

In self-defense and to save the future, get a copy of The Assassination of Hugo Chavez.  Share it with others to assist in the birth of a different world — one guided by sane and honest free citizens.

Purchase a copy of "The Assassination of Hugo Chavez."

Hugo Chavez may have his own personality defects, like all humans do, however, his stature was greater in defeat than in victory. Conversely, the abysmal depravity of capitalist media by stark contrast made Hugo's temporary political loss shine as a moral victory and a testament to his democratic honor and statesmanship.

Dante Alighieri's immortal words: "Qui si parra' la tua nobilitate!" (Here shall your nobility be proven!), clearly applied on December 2 to Hugo. Facing alone the perennial struggle for truth, Dante forgave innocent error, but consigned hypocrites and traitors to the deepest circles of hell.

Chavez realized that some of his people did not fully understand the complex referendum (containing over 60 amendments) and that he had not made enough debate and discussion possible on the grassroots level in his enthusiasm to quickly move forward on important social reforms. Venezuelans will now have some time to regroup and launch an even better round of constitutional amendments to open the floodgates to the life saving waters of participatory democracy.

Author Gregory Wilpert, editor of venezuelanalysis.com, which provides objective and accurate information on Venezuela, wrote:

By rushing the reform process Chavez presented the opposition with a nearly unprecedented opportunity to deal him a serious blow. Also, the rush in which the process was pushed forward opened him to criticism that the process was fundamentally flawed, which has become one of the main criticisms of the more moderate critics of the reform.

Chavez, aware of his error, accepted defeat "por ahora" (for now), signaling that fascist violence and media deception would not have the last word.

The deluded, rich and poor alike, are victims of the capitalist system's controlled mass media. The capitalist global system of unlimited greed and unending brutality can only be branded as satanic. The victims are billions of oppressed, bombed, starved, and destroyed lives all across the planet. Like small fish trapped in a swamp, entire populations are unable to escape the suffocating polluted quagmire in which they are immersed by the powers that be. The people, for lack of information, cannot even begin to realize that this barbarous environment is a barrier deliberately constructed to prevent their access to the abundant waters of life, which nature provides for all. Few realize that this lethal condition is artificially generated by the unrestrained greed and powerlust of a very small minority controlling the system called "capitalism," which should more realistically be called "satanic capitalism."

Hugo can take comfort from the example of that expert on satanic forces, the greatest Italian poet, Dante, who was accused of being mentally sick by corrupt lunatics of his time, including Catholic bishops and priests, just as Antonio Gramsci, the Italian socialist, found comfort when he studied, in prison, how Dante turned to his conscious inner-self and asked: "Help me now to write what I saw. Here shall thou prove thy spiritual worth."

Like Dante and most great men, Hugo Chavez has been accused of being a power-hungry dictator. Nothing new in this world of hypocrites. Christ, an early socialist, was accused by the evil empire of his time of seeking to be a king because he sought to help the poor. In fact, Christ was a threat to the ruling class, as Chavez is. This writer is confident that Hugo will soon inspire the people to bring a new, even stronger constitutional reform forward to a landslide victory.

In his moment of political defeat, Hugo Chavez proved that "Qui si parra' la tua nobilitate." In fact, the world media continues its chicanery by manufacturing outrageous lies about the reform. For example, just before the referendum, there appeared a cheap, quickly-removed Washington Post article by torture aficionado Donald Rumsfeld, titled: The Smart Way To Beat Tyrants Like Chavez, a pathetic barf of lies, like: the free world has too few tools to help prevent Venezuela’s once vibrant democracy from receding into dictatorship. Such malicious lies from a major war criminal in a major U.S. newspaper evidence the disreputable level to which mass media has sunk. For a great rebut to Rumsfeld's sludge, see Carlos Martinez' article: I Thought Dictators Couldn't Lose Elections! at: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2958.

Hugo Chavez exposed sordid sold-out pundits like Rumsfeld with his graceful acceptance of the outcome of the referendum. Hugo said: We will respect the result, whatever it is — even if it’s by one single vote. Venezuela's electoral system was proven exemplar, efficient, and trustworthy.

For the safety of Venezuela's democracy, this writer hopes that before the next referendum, strict laws will be established by the National Assembly to ban false information from the public media, on pain of prison and high fines. Freedom must be protected from the poison of misinformation, violence, and fascist deceit.

Prior to the December referendum, the oligarchy's scaremongers waged a rabid campaign of slander and violence. The pressure was merciless. The mendacity of the Roman Catholic Church, spearheaded by the reactionary Episcopal Conference, must have driven the saints to drink as they heard priests preaching against participative democracy and calling it "godless communism!"

It is in the context of religious politics that capitalism reveals its truly satanic character. Like the Southern Baptists in the U.S. — that snake-pit of fearmongers, deploying battalions of Bible-pounding Christianoid preachers who lip-serving Jesus to foment war, persecute minorities, and suggest the assassination of Hugo Chavez (Pat Robertson) — religionist evil in Venezuela is incarnated by the corrupt Catholic Church and its discredited clergy of neo-fascist pedophiles — those same enemies of Christ who opposed liberation theology in Central and South America. This decadent, anti-Christian church reasserted its historical ill-repute as supporter of oppressors when one of its spokesman was caught on candid camera in front of the holy altar, with Jesus looking down from the cross, promoting violence to oppose the referendum in Venezuela (see the video: Venezuelan Government Uncovers Destabilization Plan at http://www.aporrea.org/medios/n105515.html).

After the result of the referendum was announced, General Baduel, the Judas of the Bolivarian Revolution, offered to negotiate with Chavez and renounced organizing a coup. How kind! Maybe Baduel also agreed to kiss Chavez on the cheek at the right moment for 30 tons of gringo silver to help the sniper already trained for targeting Hugo. Fortunately, Hugo Chavez is no fool. He can smell danger and will never deal with Satan. There can be no collaboration between socialism and capitalism because there can be no justice between oppressors and oppressed.

The revolution must leap forward!
 Let citizens march shoulder to shoulder with the military and organize themselves into a strong, well-trained Bolivarian militia to prevent fascist violence, whose vicious head was clearly visible on the streets of Caracas more than once. The people must be ready before conspiring golpistas, emboldened by their mini success, obtain the intervention of foreign imperialists. Never forget that Hitler was financed by American and European capitalists, including members of the Bush family. It is predictable that, sooner or later, fascists will try a bloody, brown-shirt- style takeover. Venezuela must act fast to make its revolution permanent and defensible.

21st Century socialism is a newborn child with immense promise. It threatens satanic capitalism and therefore needs all the protection good people and their leaders can give it to make a different world possible. Hugo Chavez is the man for this season.

Washington's Brain Society (W's.B.S.), a conservative think tank, inadvertently leaked to the press the secret plot that will render Hugo completely harmless. Many propagandistic schemes have been spawned by W's.B.S.'s cagey corporate executives, clever military strategists, and cunning politicians, but never a plot so brilliant and undefeatable as "Operation Crush Chavez."

Major elements of the CIA infiltrating the popular barrios of Caracas and cocktail parties of the oligarchy have returned to W's.B.S. with a frightening intelligence report on the activities of Hugo Chavez that could spell the doom of our free wheeling-and-dealing capitalist system. The good news is that after examining the report, a diabolical plan by W's.B.S. was approved by the DOD, State Department, the major oil cartels, and the White House that will outdo, squash, and vanquish all support and world admiration for Hugo Chavez.

Everyone at W's.B.S. planning meeting was agape, agog, and dumbfounded to learn that dastardly Chavez has persisted in launching his populist, liberal, and socialist acts of provocation against our neo-conservative free-for-all market created by the generous free world nations under the wise guidance of the U.S.

Chavez, through his sneaky oil company CITGO, has been giving large discounts on heating oil to poor households in the U.S. A slap in our fine oil industry's face! That evil Venezuelan company has committed $3.6 million to nine Bronx initiatives that foster community empowerment and clean-up of the urban environment. Can you see the nasty Chavez conspiracy? is the question W's.B.S. asks our government and the American people. By the winter of 2006-2007, Chavez's program doubled, delivering 100 million gallons to 1.2 million poor Americans, from Alaskan natives to Vermont citizens. CITGO expects to supply 110 million gallons to America's poor this winter. Isn't that awful? It's just to embarrass the superrich U.S. oil companies that receive meritorious subsidies while faithfully accepting Americans' financial sacrifice at the pump and concurrently refusing to pay abusive oil royalties owed to the American people who never lifted a finger to earn them.

According to W's.B.S., President Chavez is a terrible blackmailer! Imagine sharing Venezuela's oil wealth with his poor and spoiling our own people with unwanted welfare, which keeps our own poor from learning how to pull themselves up by their bootstraps in the dead of winter. Nevermind! Here is how W's.B.S proposes to fix this evil do-gooder Chavez.

Politicos and big oil at W's.B.S. meeting agreed that this is outrageous. Chavez' generosity is only propaganda and peanuts thrown to "useless eaters," as Kissinger called the world's poor. "Operation Crush Chavez," with full approval from big oil, a bribed Congress, and the White House, will generously give 50 time as much, not just to a few peripheral low class neighborhoods, but to every state in the union. Get it?!!! When the American people discover that their own great oil companies are much more generous than Chavez and his socialist love-of-the-people nonsense, Chavez' popularity will sink and he'll learn a lesson in humility. Since he's putting his money where his mouth is, we'll outdo him 50 to 1!

According to W's.B.S., CITGO's nasty commie executives have been visiting needy people in the Bronx more often than any American corporate donor. How stupid can our business community be? We have to outdo these radicals. The commies have been asking community groups what kind of grants are needed, and based on what people wanted, awarded one for a child care cooperative that helps working mothers make a living. And the nerve of the nasty do-gooder and his Pollyanna socialists to celebrate the completion of the cooperative with locals over Venezuelan food — arepas and carne mechada — and Latin American music!

"We'll show them towel-head lovers," said W's.B.S.'s Chair, "that U.S. companies can do better than that. Our oil corporations will quadruple that celebration with millions of healthy MacBurgers, hotdogs, and Cokes, not just in the Bronx, but in every poor neighborhood in America and at every gas station. And we'll double it in Venezuela as well, to take the battle for hearts and minds to Chavez' shores, just as we did in Iraq. That'll embarrass Chavez and turn him green with envy. We know all kids love fast food, which is excellent for their health according to Chamber of Nonsense & Research financed by the fast food industries."

CITGO's winter oil program for the American people cost a paultry $80 million, which is about the same amount that America's largest publicly traded oil companies — with roughly 10 times the revenue — spent on charity in the United States in 2006. How inconveniently embarrassing. The Chair concluded: "We can do better for the American people because we have the means to counterattack Chavez once we decide to dip in our own deeper pockets."

Well, okay! "Operation Crush Chavez" intends to do much better! According to W's.B.S., American capitalists have got to appear less like Scrooges and more like Santas. They must throw an $800 million bone to the public beast and show the whole world that America's big oil and the Republican compassionate government are true Christians, just like Pat Robertson, except for his stupid suggestion to assassinate Hugo Chavez. (As BBC's investigative reporter Greg Palast has suggested, Pat Robertson, in his Christian goodwill, cannot separate Church and Hate).

We are pleased that our media is doing such a great job making Chavez look like a petty miser commie. We instructed corporate media to never publish important facts, like the fact that Chavez presided over an 18% reduction in infant mortality, or the fact that Venezuela enjoys a hearty 9.5% average annual economic growth rate, independent of oil revenue, or the fact that 9 out of 10 media outlets in Venezuela are private concerns, many of which are freely screaming opposition voices that routinely attack the Chavez government.

The things Hugo Chavez has been doing have made our petroleum industry executives very, very nervous. The Chavez-CITGO program is “designed to embarrass us,” stated Larry Goldstein, president of the New York based Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, when it was launched in 2005. "[The Chavez-CITGO program] is not designed to help poor people," said that super rich executive. "Chávez is astute, clever, with a major political agenda, largely to get under our skin, and he does that everywhere and anywhere he can."

We don't want the world to ever again hear appalling facts about America's beggar class – its increasing homeless men, women, and children, often freezing to death in the winter for lack of heat. Unfortunately, as well policed as it is compared to the old Soviet media, U.S. media is still too loose, and the damned Internet is letting out too many disturbing facts. Control of the damned Net is our next goal. Our citizens must never get facts about capitalist oppression in the free world, but they do need protection from socialist and environmental propaganda and from do-gooders like Chavez!

Gary Farber, a very poor American who can't afford medicine for his very serious illness, offered some powerful suggestions to help America. On his blog, Amigdala.blogspot.com — which he manages to keep going thanks to small donations, even when he cannot afford to buy food — this brave, poverty-stricken intellectual had the patriotic instinct to help his country against Hugo Chavez by sparking the idea of organizing the poisonous "Operation Crush Chavez." He wrote:

Wanna know how you can really get back at the evil commie dictator Chavez for this propaganda coup? Really embarrass him and make him squirm and sweat? Get under his skin?

Up your charitable donations by a factor of twenty, no, thirty, and put the money largely in the form of long-term endowments and grants to organizations and programs in poor neighborhoods around America, and beat Chavez at his own game!

Make poor people love you! Think of the fantastic image improvement you'll have! Imagine how Chavez will be put in the dust!

That'll show that oppressive 'ol creepy dictator-y guy.

Upping your donations fifty times would be even better.

Do it because you hate Chavez so much. Use your hatred: it will make you stronger yet in the Dark Side.

I'm looking at you, Larry Goldstein. You'll serve your master well by doing this and you'll be rewarded. With that Gary will assuredly lift his fist in a commie salute using his extended middle finger.

W's.B.S. feels that the biggest challenge our government has with Chavez is how to put down Venezuela's constitutional achievements. Like the fact that it recognizes work at home is an economic activity contributing to social welfare and wealth. Consequently, mothers, as homemakers, are entitled to Social Security. Like Chavez' program called "Mothers of the Barrio" — one more evil communist trick! Of course, all the mothers among the vast majority of poor people love Hugo Chavez. How can we beat down mothers?!

On top of that kind of relief for the poor, the evil dictator has created free universal health care and free education, all the way to college. Try and take that away from them and tell them we're civilized! We need to double media misinformation or this commie do gooder will cook us out of our comfort zone. Too much truth is leaking out!

Our response must be one that will definitely crush Chavez. We must divert 400 billion dollars of military illegal aggression expenditures to give every American citizen free education and healthcare. Another great idea! We can save 50% of current medical costs by firing all bloodsucking, paper shuffling insurance companies. And another: we can intensively regulate the pharmaceutical Frankenstein industry and save many lives and countless billions. But, hold it! That's going to be hard to accomplish cause we already spend billions for campaign finance bribery. In fact, I'll probably get fired for writing this.

The money savings for our country will be so immense that we might even end up paying all our debts in a few years and then Chavez' socialist threat will vanish forever.

Imagine: in one single year we can bring Chavez to his knees, restore peace and prosperity to our country, and end terrorism by depriving all terrorist fools, both foreign and domestic, of any motivation for killing us. It's so simple. All we need to do is stop aggression, stop stealing others' resources, stop torture, end violations of international law, and restore justice. Now I know for sure that Washington will ask W's.B.S. to fire me and send me to Guantanamo for leaking this story.

Anyway, before they do…by pretending we are civilized, we'll show ourselves as worthy of respect as Hugo Chavez is…maybe even more, since we'll have to spent more money than he. But our profits will more than double, you can bet on that!

Introduction

Venezuela’s democratically elected Present Chavez faces the most serious threat since the April 11, 2002 military coup.

Violent street demonstrations by privileged middle and upper middle class university students have led to major street battles in and around the center of Caracas.  More seriously, the former Minister of Defense, General Raul Isaias Baduel, who resigned in July, has made explicit calls for a military coup in a November 5th press conference which he convoked exclusively for the right and far-right mass media and political parties, while striking a posture as an ‘individual’ dissident.

The entire international and local private mass media has played up Baduel’s speeches, press conferences along with fabricated accounts of the oppositionist student rampages, presenting them as peaceful protests for democratic rights against the government referendum scheduled for December 2, 2007.

The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the BBC News and the Washington Post have all primed their readers for years with stories of President Chavez’ ‘authoritarianism’.  Faced with constitutional reforms which strengthen the prospects for far-reaching political-social democratization, the US, European and Latin American media have cast pro-coup ex-military officials as ‘democratic dissidents’, former Chavez supporters disillusioned with his resort to ‘dictatorial’ powers in the run-up to and beyond the December 2, 2007 vote in the referendum on constitutional reform.  Not a single major newspaper has mentioned the democratic core of the proposed reforms – the devolution of public spending and decision to local neighborhood and community councils.  Once again as in Chile in 1973, the US mass media is complicit in an attempt to destroy a Latin American democracy.

Even sectors of the center-left press and parties in Latin America have reproduced right-wing propaganda.  On November the self-styled ‘leftist’ Mexican daily La Jornada headline read ‘Administrators and Students from the Central University of Venezuela (UCV) Accuse Chavez of Promoting Violence’.  The article then proceeded to repeat the rightist fabrications about electoral polls, which supposedly showed the constitutional amendments facing defeat.

The United States Government, both the Republican White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress are once again overtly backing the new attempt to oust the popular-nationalist President Chavez and to defeat the highly progressive constitutional amendments.

The Referendum: Defining and Deepening the Social Transformation

The point of confrontation is the forthcoming referendum on constitutional reforms initiated by President Chavez, debated, amended and democratically voted on by the Venezuelan Congress over the past 6 months.  There was widespread and open debate and criticism of specific sectors of the Constitution.  The private mass media, overwhelmingly viscerally anti-Chavez and pro-White House, unanimously condemned any and all the constitutional amendments.  A sector of the leadership of one of the components of the pro-Chavez coalition (PODEMOS) joined the Catholic Church hierarchy, the leading business and cattleman’s association, bankers and sectors of the university and student elite to attack the proposed constitutional reforms.  Exploiting to the hilt all of Venezuela’s democratic freedoms (speech, assembly and press) the opposition has denigrated the referendum as ‘authoritarian’ even as most sectors of the opposition coalition attempted to arouse the military to intervene.

The opposition coalition of the rich and privileged fear the constitutional reforms because they will have to grant a greater share of their profits to the working class, lose their monopoly over market transactions to publicly owned firms, and see political power evolve toward local community councils and the executive branch.  While the rightist and liberal media in Venezuela, Europe and the US have fabricated lurid charges about the ‘authoritarian’ reforms, in fact the amendments propose to deepen and extend social democracy.

A brief survey of the key constitutional amendments openly debated and approved by a majority of freely elected Venezuelan congress members gives the lie to charges of ‘authoritarianism’ by its critics.  The amendments can be grouped according to political, economic and social changes.

The most important political change is the creation of new locally based democratic forms of political representation in which elected community and communal institutions will be allocated state revenues rather than the corrupt, patronage-infested municipal and state governments.  This change toward decentralization will encourage a greater practice of direct democracy in contrast to the oligarchic tendencies embedded in the current centralized representative system.

Secondly, contrary to the fabrications of ex-General Baduel, the amendments do not ‘destroy the existing constitution’, since the amendments modify in greater or lesser degree only 20% of the articles of the constitution (69 out of 350).

The amendments providing for unlimited term elections is in line with the practices of many parliamentary systems, as witnessed by the five terms in office of Australian Prime Minister Howard, the half century rule of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party, the four terms of US President Franklin Roosevelt, the multi-term election of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in the UK among others.  No one ever questions their democratic credentials for multi-term executive office holding, nor should current critics selectively label Chavez as an ‘authoritarian’ for doing the same.

Political change increasing the presidential term of office from 6 to 7 years will neither increase or decrease presidential powers, as the opposition claims, because the separation of legislative, judicial and executive powers will continue and free elections will subject the President to periodic citizen review.

The key point of indefinite elections is that they are free elections, subject to voter preference, in which, in the case of Venezuela, the vast majority of the mass media, Catholic hierarchy, US-funded NGO’s, big business associations will still wield enormous financial resources to finance opposition activity – hardly an ‘authoritarian’ context.

The amendment allowing the executive to declare a state of emergency and intervene in the media in the face of violent activity to overthrow the constitution is essential for safeguarding democratic institutions.  In light of several authoritarian violent attempts to seize power recently by the current opposition, the amendment allows dissent but also allows democracy to defend itself against the enemies of freedom.

In the lead up to the US-backed military coup of April 11, 2002, and the petroleum lockout by its senior executives which devastated the economy (a decline of 30% of GNP in 2002/2003), if the Government had possessed and utilized emergency powers, Congress and the Judiciary, the electoral process and the living standards of the Venezuelan people would have been better protected.  Most notably, the Government could have intervened against the mass media aiding and abetting the violent overthrow of the democratic process, like any other democratic government.

It should be clear that the amendment allowing for ‘emergency powers’ has a specific context and reflects concrete experiences:  the current opposition parties, business federations and church hierarchies have a violent, anti-democratic history.  The destabilization campaign against the current referendum and the appeals for military intervention most prominently and explicitly stated by retired General Baduel (defended by his notorious adviser-apologist, the academic-adventurer Heinz Dietrich), are a clear indication that emergency powers are absolutely necessary to send a clear message that reactionary violence will be met by the full force of the law.

The reduction of voting age from 18 to 16 will broaden the electorate, increase the number of participants in the electoral process and give young people a greater say in national politics through institutional channels.  Since many workers enter the labor market at a young age and in some cases start families earlier, this amendment allows young workers to press their specific demands on employment and contingent labor contracts.

The amendment reducing the workday to 6 hours is vehemently opposed by the opposition led by the big business federation, FEDECAMARAS, but has the overwhelming support of the trade unions and workers from all sectors.  It will allow for greater family time, sports, education, skill training, political education and social participation, as well as membership in the newly formed community councils.  Related labor legislation and changes in property rights including a greater role for collective ownership will strengthen labor’s bargaining power with capital, extending democracy to the workplace.

Finally the amendment eliminating so-called ‘Central Bank autonomy’ means that elected officials responsive to the voters will replace Central Bankers (frequently responsive to private bankers, overseas investors and international financial officials) in deciding public spending and monetary policy.  One major consequence will be the reduction of excess reserves in devalued dollar denominated funds and an increase in financing for social and productive activity, a diversity of currency holdings and a reduction in irrational foreign borrowing and indebtedness.  The fact of the matter is that the Central Bank was not ‘autonomous’, it was dependent on what the financial markets demanded, independent of the priorities of elected officials responding to popular needs.

As the Chavez Government Turns to Democratic Socialism:  Centrists Defect and Seek Military Solutions

As Venezuela’s moves from political to social transformation, from a capitalist welfare state toward democratic socialism, predictable defections and additions occur.  As in most other historical experiences of social transformation, sectors of the original government coalition committed to formal institutional political changes defect when the political process moves toward greater egalitarianism and property and a power shift to the populace.  Ideologues of the ‘Center’ regret the ‘breaking’ of the status quo ‘consensus’ between oligarchs and people (labeling the new social alignments as ‘authoritarian’) even as the ‘Center’ embraces the profoundly anti-democratic Right and appeals for military intervention.

A similar process of elite defections and increased mass support is occurring in Venezuela as the referendum, with its clear class choices, comes to the fore.  Lacking confidence in their ability to defeat the constitutional amendments through the ballot, fearful of the democratic majority, resentful of the immense popular appeal of the democratically elected President Chavez, the ‘Center’ has joined the Right in a last ditch effort to unify extra-parliamentary forces to defeat the will of the electorate.

Emblematic of the New Right and the ‘Centrist’ defections is the ex-Minister of Defense, Raul Baduel, whose virulent attack on the President, the Congress, the electoral procedures and the referendum mark him as an aspirant to head up a US-backed right-wing seizure of power.

The liberal and right wing mass media and unscrupulous ‘centrist’ propagandists have falsely portrayed Raul Baduel as the ‘savior’ of Chavez following the military coup of April 2002.  The fact of the matter is that Baduel intervened only after hundreds of thousands of poor Venezuelans poured down from the ‘ranchos’, surrounded the Presidential Palace, leading to division in the armed forces.  Baduel rejected the minority of rightist military officers favoring a massive bloodbath and aligned with other military officials who opposed extreme measures against the people and the destruction of the established political order.  The latter group included officials who supported Chavez’ nationalist-populist policies and others, like Baduel, who opposed the coup-makers because it radicalized and polarized society – leading to a possible class-based civil war with uncertain outcome.  Baduel was for the restoration of a ‘chastised’ Chavez who would maintain the existing socio-economic status quo.

Within the Chavez government, Baduel represented the anti-communist tendency, which pressed the President to ‘reconcile’ with the ‘moderate democratic’ right and big business.  Domestically, Baduel opposed the extension of public ownership and internationally favored close collaboration with the far-right Colombian Defense Ministry.

Baduel’s term of office as Defense Minister reflected his conservative propensities and his lack of competence in matters of security, especially with regard to internal security. He failed to protect Venezuela’s frontiers from military incursions by Colombia’s armed forces.  Worse he failed to challenge Colombia’s flagrant violation of international norms with regard to political exiles.  While Baduel was Minister of Defense, Venezuelan landlords’ armed paramilitary groups  assassinated over 150 peasants active in land reform while the National Guard looked the other way. Under Baduel’s watch over 120 Colombian paramilitary forces infiltrated the country.  The Colombian military frequently crossed the Venezuelan border to attack Colombian refugees.  Under Baduel, Venezuelan military officials collaborated in the kidnapping of Rodrigo Granda (a foreign affairs emissary of the FARC) in broad daylight in the center of Caracas.  Baduel made no effort to investigate or protest this gross violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, until President Chavez was informed and intervened.  Throughout Baduel’s term as Minister of Defense he developed strong ties to Colombia’s military intelligence (closely monitored by US Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA) and extradited several guerrillas from both the ELN and the FARC to the hands of Colombian torturers.

At the time of his retirement as Minister of Defense, Baduel made a July 2007 speech in which he clearly targeted the leftist and Marxist currents in the trade union (UNT) and Chavez newly announced PSUV (The Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela).  His speech, in the name of ‘Christian socialist’, was in reality a vituperative and ill-tempered anti-communist diatribe, which pleased Pope Benedict (Ratzinger).

Baduel’s November 5 speech however marks his public adherence to the hard-line opposition, its rhetoric, fabrications and visions of an authoritarian reversal of Chavez program of democratic socialism.  First and foremost, Badual, following the lead of the White House and the Venezuelan ‘hard right’, denounced the entire process of Congressional debate on the Constitutional amendments, and open electoral campaigning leading up to the referendum as ‘in effect a coup d’etat’.  Every expert and outside observer disagreed – even those opposed to the referendum.  Baduel’s purpose however was to question the legitimacy of the entire political process in order to justify his call for military intervention.  His rhetoric calling the congressional debate and vote a ‘fraud’ and ‘fraudulent procedures’ point to Baduel’s effort to denigrate existing representative institutions in order to justify a military coup, which would dismantle them.

Baduel’s denial of political intent is laughable – since he only invited opposition media and politicians to his ‘press conference’ and was accompanied by several military officials.  Baduel resembles the dictator who accuses the victim of the crimes he is about to commit.  In calling the referendum on constitutional reform a ‘coup’, he incites the military to launch a coup.  In an open appeal for military action he directs the military to ‘reflect of the context of constitutional reform.’  He repeatedly calls on military officials to ‘assess carefully’ the changes the elected government has proposed ‘in a hasty manner and through fraudulent procedures’.  While denigrating democratically elected institutions, Baduel resorts to vulgar flattery and false modesty to induce the military to revolt.  While immodestly denying that he could act as spokesperson for the Armed Forces, he advised the rightist reporters present and potential military cohort that ‘you cannot underrate the capacity of analysis and reasoning of the military.’

Cant, hypocrisy and disinterested posturing run through Baduel’s pronouncements.  His claim of being an ‘apolitical’ critic is belied by his intention to go on a nationwide speaking tour attacking the constitutional reforms, in meetings organized by the rightwing opposition.  There is absolutely no doubt that he will not only be addressing civilian audiences but will make every effort to meet with active military officers who he might convince to ‘reflect’…and plot the overthrow of the government and reverse the results of the referendum.  President Chavez has every right to condemn Baduel as a traitor, though given his long-term hostility to egalitarian social transformation it may be more to the point to say that Baduel is now revealing his true colors.

The danger to Venezuelan democracy is not in Baduel as an individual – he is out of the government and retired from active military command.  The real danger is his effort to arouse the active military officers with command of troops, to answer his call to action or as he cleverly puts it ‘for the military to reflect on the context of the constitutional reforms.’  Baduel’s analysis and action program places the military as the centerpiece of politics, supreme over the 16 million voters.

His vehement defense of ‘private property’ in line with his call for military action is a clever tactic to unite the Generals, Bankers and the middle class in the infamous footsteps of Augusto Pinochet, the bloody Chilean tyrant.

The class polarization in the run-up to the referendum has reached its most acute expression: the remains of the multi-class coalition embracing a minority of the middle class and the great majority of the working power is disintegrating.  Millions of previously apathetic or apolitical young workers, unemployed poor and low-income women (domestic workers, laundresses, single parents) are joining the huge popular demonstrations overflowing the main avenues and plazas in favor of the constitutional amendments.  At the same time political defections have increased among the centrist-liberal minority in the Chavez coalition.  Fourteen deputies in the National Assembly, less than 10%, mostly from PODEMOS, have joined the opposition.  Reliable sources in Venezuela (Axis of Logic/Les Blough Nov. 11, 2007) report that Attorney General Beneral Isaias Rodriguez, a particularly incompetent crime fighter, and the Comptroller General Cloudosbaldo Russian are purportedly resigning and joining the opposition.  More seriously, these same reports claim that the 4th Armed Division in Marcay is loyal to ‘Golpista’ Raul Baduel.  Some suspect Baduel is using his long-term personal ties with the current Minister of Defense, Gustavo Briceno Rangel to convince him to defect and join in the pre-coup preparations.  Large sums of US funding is flowing in to pay off state and local officials in cash and in promises to share in the oil booty if Chavez is ousted.  The latest US political buy-out includes Governor Luis Felipe Acosta Carliz from the state of Carabobo.  The mass media have repeatedly featured these new defectors to the right in their hourly ‘news reports’ highlighting their break with Chavez ‘coup d’etat’.

The referendum is turning into an unusually virulent case of a ‘class against class’ war, in which the entire future of the Latin American left is at stake as well as Washington’s hold on its biggest oil supplier.

Conclusion

Venezuelan democracy, the Presidency of Hugo Chavez and the great majority of the popular classes face a mortal threat. The US is facing repeated electoral defeats and is incapable of large-scale external intervention because of over-extension of its military forces in the Middle East; it is committed once more to a violent overthrow of Chavez.  Venezuela through the constitutional reforms, will broaden and deepen popular democratic control over socio-economic policy.  New economic sectors will be nationalized. Greater public investments and social programs will take off.  Venezuela is moving inexorably toward diversifying its petrol markets, currency reserves and its political alliances.  Time is running out for the White House:  Washington’s political levers of influence are weakening.  Baduel is seen as the one best hope of igniting a military seizure, restoring the oligarchs to power and decimating the mass popular movements.
President Chavez is correctly ‘evaluating the high command’ and states that he ‘has full confidence in the national armed forces and their components.’  Yet the best guarantee is to strike hard and fast, precisely against Baduel’s followers and cohorts.  Rounding up a few dozen or hundred military plotters is a cheap price to pay for saving the lives of thousands of workers and activists who would be massacred in any bloody seizure of power.

History has repeatedly taught that when you put social democracy, egalitarianism and popular power at the top of the political agenda, as Chavez has done, and as the vast majority of the populace enthusiastically responds, the Right, the reactionary military, the ‘Centrist’ political defectors and ideologues, the White House, the hysterical middle classes and the Church cardinals will sacrifice any and all democratic freedoms to defend their property, privileges and power by whatever means and at whatever cost necessary.  In the current all-pervasive confrontation between the popular classes of Venezuela and their oligarchic and military enemies, only by morally, politically and organizationally arming the people can the continuity of the democratic process of social transformation be guaranteed.
Change will come, the question is whether it will be through the ballot or the bullet.

© Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!

Reporters Without Borders and Venezuela’s RCTV
Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007        Print format
Send by email

By: Salim Lamrani - ZNet
The refusal to renew the 20-year-old concession license of the private Venezuelan television channel RCTV that expired May 27, 2007, set off extraordinary media hysteria worldwide. For several weeks, press from all over the globe focused on a banal event that goes totally unnoticed when it occurs in any other country. The media converted the completely normal and legitimate administrative decision into an attack on press freedoms. Reporters Without Borders (RSF), naturally, participated in the international disinformation campaign, publishing an extremely biased report about RCTV on June 5, 2007. (1)
Closure of RCTV and media hegemony?
RSF titled their report “Closure of Radio Caracas Television Consolidates Media Hegemony.” The organization’s tone instantly conveys two lies in only one phase. First, RCTV has not been closed and can continue broadcasting via cable or satellite. As the radio spectrum, by definition, is limited, the Venezuelan government decided not to renew the contract of this channel and instead assigned the freed space to another channel in an attempt to democratize the media. Therefore, contrary to RSF claims, RCTV has not “stopped broadcasting.” (2)
The second fallacy is found in the expression “media hegemony.” With this title, RSF expects the reader to believe that the Venezuelan authorities control the media and hold a virtual monopoly over this sector. In order to win over public opinion, Robert Ménard, general secretary of the organization, incessantly repeats the same maxim to the press: “Chávez has hegemonic control over the media.”(3) However, the truth is quite different. In Venezuela, 80% of current TV channels and radio stations are privately owned. In terms of cable and satellite TV, private companies control nearly all channels. Moreover, the 118 national and regional periodicals distributed in the country are controlled by the private sector. “Media hegemony” exists, all right. But private financial groups and corporations are the ones in control. (4)
Arbitrary decision by President Hugo Chávez?
RSF asserts that the decision was made “by order of president Hugo Chávez” and claims that this is illegal since, according to RSF, there is a lack of a “judicial order […] in order to deny the channel the right to broadcast for the next twenty years.” Here again RSF uses the double lie, given that the decision is perfectly legal in terms of existing international law. As in most countries around the world, the airwaves belong to the state and are to be used in the public’s interest; Article 156 of the Venezuelan constitution as well as the Organic Law of Telecommunications grants the government the power to regulate access. It is absolutely not a matter of “judicial order” as RSF claims. Besides, as already explained, RCTV continues to have the “right to broadcast” via cable or satellite. (5)
Likewise, it wasn’t Hugo Chávez who decided not to renew the concession, but the National Telecommunications Commission of Venezuela. The concession of RCTV was not renewed for several specific reasons. First, the government wanted to establish a balance between public and private channels. Next, RCTV did not respect their obligations or Schedule of Conditions of License. For example: between June and December 2006, authorities cited RCTV with at least 652 infractions. The channel also systematically denigrated the policies of the government and on various occasions incited the public to violence and rebellion against constitutional order. The proven participation of RCTV in the coup d’état of April 11, 2002 and its seditious participation in the oil sabotage of December 2002, which cost the national economy around 20 billion dollars, were significant factors in the decision. (6)
However RSF alleges that RCTV is only “accused” of participating in the coup, while evidence and testimonies abound. Le Figaro, a very conservative French newspaper recalled that “for years the channel conspired openly against the president broadcasting calls to over through the regime.” Le Figaro emphasized that during the coup, the channel “announced that Hugo Chávez had resigned,” in keeping with the coup plotters’ plan, and even recognized Pedro Carmona as interim president. (7)
After the return of President Chávez, RCVT prohibited its journalists from reporting any related information and restricted broadcasting to cartoons. Andrés Izarra, the production manager at the time and who was opposed to the coup, resigned immediately to avoid becoming an accomplice. During his testimony before the National Assembly, Izarra stated that on the day of the coup and those following he received the formal order from Marcel Granier (the head of the conglomerate that owns RCTV) to “not transmit any information about Chávez, his followers, ministers or any other individual that could be connected to him.” (8)
The conservative Los Angeles Times also published RCTV’s intention to “oust[ing] a democratically elected leader from office” ever since Hugo Chávez was elected president in 1998. According to the daily, after the coup RCTV “edged fully into sedition [and] ran manipulated video blaming Chavez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries.” Its article recalled that Granier went to the Presidential Palace to swear his loyalty to “dictator Pedro Carmona who had eliminated the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the Constitution.” The LA Times concluded: “Granier and others should not be seen as free-speech martyrs,” but instead as coup plotters. (9) In another instance, Granier made an eloquent declaration to RSF regarding the coup “I confess that I was not unhappy to see Hugo Chávez go.” (10) How could he be “unhappy” if he actively participated in his overthrow?
It is evident, by RCTV’s open support and participation in the rupture of constitutional order in April 2002 that it is not concerned with public interest. Moreover it goes without saying that if a French TV channel, or that of any other country in the world, dared to behave similarly it would not even last 24 hours and its directors would immediately be thrown in prison. The Houston Chronicle doubted that RCTV’s “actions would last more than a few minutes” in the United States. (11)
Why does RSF want to convince public opinion that RCTV’s culpability is still a matter of debate? Simply because Robert Ménard and his organization also supported the 2002 coup. Perhaps it would be helpful to recall the declaration published by RSF on April 12, 2002:
“Chávez, held in the presidential palace, reportedly signed his resignation under army pressure and was taken to Fort Tiuna, the capital’s main military base. Immediately afterwards, Fedecámaras president Pedro Carmona announced he would head an interim government, saying he had been chosen by "agreement" among civil society groups and the armed forces leadership.”
Unpopular decision?
The Paris entity also asserts that the “(numerous) opposition and the (fewer) Chavistas” simultaneously marched in Caracas to support or condemn the government’s decision. Here, RSF does not hesitate to bold face lie. The opposition demonstrations only consisted of thousands of individuals. In contrast, the demonstrations in support in the capital, such as that of May 27 or of June 2, 2007 were impressive. Hundreds of thousands of citizens hit the streets of Caracas to demonstrate their support for Hugo Chávez. (13) What is RSF’s objective in manipulating the truth?
To demonstrate the unpopularity of the decision, RSF cited polls conducted by RCTV and the opposition as if they were reliable, thus adopting an openly bias position. The Minister of Interior and Justice, Pedro Carreño, scathingly responded to these polls: “freedom of expression is not defined by the empire or Reporters Without Borders or the Inter-American Press Association or the oligarchy, but instead by the people who today came out into the streets.” (14)
By alleging that the closure was “widely condemned by the Venezuelan public and the international community” and “by the governments and parliaments of many Latin American countries including Brazil, Mexico and Chile, and even by his Bolivian counterpart and ally Evo Morales,” and by loosely citing a resolution adopted by the European Parliament May 24, 2007, RSF attempts to give the impression of global unanimity against Hugo Chávez. But reality is totally different. Of the more than 35 countries that make up the American continent  only the legislature of three countries (Brazil, Chile and Costa Rica) condemned the non-renewal of the concession and Costa Rican President Óscar Arias was the only head of state to issue an unfavorable comment. The rest of the continent, beginning with Evo Morales, voiced their agreement with the Chávez government (Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua) indicating that this was an administrative measure that only concerned Venezuela and that they had no desire to meddle in the internal affairs of the nation. Evidently, RSF specializes in disinformation. (15)
Regarding the European Parliament resolution, it was adopted May 24, 2007, but only by 43 of the 784 (4.5%) Members of European Parliament (MEP). This resolution was rejected by 741 MEP’s due to its politically charged nature and above all because it constituted an unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Most MEP’s refused to participate in the vote and left the chamber. As for the OAS and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, neither has issued any condemnation, in contrast to what RSF maintains, but simply general recommendations regarding press freedoms. (16)
Other RSF manipulations
RSF also assured that “requests for meetings with government officials and representatives of public and pro-government media went unanswered. Their silence was as eloquent as the comments of the people it did meet, and tends to confirm that RCTV’s closure was not just an administrative measure.” However, the government has reiterated several times that it has received no such requests for meeting from RCTV. By promoting Marcel Granier’s point of view RSF again demonstrated their partisan stance and stigmatized the democratic government of Hugo Chávez calling it a “political system known as “Chavism.” Here, we are far from the topic of “press freedoms.” Ménard aligns himself in political and ideological opposition by deliberately caricaturizing the Venezuelan government. In effect the opposition uses the term “Chavism” in a derogatory manner. (17)
RSF concludes their report with a lie manifest as a warning against the “media hegemony” of the president. It’s important to be precise about this topic. The VHF band range in 2000 hosted 19 private channels and 1 public. In 2006 the number surpassed 20 private channels versus the solo public channel. Since May 28, 2007 there have been 19 private channels and two public: Venezolana de Televisión and Tves, which replaced RCTV. On the UHF band range there were 28 private channels and two public stations in 2000. In 2006, there were 44 private channels and six public stations. In terms of radio broadcasting, on AM between 2000 and 2006, there were 36 public and 143 private stations. On FM, there were 3 public and 365 private radio stations in 2000. In 2006 that figure surpassed 440 private stations opposed to 10 public broadcasters. RSF lies again. (18)
“RCTV may have broadcast pornography,” states RSF, using the conditional to suggest that some doubt exists about the charge. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court censured the channel many times in 1981 and 2006 for airing pornographic scenes at prohibited hours.  Now RSF calls in to question the decisions of the nation’s highest judicial authority. (19) Moreover, it is important to emphasize RCTV has been sanctioned more than any other channel in Venezuelan history (six times) for violations of the law, and only one of these incidents has been during the Chávez presidency. (20)
RSF even accuses the Supreme Court, which ordered the equipment of RCTV be put at the disposition of the new channel TVes, of “jeopardiz[ing] the presence of the ‘channel of the lion’ on cable.” Here Ménard’s clumsiness even reveals to public opinion that in reality RCTV has not disappeared. The truth is that the Supreme Court simply ordered a temporary transfer of the equipment in order to assure the continuation of the public service. In addition this decision does not compromise in any way the channel’s possibility of transmitting via cable despite what principal media outlets have claimed. (21)
RSF accuses two of the leading private channels Televen and Venevisión of being in the hands of President Chávez. The two channels, while still strongly allied to the opposition- as easily confirmed by their programming- have adopted a more rational position toward the government and since 2004 have stopped calling for insurrection and the overthrow of the government. Same for the private national daily Últimas Noticias. To qualify as being opposition press in the eyes of RSF it seems a media outlet would have to continue denigrating the government, manipulating information, destabilizing the nation and calling for the assassination of Chávez as RCTV and Globovisión did in May 2007. RSF’s fanatical point of view is evident: media outlets are either against Chávez, or they are his lackeys. (22)
RSF claims that “President Chávez does not care about international law.” This accusation is completely gratuitous. RSF is incapable of citing even one violation of international law committed by the Bolivarian government. The organization also claims that numerous appeals [from RCTV were] favorably received by the […] Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In reality said Court accepted to consider only one appeal on May 25, 2007 and has not yet announced its opinion. (23)
“Chávez wants the constitution amended in 2008 so that he can be re-elected indefinitely,” includes the report, presenting this intention as a great threat to democracy. Perhaps RSF has forgotten that in the majority of western countries, France included, unlimited re-election is a constitutional reality? Why is RSF commenting on aspects of domestic policy when it professes to be “apolitical” and solely interested in “freedom of the press?” (24)
“Complete control of the state, government and armed forces. No opponents in the assembly, as the opposition boycotted the 2005 legislative elections. A ruling party that is virtually the only party. Twenty-two out of twenty-four state governors who are entirely loyal. And soon, a largely neutralised civil society.” More RSF’s alarmism. “A ruling party that is virtually the only party,” complains RSF, while more than a dozen political parties exist in Venezuela. Could it be that in France the state, the government and the armed forces are under the control of the opposition? In regards to the assembly and the governorships, perhaps RSF questions the democratic decision of Venezuelan voters. Perhaps civil society, or maybe the entire population, is gradually relegating the opposition to the periphery. Reiterating the rhetoric of the opposition, which has suffered more than 10 consecutive electoral defeats since 1998, RSF falsely claims that Chávez controls all the institutions in the country and plans to transform the most democratic government in Latin America into an authoritarian regime. Once again, these matters have nothing directly to do with “freedom of the press.” (25)
The Paris organization also attacks lawyer Eva Golinger. Her crime? Revealing to the world a list of all the Venezuelan journalists financed by the U.S. through USAID that “included the Reporters Without Borders correspondent,” as acknowledged in Ménard’s report. (26)
RSF also claims that many world personalities advise President Chávez regarding constitutional reform such as Argentine Norberto Ceresole among others. The only problem is that Ceresole died in 2003 of a heart attack. These blatant errors demonstrate the lack of credibility of the organization’s report. (27)
RSF forged their opinion on the situation of the Venezuelan press after only five days in the country, “from May 24- 28, 2007,” and after meeting with only opposition journalists and media owners. Their objective from the start was crystal clear: transform an administrative decision, common worldwide, into and act of censorship and attack on press freedoms. How can the Parisian organization expect to come off as impartial and serious with such methods? (28)
Why didn’t RSF get upset about the lost concessions of Spanish channels TV Laciana in 2004, TV Católica in 2005 and Tele-Asturias in 2006? Why didn’t they mobilize when concessions were not renewed for British channels One TV, Actionworld and StarDate TV 24 in 2006, or Look for Love 2 in 2007? Why hasn’t Robert Ménard traveled to Peru to investigate the closure of two TV channels in 2007, or to El Salvador when the government revoked the concession of Salvador Network in 2003? Why did RSF remained unmoved when Canada didn’t renew the concession of Country Music Televisión (CMT) in 1999? Why did RSF remain silent about the revocation of the concession to U.S. channel Daily Digest in 1998 or when the FCC yanked Trinity Broadcasting License in 1999? (29)
This adaptable indignation clearly demonstrates that the ordinary case of RCTV is nothing more than a pretext for RSF to stigmatize Hugo Chávez and continue the disinformation war against a democratic and popular government. As for freedom of expression, anyone who has spent 24 hours in Venezuela can only be astonished by the opposition channels’ spiteful and fanatical tone against the government. To assert otherwise is an extraordinary act of bad faith.
The real role of RSF is not to defend press freedoms as they profess; instead it is to promote the political and economic interests of the entities that fund them such as the U.S. government, which generously contributes to the Parisian organization through the National Endowment for Democracy, an entity that the world’s most important newspaper, The New York Times, calls a CIA front. (30)
Notes
(1) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», 5 de junio de 2007. www.rsf.org/img/doc/rapport_rctv_fr.doc (sitio consultado el 6 de junio de 2007).
(2) Ibid ; Libro Blanco de RCTV, «Mitos y hechos sobre Radio Caracas Televisión», Cubadebate, 30 de mayo de 2007.
(3) L’Express, «Chávez bâillonne la derniére chaîne d’opposition», 29 de mayo de 2007.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Ibid. For the 652 infractions see Jean-Luc Mélanchon, «Oú va la bonne conscience anti-chaviste», May 26, 2007, www.jean-luc-melanchon.fr (site consulted on May 30, 2007.) For the oil sabotage see Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, «No aceptaremos comportamientos antidemocráticos de la oposición», November 3, 2006.
(7) Lamia Oulalou, «Chávez bâillonne la télé d’opposition», Le Figaro, May 26, 2007.
(8) Eva Golinger, El código Chávez (La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, 2005), p. 125.
(9) Bart Jones, «Hugo Chávez Versus RCTV», Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2007.
(10) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit.
(11) Bart Jones, «Chávez As Castro? It’s Not That Simple In Venezuela», Houston Chronicle, 7 de febrero de 2007.
(12) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Un journaliste a été tué, trois autres ont été blessés et cinq chaînes de télévision briévement suspendues», April 12, 2002. www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=1109 (site consulted November 13, 2006.)
(13) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit ; Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, «Hoy el pueblo demostró que está movilizado en apoyo a la revolución», June 2, 2007.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit.
(16) El Nuevo Herald, «Legisladores de EEUU y Europa condenan cierre de RCTV», May 25, 2007.
(17) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit.
(18) Ibid.; Telesur, «Informe RSF ‘Cierre de Radio Caracas Television. La consolidación de una mentira mediática a través de 39 embustes», June 7, 2007.
(19) Telesur, «Informe RSF ‘Cierre de Radio Caracas Television. La consolidación de una mentira mediática a través de 39 embustes», op. cit.
(20) Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, «RCTV ha sido el canal más sancionado en Venezuela», March 29, 2007.
(21) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit.
(22) Ibid.
(23) Ibid ; Néstor Ikeda, «CIDH pide a Chávez proteger libertad de expresión», Associated Press, May 25, 2007.
(24) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit.
(25) Ibid.
(26) Ibid.
(27) Ibid ; Telesur, «Informe RSF ‘Cierre de Radio Caracas Television. La consolidación de una mentira mediática a través de 39 embustes», op. cit.
(28) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit.
(29) Jean-Luc Mélanchon, «Oú va la bonne conscience anti-chaviste», op. cit.
(30) Robert Ménard, «Forum de discussion avec Robert Ménard», Le Nouvel Observateur, 18 de abril de 2005. www.nouvelobs.com/forum/archives/forum_284.html (sitio consultado el 22 de abril de 2005); John M. Broder, «Political Meddling by Outsiders: Not New for U.S.», The New York Times, March 31, 1997, p. 1.
Salim Lamrani is French professor, writer and journalist specializing in relations between Cuba and U.S. He is the author of the following books: Washington contre Cuba (Pantin: Le Temps des Cerises, 2005), Cuba face á l’Empire (Genéve: Timeli, 2006) and Fidel Castro, Cuba et les Etats-Unis (Pantin: Le Temps des Cerises, 2006).
Original source / relevant link: 
ZNet