March 23, 2006
By Dr. Frank J. Collazo
Written by Juan Carlos Vallejo
Tuesday,
21 February 2006
I thought that I would die without living
and knowing a revolution. I came late
to the Cuban Revolution, since I was born a few years after it. I witnessed the ephemeral triumph and then
the drowning in blood and fire, by the government of Ronald Reagan and his
"contras," of the Sandinista Revolution. I had wanted, like John Reed, to be in the middle of the
explosion of the great revolutions.
But
life gives at times, and at other times takes away. For many Latin Americans, it has been more of the latter than the
former. Our history has been plagued by
slavery, hunger, misery, submission, humiliation, servitude, genocide,
massacre, theft, invasion, torture, forced disappearance, forced relocation,
and exile. But courage, civil
disobedience, dignity, resistance, and revolution have also marked our history
too.
Taking
a social, economic, and political X-ray of our countries reveals almost
identical results. We suffer the same
pathology: small, corrupt, racism, and murderous oligarchies, for sale to the
highest bidder who have a monopoly over the means of communication, national corporations,
education, and banks. They are owners —
and appropriators — of a large percentage of the land. Foreign diplomatic posts are the
springboards by which their friends and families can study abroad at the
expense of the public budget and taxes on the poorest classes. They can count on the unrestricted support
of the Catholic Church and Christian groups.
They
don’t have a cultural identity, as all they can imagine in their lives is
living, and the way people live, in Miami.
So they aren’t interested in protecting their natural resources or the
sovereignty of their countries. They
generally have the police and the military at their side. They speak of democracy and freedom only
when their own interests aren’t at stake.
But when they see a challenge to their power, they immediately send out
the hounds to eliminate any chance of their political rivals’ success (a clear
example was the Patriotic Union, a Colombian political left party, which
members were murdered and few survivors forced to the exile). And the assassins of the Establishments do
not act alone. Historically, they have been backed by various American
administrations and corporations . . . always ready to help them with invasions
or through covert operations.
But
once in Caracas: Caracas is a
city of contrasts. The middle class is
white and wealthy, its abundance offensive to the sight when contrasted to the
misery of the millions of poor who live in the hills surrounding the city.
February
27, 1989: The economic package introduced by the
Venezuelan government on February 18, 1983, as mandated by the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank, had placed the country under very strained
socioeconomic conditions devaluating the Bolivar. Limiting the availability of essential goods in order to raise
prices had been the first provocation for the popular outburst. Social dissatisfaction had been escalating
since this day. Rising transportation
costs and the disregarding of the "student discount" further inflamed
tensions in the country. No one could
get water, milk, or meat in the slums.
The glass of tolerance shattered.
The hills erupted like volcanoes.
Thousands
and thousands of people (children, the elderly, women, men, and youth) begin to
descend like lava, destroying everything they found in their way. The first attacks were against public
transportation vehicles; few escaped being overturned and burned. Then come
outbursts against the commercial places; milk, meat, eggs, water, and bread are
taken from the storerooms of the big supermarket chains and raised up as proof
of what is being hidden from the people.
The radio initially reports these developments in Guarenas (state of
Miranda) and Caracas(sections of Guaricao, near El Nuevo Circo and La Guaira). Then five minutes later, they report the
same things happening in other parts of the country, like Maracay, Valencia,
Barquisimeto, Mérida and Ciudad Guyana.
Later, the report said: all Venezuela is burning!
President
Carlos Andrés Pérez ordered the National Guard and the army to restrain the
people. Several military men refused to
fulfill the order(obeying a principle of Simón Bolívar that says: "A
military man never lifts his weapon against his own people"). A few initiated the massacre. The victims were brought down by bullets,
clutching cheese, milk, eggs, water, or bread in their hands. According to COFAVIC, the missing and dead
number in the thousands. The
Organization of American States (OAS); the main Venezuelan political parties
(Democratic Action and COPEI); the mass media of the United States, Colombia,
and Venezuela; the U.S. Department of State; and Human Rights Watch maintained
a sepulchral silence. (Today, they
continue to find mass graves of dozens reported as missing, as in the case of
68 corpses discovered in an area called "The Plague").
This
repression and massacre against hungry, unarmed people offends the honor and
infuriates Bolivarianos in the military.
On February 4, 1992, a group of military men, commanded by Colonel Hugo
Rafael Chávez Frías and proclaiming the social and military principles of Simón
Bolívar, rebelled against the Venezuelan establishment. The insurrection failed and Colonel Chávez
was caught.
But
there were many Bolivarianos in the military.
In December of that same year, another group initiates an insurrection
and is also taken prisoner. But they
had another group waiting for a third opportunity. This group was who with the Venezuelan people, saved the
constitutional order in April 13 of 2002.
It was the group of general Baduel.
The
military and the Venezuelan people understood that their goals were the
same. And that the only way to achieve
another kind of Venezuela is through the democratic route, under these
Bolivarian ideals and with a charismatic leader - Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías.
You
already know what happened later.
Finally the pendulum's laws are on our side. A side that conceives the economy for the service of the humanity
but not the humanity for service of the economy, as you can see the world
today. Because we cannot speak about
democracy and freedom without Social Justice.
Social Justice is the real problem in America.
Latin
America has turned left and said enough!
It’s no longer the backyard of the United States. The time of the empire has gone! Another way is possible.
Translated
by Lisle Merriman
Comments
Which
way?
Written by Guest on 2006-02-21 06:05:21
I
am a US Citizen and Venezuelan now living in Venezuela.
What is happening here is not "another way" or "new" in any
way. This is good old socialism, a hard
version if you will. The idea is the
same, a central government that believes it knows best and wants to take care
of everything.
The problem is that taking care of everything is difficult. It requires a massive organization that must
work, efficiently, skillfully and honestly to solve and address all the
country's problems and recurring needs, accurately and completely in a timely
manner. This is so difficult to achieve
that it has failed many times here in Latin America and other parts of the
world many times over.
The end result is that big economic groups are replaced by one big one that is
the Government, which is obstinate in thinking that only it has all the right
ideas. This is a more dangerous and
damaging situation.
There is no question that Latin America and Venezuela has been plagued by
misery and injustice. It is necessary
to understand and admit that this has been the result of our own mistakes and,
to a lesser degree, by the imposition of foreign interests. We have failed in establishing a society
that works because we have not been able to either establish and or enforce the
rules of fair game. This is what had
and has to be addressed.
Going back to ideas and processes that have been proven ineffective is
irresponsible. In fact, no matter how
sexy it may seem, no matter how good it makes you seem to be, or idealistic, or
whatever, going back and trying to impose a system proven to fail without any
improvements or new ideas is immoral.
Left
my foot
Written by Guest on 2006-02-23 22:55:32
Chavez
is not a Leftist...this is a military regime nothing more nothing less.
http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1678
Written by Guest on 2006-02-24 11:06:06
HOW HATE MEDIA INCITED THE COUP AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT
Venezuela’s Press Power: Never even in Latin American history has the
media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a
near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt
to overthrow the president, Hugo Chávez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil
war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow
the democratically elected president - if necessary by force.
By Maurice Lemoine
"We had a deadly weapon, the media.
And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you." In Caracas, on 11 April 2002, just a few
hours before the temporary overthrow of Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez,
Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez congratulated journalist Ibéyiste Pacheco
live on Venevision television. Twenty
minutes earlier, when Pacheco had begun to interview a group of rebel officers,
she could not resist admitting, conspiratorially, that she had long had a
special relationship with them.
At the same time, in a live interview from Madrid, another journalist, Patricia
Poleo, also seemed well informed about the likely future development of
"spontaneous events." She
announced on the Spanish channel TVE: "I believe the next president is
going to be Pedro Carmona."
Chávez, holed up in the presidential palace, was still refusing to step
down.
After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels -
Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of
the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal
Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the
traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral
victories. Their monopoly on
information has put them in a strong position.
They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government
statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s
confirmation at the ballot box. They
have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by
dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class
leaders and organizations.
Their investigations, interviews and commentaries all pursue the same
objective: to undermine the legitimacy of the government and to destroy the
president’s popular support. "In
aesthetic terms, this revolutionary government is a cesspit," was the
delicate phrase used by the evening paper Tal Cual. Its editor, Teodoro Petkoff, is a keen opponent of Chávez. Petkoff is a former Marxist guerrilla who
became a neo-liberal and a pro-privatization minister in the government of
rightwing president Rafael Caldera. The
Chávez government is not, of course, above criticism. It makes mistakes, and the civilian and military personnel who
surround it are tainted by corruption.
But the government was democratically elected and still has the backing
of the majority. It can also be credited
with successes, nationally and internationally.
When it comes to discrediting Chávez, anything goes. There was a scandal in Caracas in March when a faked interview
with Ignacio Ramonet, the director of Le Monde diplomatique, was circulated. In a statement alleged to have been made to
Emiliano Payares Gúzman, a Mexican researcher at Princeton University, Ramonet
was supposed to have said: "Chávez lacks a respectable intellectual
corpus, and that is why his ship is always off course. When he won the elections, it seemed to me
that he had something about him. But
populism won out, as so often happens in such cases. I have seen videos in which he sings boleros while setting out
his economic programme, if indeed he has one.
I think those true and verifiable facts speak for themselves; I don’t
need to voice my opinion of somebody like that."
Venezuela Analítica: (1) immediately posted the "statement" on the
web, without checking on its authenticity, and it then became headline news in
El Nacional. The paper was delighted to
give credence to the idea of Chávez being isolated internationally, and made no
attempt to check with the supposed interviewee. When Ramonet denied having made the statement, El Nacional rounded
on the hoaxer (2) and, less overtly, without even apologizing, on
Ramonet.
The "information" that has been published has verged on the
surreal. For example, "sources
from the intelligence services have uncovered agreements entered into with
elements linked to Hezbollah on the Venezuelan island of Margarita, who are
controlled by the Iranian embassy. You
will remember that when Chávez was campaigning, a certain Moukhdad was
extremely generous. That debt had to be
repaid, and now Iran is to make Venezuela an operational base, in exchange for
training Venezuelans in Iranian organizations for the defense of the Islamic
Revolution. Terrorism is in our midst" (3).
On 21 March El Nacional ran the headline: "Hugo Chávez admits to being the
head of a criminal network." Next
day Tal Cual referred to "the feeling of nausea provoked by the aggressive
words he uses to try to frighten Venezuelans." The president was insulted, compared with Idi Amin, Mussolini or
Hitler, called a fascist, dictator or tyrant, and subjected to a spate of
attacks. In any other country actions
would have been brought for libel.
"An ongoing and disrespectful attack," was how the minister of
trade, Adina Bastidas, put it. "They
accuse me of funding the planting of bombs in the streets. And I cannot defend myself. If you attack them, they complain to the
United States!"
Chávez responded to this media bombardment, sometimes using strong language,
especially during his weekly broadcast Aló presidente! on the only
state-controlled television channel.
But his regime in no way resembles a dictatorship, and his diatribes
have not been followed by measures to control the flow of information. Since Chávez took office, not a single
journalist has been imprisoned, and the government has not shut down any
media. Yet it is accused of
"flouting freedom of information" and of "attacking social
communicators".
’Tell the truth.’ On 7 January a group of the president’s supporters
besieged the offices of El Nacional chanting hostile slogans. Shouting "tell the truth!" they
hurled objects at the building. The number of attacks on journalists is
increasing, according to Carlos Correa, general coordinator of Provea (4), an
organization for the defense of human rights, and they are being criminalized. "Although there have been no deaths,
the situation is serious. Since the
media bosses decided to oppose Chávez politically, it is no longer possible to
have a reasonable discussion about the country’s problems. But to claim there is no freedom of
expression is outrageous."
"You read the newspapers, you watch the TV news and you have the
impression that the country is gripped by conflict," says Jesuit Father
Francisco José Virtuoso sadly. "Naturally that all adds to the
tension." The popular majority is
striking back in this war in which it is the target, no longer prepared to
tolerate journalists who consider themselves above the law or the
anti-democratic control of information.
Incidents are on the increase. The
official agency Venpres described three media personalities as "narcojournalists";
the journalists in question - Ibéyise Pacheco (editor of Así es la noticia, a
member of the El Nacional group), Patricia Poleo and television presenter José
Domingo Blanco (Globovisión) - decided to make capital out of the accusations. After condemning their
"persecution" in front of the cameras at the US embassy, they left
for Washington, where they got a heroic welcome. The Venpres article, signed by a J Valeverde (5), was repudiated
by President Chávez and condemned by the defense minister, José Vicente Rangel;
it led to the censure and resignation of the director of Venpres, Oscar Navas.
But that did not halt a campaign, in Venezuela and abroad, against a government
accused of "muzzling the media."
The media has proved adept at using the self-fulfilling prophecy - both in
relation to government supporters and the government. By protesting about infringements of liberty, when under no
threat, and using lies and manipulation, the media provoked a reaction,
sometimes inciting its victims to do wrong.
Those misdeeds were then portrayed as the cause (and not the
consequence) of the media’s unhappy relationship with the government and much
of the population.
We must condemn the attacks by the president’s supporters on television units
or journalists. But how could those
supporters tolerate always being described as "Taliban" or as
"villains?" We should protest
when journalists, even if they are aggressive and completely identified with
the oligarchy, are described as "narcojournalists." But those journalists had themselves
bombarded the president with false accusations and portrayed him as the
accomplice of Colombian "narcoguerrillas."
Led by men of influence and top journalists, the media is taking over from
other players in the process of destabilization: Pedro Carmona’s employers’
association (Fedecámaras), Carlos Ortega’s Confederation of Venezuelan Workers,
dissident members of the military, the technocrats of the national oil company
(PDVSA) and a few discreet US officials (6).
United in the Venezuelan Press Bloc (BPV), the media finally showed its
hand when it joined in the first general strike on 10 December 2001.
Scaremongers: "Free" opinions published in print -"Time for a
change of government" or "Time to overthrow this government" (7)
- were reinforced by dubious manipulation of the broadcast media. On 5 April two TV presenters gave their own
commentary on a strike of petrol stations that was linked to the PDVSA conflict:
"Have you remembered to fill up?
Hurry, because tomorrow there won’t be a drop left in the
country." By encouraging motorists
to rush out to buy petrol, they provoked unnecessary chaos, though the strike
was only partial and the stations were still receiving supplies.
On 7 April Ortega and Carmona announced that there was to be a general
strike. The editor of El Nacional,
Miguel Enrique Otero, stood shoulder to shoulder with them and spoke on behalf
of the press: "We are all involved in this struggle in defense of the
right to information." Two days
later the BPV, which had just been visited by the new US ambassador, Charles
Shapiro, decided to back the strike.
From then on the television companies broadcast live from the
headquarters of the PDVSA-Chuao, the designated assembly point for opposition
demonstrations.
"Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an
unattributed editorial). "Ni un
paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on
Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets
on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring
your flags. For freedom and
democracy. Venezuela will not
surrender. No one will defeat us."
The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the
government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and
radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ airtime to broadcast its
views. But the broadcasters divided the
screen in two and continued to urge rebellion.
On 11 April military and civilian press conferences calling for the president’s
resignation marked the next phase. On
RCTV, Ortega called on the opposition to march on Miraflores (the presidential
palace). At about 4pm, when the scale
of the conspiracy was apparent, the authorities gave the order to block the
frequencies used by the private channels.
Globovisión, CMT and Televen went off air for a few moments before
resuming their broadcasts using satellite or cable. All screens broadcast an image that had been edited to show armed
counter-demonstrators firing on "the crowd of peaceful
demonstrators." As a result the
Bolivarian Circles, the social organization of Chávez supporters, were blamed
for deaths and injuries (8).
The conspirators, including Carmona, met at the offices of Venevisión. They stayed until 2am to prepare "the
next stage" along with Rafael Poleo (owner of El Nuevo Pais) and Gustavo
Cisneros, a key figure in the coup.
Cisneros, a multimillionaire of Cuban origin and the owner of
Venevisión, runs a media empire - Organización Diego Cisneros. It has 70 outlets in 39 countries (9). Cisneros is a friend of George Bush senior:
they play golf together and in 2001 the former US president holidayed in
Cisneros’s Venezuelan property. Both
are keen on the privatization of the PDVSA (10). Otto Reich, US assistant
secretary of state for Interamerican affairs, admits to having spoken with
Cisneros that night (11).
At 4 am on 12 April, to avoid bloodshed, Chávez allowed himself to be arrested
and taken to the distant island of Orchila.
Without presenting any document signed by Chávez to confirm the news,
the media chorused his "resignation." The boss of the bosses, Carmona, proclaimed himself president and
dissolved all of the constituent, legitimate and democratic bodies. Venezolana de Televisión, the only means of
communication available to the government, was the first broadcaster forced to
shut down when Carmona took power (12).
Ready for the coup: The press greeted
the coup (though they censored any use of that word) with undisguised
enthusiasm. And for good reason. Interviewing Admiral Carlos Molina Tamayo
and Victor Manuel García, director of statistical institute Ceca, at 6.45am, presenter
Napoleón Bravo boasted that he had allowed his own house to be used to record a
call to rebellion by General González.
García described his role at the dissident military center of operations
at Fort Tiuna: "We were short of communications facilities, and I have to
thank the press for their solidarity and cooperation in helping us to establish
communications with the outside world and pass on the instructions that General
González González gave me."
"One step forward" was the triumphant headline in El Universal. Journalist Rafael Poleo, who had filed the
account of the first meeting of the rebel leaders, took responsibility (with
others) for the document setting up the new government. During the afternoon "President"
Carmona offered Poleo’s daughter, Patricia, the post of head of the central
information bureau. The decree
establishing a dictatorship was countersigned by the employers, the church and
the representatives of a pseudo "civil society" and also by Miguel
Angel Martínez, on behalf of the media.
Daniel Romero, private secretary of the former social-democrat president
Carlos Andrés Pérez, and an employee of the Cisneros group, read it out.
The desire for revenge provoked repression.
The interior minister, Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, and a member of
parliament, Tarek William Saab, were arrested, and heckled and manhandled by a
crowd. RCTV triggered a manhunt by
publishing a list of the most wanted individuals and broadcast violent searches
live, aping the hectic pace of US news broadcasts. The live broadcast on all channels of attorney general Isias
Rodriguez’s press conference was suddenly taken off air after only five minutes
when he talked about the excesses of the "provisional government" and
condemned the "coup."
On 13 April the Chávez supporters were unleashed, and officers loyal to him
retook control. But the only way
Venezuelans could get information was through CNN broadcasts in Spanish -
available only on cable, or on the Internet sites of the Madrid daily El País
and the BBC in London. Announcing the
rebellion by the 42nd parachute division in Maracay, CNN expressed amazement
that the press was saying nothing. The
freedom of information that had been clamored for had been replaced by silence.
Screens were filled with action films, cookery programmes, cartoons and
baseball games from the major US leagues, interspersed only with repeats of
General Lucas Rincón’s announcement of the "resignation" of
Chávez.
Thousands logged on to the Internet and got on their mobile phones, but only
the alternative press was able to beat the blackout. Popular newspapers, television and radio began life in the poor
districts, and were an important source of communication and information. Short on experience, they were the first
targets of the "democratic transition." According to Thierry Deronne, the presenter of Teletambores,
Chávez had never asked them to broadcast his speeches.
But the anti-Chávez powers did not hesitate long after their coup before
arresting editorial staff and seizing equipment, ensuring that the only way the
people could find out what was really happening was via the opposition
press. In Caracas, Radio Perola, TV
Caricuao, Radio Catia Libre and Catia TV were searched and personnel subjected
to violence and detention.
In the late afternoon of 13 April, crowds gathered in front of RCTV (then
Venevisión, Globovisión, Televen and CMT, as well as the offices of El
Universal and El Nacional), throwing stones and compelling journalists to
broadcast a message calling for "their" president to be
restored. It was an intolerable attack
on the press; terrified journalists broadcast an appeal for help on air -
conveniently forgetting that they were supposed to be on the rebel side. "We too are part of the people; we too
are Venezuelans and we are doing our duty.
It is not possible that the supporters of Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chávez
[no mention that he was head of state] should consider us their
enemies."
It was 20 hours before the state channel Venezolana de Televisión came back on
the air with the help of militants from the community media and from soldiers
from the presidential guard. The
silence was broken and Venezuelans then found out that the situation was
changing. Except for Ultimas Noticias,
no newspaper was published next day to announce the president’s return. The private television channels broadcast no
bulletins. Globovisión alone
rebroadcast the information that had been transmitted by the international
agencies (13).
Although the restoration of democratic normality did not result in media
repression, the media continues play victim.
It gives priority to the "coup heroes," speaks of a
"power vacuum" and calls for the resignation of Chávez - described as
a "murderer." Openly called
the "hate media" it claims to be the "coup media."
Translated by Julie Stoker:
1. Seze on www.analitica.com.
2. Gúzman claimed to have done it to
show that the Venezuelan press was unreliable.
"Entrelíneas" El Nacional, 15 March 2002.
3. Programa Venezolano de
Educación-Acción en derechos humanos.
4. It was later discovered that this
was the pseudonym of an unsavory character called Rafael Kries.
5. See "Venezuela: a coup
countered," Le Monde diplomatique English ed, May 2002.
6. "Overthrow the
government," El Universal, 20 March 2002.
7. See Le Monde diplomatique, English
edition, May 2002, and the photographs posted on our website.
8. Including: Univisión (80% of
broadcasts in Spanish in the United States), Canal 13, Chilevisión, DirectTV
Latin America, Galavisión, Playboy TV Latin America, Playboy TV International,
Uniseries, Vale TV, Via Digital, AOL Latin America.
9. The former would like to see it in
the hands of a US company close to his interests, and the latter has his eye on
Citgo, the American subsidiary of PDVSA.
10. Newsweek, Paris, 22 April
2002.
11. The same applies to Radio Nacional
de Venezuela and the official news agency Venpres.
12. Some journalists have resigned in
disgust, like André Izarra, of RCTV where the management has imposed a ban on
pro-Chávez reporting.
http://mondediplo.com/search?s=chavez
Read more...