Back   OpEd News
Font
PageWidth
Original Content at
https://www.opednews.com/articles/So-how-does-a-highly-intel-by-Oscar-Heck-100210-546.html
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

February 16, 2010

Dispelling recent fallacies about Venezuela and Chavez

By Oscar Heck

They're at it again " as in 2002 and 2003 " anti-Chavez and anti-Venezuela hate-propaganda is being propagated by mainstream corporate media outlets in the USA and by US-based "think-tanks" and "analysts" and "experts."

::::::::

They're at it again " as in 2002 and 2003 " anti-Chavez and anti-Venezuela, hate-propaganda is being propagated by mainstream corporate media outlets in the USA and by US-based "think-tanks" and "analysts" and "experts."

There have been hundreds of articles in the last few weeks attacking Chavez in any fashion possible - but some of the articles, even if they are opinion articles, sound more like hate articles.

I have chosen one recent Miami Herald opinion article (below) as an example of not only how corporate media in the USA (and Canada and much of Europe) are very willing to promote hate against someone whom their readers know little or nothing about while at the same time recounting complete lies about a country that most of their readers have never visited or can't even pinpoint on a map.

Before I go on to dissect the Miami Herald article - I have a close friend who is a member of Mensa, who has seven degrees in economics and finance and who makes $400 per hour - and he said to me recently, "Did you hear that! Chavez named himself President for life!" I almost fell off my chair and said, "What? Where did you hear that?" He replied, "While you were in Venezuela, it was all over the news here (Canada)."

Hummm.  So, I decided to research this on the web and found the following related quotes in the North American media: "Last year he won a referendum to abolish term limits for President -- so now he is President for life."

"Didn't Saddam Hussein practice prorogation? Robert Mugabe? Papa Doc? Hitler? Idi Amin? Pinochet? Hugo Chavez? Has Stephen Harper joined this infamous Pro-Rogues Gallery? Will there soon be a proclamation from Ottawa that our Glorious Leader, The Artful Dodger, has become, by the proclamation of a grateful people, Our Benevolent President for Life?"

"In 1957, Dr. François Duvalier, a physician better known as Papa Doc, was elected President of Haiti, where he established a government based on terror promoted by the tontons macoutes, members of his personal bodyguard. In 1964, in Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez' best style, he made himself President for life."

I did not find anything more on the subject on the internet, however, there may have been articles in the printed press in Canada insinuating that Chavez appointed himself President for life - which is, of course, completely false. Chavez never appointed himself President for life, nor did he ever say it. What he did say was something to this effect, "If the people want me to stay [referring to elections], I will be here till 2021." In Venezuela, as in Canada, the current President (or prime minister) can run for consecutive re-elections as many times as he/she desires.

So how does a highly intelligent and highly educated Mensa member get conned into believing that Chavez declared himself President for life?

The answer:

He, who has never been to Venezuela, reads and believes (without much questioning) whatever material is published by well-established, supposedly professional (and supposedly honest) organizations such as The Wall Street Journal, The Miami Herald, the US State Department, global economics and trade organizations, university research and global think-tanks comprised of "well-respected" experts like himself.

And/or -

Like many, he gets conned by phrases such as: ""in Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez' best style, he made himself President for life."

And/or -

He does not notice that some of the articles he reads are in fact opinion articles and not news articles.

And/or -

He, like many, cannot believe that those "professional" sources filled with "well-respected professionals" are in fact capable of lying through their teeth, whether out of ignorance or intent. That would destroy his entire world - and then - reality would cave in on him - and he'd probably end up on the street - or commit suicide after realizing that his life till that point has been mostly one big, fat lie.

Back to the dissection. The dissection is done for the benefit of those readers who are not scared of reality caving in on them.

The article in question is entitled, Venezuela heads toward disaster - OUR OPINION: Region's leaders need to act and was posted on the Miami Herald website on February 8, 2010. Coincidentally, the article provides no mention of authorship, so I will assume the article was written/revised by several writers and/or editors.

It begins with: "What little is left of Venezuela's democracy has taken a literal beating from President Hugo Chavez" - uniformed goon squads -- again. Police used a variety of weapons, from water cannons to plastic bullets, last week to disperse hundreds of student protesters who refuse to knuckle under to an increasingly desperate and unpopular president determined to remain in power at all costs."

1. "What little is left of Venezuela's democracy" is the opinion of some unknown authors. I repeat, it is an opinion, as is the rest of the article. From my viewpoint, Venezuela has the strongest and freest democracy I have ever lived in (I live there) and I am in a relatively good position to compare since I have lived in and/or worked in 34 countries.

2. Uniformed goon squads? Again, this is an opinion, and it basically reflects hate because the authors are referring to Venezuela's National Guard and/or police forces, who were there to protect the citizenry from assaults perpetrated by the violent anti-Chavez protesters and from vandalism also perpetrated by the same protesters. In fact, it was widely reported by the North American media that two students were killed during some of the recent student protests against Chavez, implying that it was anti-Chavez students who were assassinated and that they were assassinated by the Venezuelan National Guard or police (the "goons"). It now appears that the two students who were killed were pro-Chavez and were assassinated by anti-Chavez protesters " but this is conveniently unreported in the west. We should have more details in the next weeks.

3. "Increasingly desperate and unpopular President determined to remain in power at all costs." Desperate? At all costs? For Chavez to remain in power, he must be re-elected at the end of every term in office - and as far as he has said, he has no intention of going against this. Also, from what I see, Chavez is no more popular or unpopular than he was last year. The vast majority of the population (about 70-80%, which had been until recently relatively poor) have benefited immensely from free health care and education, and government-run food stores, all which were basically non-existent prior to Chavez' arrival. The middle class has benefited greatly from government-enabled financial restructuring in the way banks and financial institutions deal with loans and mortgages, for example. The middle class (in fact, anyone) can buy food at the government-run food outlets (Pdval, Mercal, etc.) at very low prices compared to the highly speculative and gouging traditional Venezuela food outlets. There are some people who voted for Chavez in 1998, but hate him today. I know some of these people and this is what one of them has to say about Chavez, "I voted for him because I thought that socialism meant that we would all be upper-middle class with big homes and fancy cars and easy jobs." My estimate is that his popularity is at about 50-55% today.

Then the article continues with: "While the President and his followers were celebrating the anniversary of the failed 1992 coup that first brought him to national attention, the students were protesting the deterioration of their country."

I sometimes wonder what these people mean by "deterioration of the country?" There are more schools and clinics and real homes and better roads, and now, train systems, cable-car systems, subway extensions, newly paved and expanded roads and highways - and thousands of new high-end (very expensive) apartment complex construction sites all over the country. The restaurants (very expensive in places like Las Mercedes) are almost always full, the casinos are full, the traffic in Caracas in a nightmare from so many new vehicles on the street. None of this was ever seen before Chavez was elected.

Then: "It wasn't the first time that Mr. Chavez has resorted to force to quell peaceful political opponents, but the frustration level inside the country is rising as Venezuela's political and economic situation goes from bad to worse. Rolling blackouts, currency devaluation and price inflation (the worst in Latin America), water shortages and scarce commodities -- this is what 11 years of a Chavez presidency have produced."

1. As far as I know, none of the anti-Chavez protests so far have been peaceful. I watched the recent ones live on TV as they developed in Merida and in Caracas - they were violent protests, as usual. I have also been to several anti-Chavez protests and they were all highly violent. I was attacked in Santa Ines in January 2003 by about 150 violent all-white, upper-middle-class anti-Chavez people simply because I did not want to join in their violent attacks against the mostly darker-skinned Chavez supporters. The only non-violent protests or marches I have seen or been to in Venezuela have been pro-Chavez demonstrations - filled with children and families and music - and very little booze (unlike the anti-Chavez protests).

2. The political situation would be so much more peaceful if the anti-Chavez crowds would stop committing (public and often televised) acts of hate and violence.

3. Rotating electricity blackouts (rationing) and water rationing is indeed happening throughout most of the country. In the meanwhile, the government is speeding up large already-started hydro-electric dam construction projects, they are importing and installing gigantic generators all over the country, and much more.

But, no matter what the government does and no matter how many times the anti-Chavez complainers are told and shown how low the reservoir level have become in Venezuela, they blame it on Chavez, and not on God or the Rainmaker (whoever that might be). It isn't that difficult to understand - most of Venezuela's electricity generation comes from hydroelectric dams - thus " less water in the dams means less electricity. Less water in the reservoirs means less potable water. It is quite simple really, but some people just don't get it. Furthermore, it doesn't ever occur to them to blame former governments for the fact that almost all of Venezuela's electricity comes from hydroelectric dams. Prior to the time when Chavez was elected, there was plenty of evidence that climate change could negatively affect electricity production in Venezuela, but no previous government did anything to advance, propose or build, for example, wind generation stations. They have to blame it all on Chavez, who inherited a government in a putrefied state. These anti-Chavez people do not even realize that in addition to climate change, there could very well be internal sabotage by anti-Chavez people working within the electricity and water ministries and companies. This is not at all far-fetched. PDVSA, Venezuela's state-owned oil company and the main source of revenue for the government, was internally sabotaged in 2002-2003 by anti-Chavez employees of PDVSA itself.

4. Shortages and scare commodities (and inflation and devaluation) - hummmph. Almost all shortages (and inflation and devaluation) in Venezuela occur due to hoarding and speculation (or contraband toward Colombia) by greedy individuals, some corrupt officials and many privately-owned stores, distributors and importers. The government has been addressing this problem for several months. One example is the fact that the government is in the process of nationalizing a very large private supermarket chain because the chain has refused to stop massive hoarding and speculation. However, as soon as the government takes such action (which is beneficial to society), the anti-Chavez crowd, who yells against inflation and shortages, starts to attack Chavez from the angle that he is now trying to turn Venezuela into another Cuba by the "taking over by force" of private industry. This is really confusing to the mind " but that is exactly how these people think, and worse. It is as if they have rust in their heads.

Then they go on to say: "Dismal energy program"  As if to underline the utter befuddlement of Mr. Chavez' inept government, an advisory team from Cuba, of all places, was brought in to improve the dismal energy program. Cuba? That's like asking Scott Rothstein for advice on legal ethics.

The writers of this article have apparently not researched their information very carefully. Cuba appears to be at the top of the list, worldwide, in the energy revolution, ahead of the USA (which most of the anti-Chavez crowd would consider the most advanced). But, as with most anti-Chavez people, anything coming out of Cuba is absolutely no good. They might like to read the following  - and then - research from there onward - and then make a statement based on fact instead on what appears to be hate:

http://islamicpost.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/cuba-leads-energy-revolution/

Then - "The problem with PDVSA, the oil company, as Venezuelans well know, is that Mr. Chavez turned it into a sinecure for political cronies, destroying its once admirable efficiency and productive value. Only by putting the experts back in charge can it hope to recover, but President Chavez is not about to hand authority over to anyone who is not a known loyalist."

1. This has to be a joke. PDVSA was violently sabotaged, equipment destroyed and computer systems vandalized by same the "experts" these people appear to be referring to. The saboteurs were mostly from PDVSA's middle echelons; managers, engineers, supervisors, and directors " about 20,000 of them " who were eventually fired, most never to be re-hired again.

2. The writers insinuate that PDVSA is falling to shambles. As far as I know, it is not. PDVSA appears to operate quite well without having to employ a bunch of violent saboteurs. Anyone would be completely out of their minds to re-hire employees who set fire to one's installations, stole equipment and erased information from company computers.

Then - "The problems at PDVSA are emblematic of what's wrong with Venezuela and why his Bolivarian revolution is in trouble. Mr. Chavez has run the economy, and the country, into the ground, but that hasn't stopped him from making trouble wherever he can."

From listening to reports regularly on VTV, PDVSA is operating quite well - and so is the country. Our family business in Venezuela has tripled in revenue in the last 7 months, even with the water and electricity shortages. (And our business relies exclusively on electricity and water).

Then the writers say: "As the streets of Caracas were in turmoil, the US director of national intelligence, former Admiral Dennis Blair, was giving Congress an unvarnished assessment of Mr. Chavez' presidency that underlines the danger he represents to the entire region. He has cultivated friendships in all the wrong places, beginning with Iran, spent $6 billion to buy weapons from Russia, and provided covert support to the terrorist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)."

1. Why should anyone care what the USA has to say, least of all "intelligence" directors? The criminal invasion of Iraq was based on US "intelligence." They were completely wrong " but invaded anyways - so what they say means absolutely nothing, one way or another.

2. The "streets of Caracas" were not really in turmoil - there weren't that many student protesters on the streets - and they were protesting in very localized areas of Caracas. Now, if one thinks that a few hundred or a few thousand psyched-out students on a violent group-rampage describes "turmoil," then fine " but one needs to remember who created the "turmoil."

3. "He has cultivated friendships in all the wrong places" Why is Iran a "wrong place?" Iran is an independent, self-sustained country and is one of the most advanced socially, technologically and economically in the region. Just because the USA and a few other pro-USA countries (like Canada) say that Iran is "no good," does that mean that Iran is indeed "no good?" No, not at all. No main media outlet says that the USA or Canada are terrorist nations, but, according to some people, they are.

4. Of course Venezuela bought arms from Russia " because the USA has an embargo against Venezuela for weapons and military equipment and other related equipment. Venezuela's military was almost entirely US-made equipped (and required US-made-controlled parts), so to renew their aging equipment Venezuela had to go elsewhere. (They don't tell you that, do they?)

5. There is absolutely no proof that Venezuela has offered any type of "covert" support for the FARC. This is complete speculation, or a complete fabrication, which would mean, a complete lie. Furthermore, the FARC has been labeled "terrorists" by only the USA and a few countries such as Canada - and this name-calling only happened recently.

Then they state: "Pressure Chavez All of this spells disaster for the people of Venezuela -- and the hemisphere."

All of what?

- Electricity and water rationing (caused by climate change) which is being actively addressed?

- Inflation, mainly caused by hyper-capitalistic private enterprise, which is also being very actively addressed by nationalizing the main perpetrators?

- Transfer of technology from Iran, Russia, China, Brazil and Belarus because of US embargoes and US-led demonization of Venezuela?

Note that they did not mention the fact that Venezuela has very strong ties to China (one of the few members on the UN security council).

Then - "It can be avoided only by the concerted effort of other countries in the region to pressure Mr. Chavez to moderate his behaviour and adhere to the rules of democracy."

This has to be a joke. Venezuela is the most democratic country I have ever been to, and Chavez has never acted outside of this context. The weird thing is that most of the people who are anti-Chavez, and who think that Chavez is acting undemocratically (such as the writers) were in full agreement with the undemocratic, US-financed and US-backed coup against democratically-elected Chavez in 2002.

Then - "Isn't that what the Organization of American States is for? Mr. Chavez has undermined, if not destroyed Venezuela's once vibrant, if imperfect, democracy."

Chavez has destroyed Venezuela's democracy? How?

Anyone can visit Venezuela, spend a few months there, travel the country freely " and check it all out personally. Venezuela's democracy, compared to times prior to Chavez, is more than vibrant. Prior to Chavez there existed little freedom of speech and many dissidents and journalists were assassinated or "disappeared." These people have very short memories " or they just don't want you to know the truth.

Then they say, "He has bullied his neighbors, fueled a regional arms race and brought political tensions inside the country to a boiling point."

1. What neighbors has Chavez bullied? That is a mystery to me " and to anyone with a good knowledge of Venezuela.

2. What regional arms race? There is no such thing as a regional arms race. Venezuela simply bought military equipment to renew its aging and non-repairable equipment. Venezuela is not competing in arms with anyone.

3. Political tensions to a boiling point? Where? Inside Venezuela? I live there and I don't see it like that.

Since Chavez was first elected in 1998, there have always been political tensions (and that is normal, because there are some people that simply hate Chavez, no matter what), but the tensions were much more intense in 2002 and 2003. The "tensions to the boiling point" is, I think, being created and propelled by the media (like by the Miami Herald) " much in the same way that "weapons of mass destruction" and the "axis of evil" were invented or like "Chavez the dictator" was created and promoted as fact.

And finally the authors says: "The region's leaders shouldn't wait for domestic bloodshed or a cross-border conflict to move them to act."

What is that supposed to mean?

Are they implying that regional leaders should invade Venezuela or assassinate Chavez?

Venezuela is an independent country and will not bend to any "suggestions" from other countries in the region, nor should it " and whoever wrote the article should be well aware of this. Therefore I must assume that the writers are referring to the use of force or violence, or arm-twisting with embargoes " or something of that nature. The writers also mention that (the neighbors) "shouldn't wait for domestic bloodshed."

What is that supposed to mean?

Apart from a few street thugs, the only openly violent people I have ever met in Venezuela are anti-Chavez people " and believe me, there are a lot of very violent anti-Chavez people, in fact, from my experience, most of them.

If there's to be any bloodshed, it is obvious who will perpetrate it"

"the anti-Chavez crowd " with the support of dishonest media outlets such as The Miami Herald " and the US government"

Oscar Heck
oscar.heck@vheadline.com



Submitter: Roy S. Carson

Submitters Bio:
Roy S. Carson is veteran foreign correspondent (45+ years in the business) currently editor & publisher of VHeadline Venezuela reporting on news & views from and about Venezuela in South America -- available for interviews -- call Houston 713.893.1433

Back