Comment

The U.S. Media and Latin American Revolutionary Activity

Reg Lee

Iraq has been burdensome for the U.S. government, so much so that it has detracted substantial attention away from events currently occurring in Latin America. That's not to say that Venezuela, for instance, hasn't had any U.S. attention, but so far nothing so serious to topple President Hugo Chávez, although goodness knows they have tried, but not effectively nor competently perhaps. However, things may just start to change because Venezuela is not alone in championing the cause of Socialism in Latin America, nor alone in denouncing U.S. imperialism in the region.

Parts of the U.S. media are beginning to mobilise against what it sees as threats to U.S. interests in Latin America. For instance there's been a spate of articles recently in the New York Times. In its December 11th 2005 edition headlined: 'Socialist Bachelet Faces Runoff After Chile Election' the paper refers to the 'moderate socialism' of Bachelet but this is in context of a more sinister 'leftist momentum' that is beginning to accumulate across Latin America: 'Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Venezuela all have leftist leaders' cries the Times, continuing 'and Bolivia, Mexico and Peru could follow in coming elections.' The warning couldn't be more stark and dramatic.

There is an increasing realisation amongst the political establishment that their 'backyard' is getting a little messy and perhaps it's in need of some tidying up. All these countries could cause huge problems for U.S. foreign policy and the Times has already pressed the red alert button with headlines in its December 12th 2005 edition: 'Bolivian Could Be a "nightmare" for the U.S.' This is a reference to the leader of the Bolivian Movement Towards Socialism party, one Evo Morales, who according to the Times 'counts Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chávez among his close friends.' It would appear that the Times is implicitly claiming that Morales is already guilty by association and consequently refers to him as a 'staunch leftist.' The gloves are now safely off!

Evo Morales

Latin America is fast becoming high priority for the establishment. The article in question went on to claim that Morales has 'a hatred for the free-market', but it's not so much a 'hatred' but rather a realisation that the free-market has not only failed in Bolivia but also is grotesquely exploitative and the reason for subjecting large sections of the Bolivian population to abject poverty, and this is why Evo Morales is 'anti-neo-liberal' and 'anti-imperialist' as the Times went on to state, albeit in an alarmist context.

Bolivia is certainly on the cusp of possible radical change and the region as a whole is certainly a vehicle for revolutionary change but the motor behind it is Venezuela, and it is Venezuela that represents the biggest threat to U.S. interests partly because of its huge oil reserves; partly because Chávez is a formidable and determined opponent to U.S. foreign policy interests and partly because the Venezuelan leadership is exchanging oil within the region for very favourable terms to other comrades in arms. Cuba, once sustained by the USSR (loans and cancellation of debt) is now being sustained in part by oil deals.

It seems that the events in Latin America have gone unnoticed, although this is difficult to believe - lower in priority more like - so the Times has chosen to alert the Bush government, who is currently preoccupied with the war in Iraq, to the revolutionary activity underway in Latin America. In the Times Saturday December 10th 2005 edition, an op-ed entitled: 'Hugo Chávez and His Helpers' appeared, and it criticised the Bush government for neglecting Latin America. Exasperated at the ability of Chávez to continue to govern the Times claimed that: 'the Bush administration's scandalous neglect of its Western Hemisphere neighbours have left the field wide open for Mr. Chávez to bully people at home, buy friends abroad and annoy Washington at every turn.'

'Neglect' means very little overt interference and not far enough effective covert interference that would buttress 'a terminally inept opposition.' The times are certainly changing and the Times are warning Bush of the dangers of Venezuela's right to self-determine its future. But perhaps the message has already been received with imminent troop withdrawal about to occur in Iraq, for this is slowly turning into a war on two fronts. The difference being, Iraq is a sham and Al Qaida mostly a phantom and ineffective, whereas Latin American Socialism is very real indeed and far more dangerous to U.S. ideology. The reference in the Times to 'buying friends abroad' (not a reference to the Bush - Bin Laden family relationship) is in fact a reference to Venezuela's offer to sell oil at forty per cent below market prices to the poor in the U.S., a very audacious move by Venezuela indeed.

Hugo Chavez

So what has motivated the latest tirade against Chávez? On Monday 6th December 2005 Hugo Chávez and his supporters celebrated victory after winning congressional elections in Venezuela. This is a country that neo-conservatives in the U.S. consider to be 'undemocratic', but ironically it's also a country that has held eleven elections in seven years: how more democratic can a country get? Señor Chávez has constantly won against an American backed opposition with Big Business interests whose tactics are, to put mildly, scandalous.

These latest elections were for the Federal Parliament with one hundred and sixty seven seats up for grabs. This included the election of Deputies for the Latin American Parliament (twelve seats) and also Deputies for the Andian Parliament (five seats). This was not a presidential election. The result? Pro-Chávez supporters won all of the seats. The latest consolidation of power comes in the wake of the 'recall referendum' in August 2004 where Chávez won handsomely by fifty nine to forty one votes. Both the American Organisation of American States (OAS) and the Carter Centre described those elections as free and fair.

Both the OAS and the European Union delegation announced that the recent election was also fair and transparent but this didn't stop the Houston Chronicle, Friday, December 9th 2005 attempting to find something in which to discredit the election:

'Although the EU and OAS missions declared Sunday's vote fair and transparent, the EU noted that Chávez's government used television and radio broadcasts as "an excessive resource" during the elections campaign. The OAS delegation observed "political propaganda from high level public officials, including federal, state and municipal officials".'

But the reference to 'excessive resource' in context of 'political propaganda' is extremely misleading. There was no 'political propaganda' used on state television, although Chávez frequently used TV, but only to appeal to the people of Venezuela to participate in a democratic process; something that Western politicians frequently do themselves.

Leading up to the election all the polls indicated that the party led by Hugo Chávez, the Movimento Quinta Repùblica (MVR), would wipe the board clean and so it did. Rather than face humiliation four of the opposition parties withdrew from the election. But this wasn't simply about losing and humiliation it was also a cynical attempt to destabilise the latest round, to discredit the policies Chávez has introduced and to generally cause trouble. The withdrawal included the strongest of the opposition parties, Primero Justicia. All four claimed that participation was futile because the election was fixed, but this isn't credible any longer. It's a tired old tactic.

But where did the decision to withdraw come from? It's believed that the parties right up until the elections wanted to participate but that major American financial backers gave the order not to. One such backer of the pro-corporate business parties is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and it's rumoured that they threatened to withhold funding for the opposition if they took part in the elections. The aim? If voter turnout was woefully low the U.S. government could claim that Chávez has no mandate to govern. The result? Thirty per cent turnout!

That Chávez is seen to be a threat to the U.S. is not to be underestimated. This was most evident when the Venezuelan government offered help to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and there was a stark warning by Stephen Johnson, September 7th 2005, of the Heritage Foundation, which is a research and educational establishment - a think tank for Conservatives, founded in 1973. Headlined: 'Thanks but no thanks for Aid from self-serving autocrats' Johnson warned of accepting financial help from both Cuba and Venezuela:

'Cuban dictator Fidel Castro offered a thousand doctors and 26 tons of medicine while Venezuela's autocratic leader Hugo Chávez promised refined petroleum products, $1 million, and some 2,000 soldiers, firemen, and relief workers. However, charity from these two should be handled with caution.'

How despicable this statement is in light of the fiasco of the U.S. authorities when they monumentally failed to co-ordinate relief aid to the poor Black American citizens of New Orleans!

On April 5th 2005 another writer from the Heritage Foundation, Peter Brookes, sarcastically described Chávez as 'Castro's Mini-Me' stating that:

'According to Gerver Torres, a former Venezuelan government minister, Chávez's "main motivation now is to do everything he possibly can to negatively affect the United States, Bush in particular . . . trying to bring together all the enemies of the United States"', and using language reminiscent of the 1970s goes on to say: 'It's tempting to write off Chávez simply as Latin America's latest tin-pot dictator, but that would be a mistake. Venezuela's own "Fidelito" has the potential to cause real trouble for the United States - right in our own backyard.'

Certainly the political right in the U.S. have been busy sharpening their knives, including the lunatic outburst by one Reverend Pat Robertson when he called for the assassination of an elected President of a sovereign state; Hugo Chávez.

Discrediting Chávez is now the name of the game and a sign of the tension that is emerging in the region. This took a new step on September 16th 2005 when Chávez gave his first American broadcast interview since Robertson's outburst. ABCs Ted Koppel interviewed Chávez and here's one of the questions Koppel asked later in the interview:

'I've been told by contacts of mine in the U.S. intelligence community that you have members of Al Qaida, you have members of other terrorist groups who are allowed to operate within Venezuela. Not true?' Mr. Koppel are these the same members of the intelligence service who made the case for the imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?

Collectively, the statements produced here by parts of the media and right-wing think tanks via Internet sites are evidence of the latest attempt to discredit Morales and Chávez, but more importantly they're early warning signs of how the establishment is slowly building up a case for intervention into the regions that pose the greatest threat to the U.S., and any intervention, whether political or militarily (covert or otherwise) must be resisted by all opponents of U.S. imperialism.

December 2005