This article from counterpunch nails whats is wrong with how news is reported here in North America and also give a much different picture of what is going on in Venezuela. A big thanks to Mark Weisbrot for getting the down and dirty on events happening in South America.
The Class Conflict in Venezuela
The current protests in Venezuela are reminiscent of another historical moment when street protests were used by right-wing politicians as a tactic to overthrow the elected government. It was December of 2002, and I was struck by the images on U.S. television of what was reported as a “general strike,” with shops closed and streets empty. So I went there to see for myself, and it was one of the most Orwellian experiences of my life.
Only in the richer neighborhoods, in eastern Caracas, was there evidence of a strike, by business owners (not workers). In the western and poorer parts of the city, everything was normal and people were doing their Christmas shopping – images unseen in the U.S. media. I wrote an article about it for the Washington Post, and received hundreds of emails from right-wing Venezuelans horrified that the Post had printed a factual and analytical account that breathed air outside of their bubble. They didn’t have to worry about it happening again.
The spread of cell-phone videos and social media in the past decade has made it more difficult to misrepresent things that can be easily captured on camera. But Venezuela is still grossly distorted in the major media. The New York Times had torun a correction last week for an article that began with a statement about “The only television station that regularly broadcast voices critical of the government …” As it turns out, all of the private TV stations “regularly broadcast voices critical of the government.” And private media has more than 90 percent of the TV-viewing audience in Venezuela. A study by the Carter Center of the presidential election campaign period last April showed a 57 to 34 percent advantage in TV coverage for President Maduro over challenger Henrique Capriles in the April election, but that advantage is greatly reduced or eliminated when audience shares are taken into account. Although there are abuses of power and problems with the rule of law in Venezuela – as there are throughout the hemisphere– it is far from the authoritarian state that most consumers of western media are led to believe. Opposition leaders currently aim to topple the democratically elected government – their stated goal – by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard “regime change” strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence.
The latest official numbers have eight confirmed deaths of opposition protesters, but no evidence that these were a result of efforts by the government to crush dissent. At least two pro-government people have also been killed, and two people on motorcycles were killed (one beheaded) by wires allegedly set up by protesters. Eleven of the 55 people currently detained for alleged crimes during protests are security officers.
Of course violence from either side is deplorable, and detained protesters – including their leader, Leopoldo López – should be released on bail unless there is legal and justifiable cause for pre-trial detention. But it is difficult to argue from the evidence that the government is trying to suppress peaceful protests.
From 1999-2003, the Venezuelan opposition had a strategy of “military takeover,”according to Teodoro Petkoff (PDF), a leading opposition journalist who edits the daily Tal Cual. This included the military coup of April 2002 and the oil and business owners strike from December 2002 – February 2003, which crippled the economy. Although the opposition eventually opted for an electoral route to power, it was not the kind of process that one sees in most democracies, where opposition parties accept the legitimacy of the elected government and seek to co-operate on at least some common goals.
One of the most important forces that has encouraged this extreme polarization has been the U.S. government. It is true that other left governments that have implemented progressive economic changes have also been politically polarized: Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina for example. And there have been violent right-wing destabilization efforts in Bolivia and Ecuador. But Washington has been more committed to “regime change” in Venezuela than anywhere else in South America – not surprisingly, given that it is sitting on the largest oil reserves in the world. And that has always given opposition politicians a strong incentive to not work within the democratic system.
Venezuela is not Ukraine, where opposition leaders could be seen publicly collaborating with U.S. officials in their efforts to topple the government, and pay no obvious price for it. Of course U.S. support has helped Venezuela’s opposition with funding: one can find about $90 million in U.S. funding to Venezuela since 2000, just looking through U.S. government documents available on the web, including $5 million in the current federal budget (PDF). Pressure for opposition unity and tactical and strategic advice also helps: Washington has decades of experience overthrowing governments, and this is a specialized knowledge that you can’t learn in graduate school. Even more important is its enormous influence on international media and therefore public opinion.
When John Kerry reversed his position in April and recognized the Venezuelan election results, that spelled the end of the opposition’s campaign for non-recognition. But the opposition leadership’s closeness to the U.S. government is also a liability in a country that was the first to lead South America’s “second independence” that began with the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998. In a country like Ukraine, political leaders could always point to Russia (and more so now) as a threat to national independence; attempts by Venezuelan opposition leaders to portray Cuba as a threat to Venezuelan sovereignty are laughable. It is only the United States that threatens Venezuela’s independence, as Washington fights to regain control over a region that it has lost.
Eleven years since the oil strike, the political lines that divide Venezuela have not changed all that much. There is the obvious class divide, and there is still a noticeable difference in skin color between opposition (whiter) and pro-government crowds – not surprising in a country and region where income and race are often highly correlated.
In the leadership, one side is part of a regional anti-imperialist alliance; the other has Washington as an ally. And yes, there is a big difference between the two leaderships in their respect for hard-won electoral democracy, as the current struggle illustrates. For Latin America, it is a classic divide between left and right.
Opposition leader Henrique Capriles tried to bridge this divide with a makeover, morphing from his prior right-wing incarnation into “Venezuela’s Lula” in his presidential campaigns, praising Chávez’s social programs and promising to expand them. But he has gone back and forth on respect for elections and democracy, and – outflanked by the extreme right (Leopoldo López and María Corina Machado), last week refused offers of dialogue by the president. At the end of the day, they are all far too rich, elitist, and right wing (think of Mitt Romney and his contempt for the 47 percent) for a country that has repeatedly voted for candidates running on a platform of socialism.
Back in 2003, because it did not control the oil industry, the government had not yet delivered much on its promises. A decade later, poverty and unemployment have been reduced by more than half, extreme poverty by more than 70%, and millions have pensions that they did not have before. Most Venezuelans are not about to throw all this away because they have had a year and a half of high inflation and increasing shortages. In 2012, according to the World Bank, poverty fell by 20 percent– the largest decline in the Americas. The recent problems have not gone on long enough for most people to give up on a government that has raised their living standards more than any other government in decades.
Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.
This essay originally ran in the Guardian.
7 comments
March 5, 2014 at 2:00 pm
violetwisp
Oh, I’m torn on this one. Chavez was a megalomaniac nutter and Maduro seems just bad and twice as idiotic. I won’t get over his televised interview where he described that Chavaz had returned to him in the form of a bird to ‘bless’ his presidency. He has crazy, wonky superstitious beliefs that cannot lead to logical decision making. On the other hand, I loathe the thought of rich countries meddling in international politics for financial gain, and perhaps nutters whose policies have a positive impact on the lives of the most impoverished are a blessed relief from a stable right-wing profit-driven government bent on nothing more than power. More women in politics!!!!
LikeLike
March 5, 2014 at 2:30 pm
john zande
Good article, important points, but it is in itself quite skewed. The economic model being pushed is completely unsustainable. The country is crashing. Black market exchange rates for dollars is now 1,100% higher than the official government rate. And, perhaps most importantly, the relief from poverty is mostly hot air: handouts, subsidised food and fuel. What has been very good, and is not reported but should be, is the massive expansion in healthcare (hospitals, clinics) and a lower, but still very impressive increases in schools. This is vital for any long-term sustainable shift in the country. His take on media freedom is however waaaay off. Chavez was ruinous for any concept of freedom of the press (he shut down numerous papers and tv stations), and he purged the Supreme Court. He also purged the officer corps of the military. It never makes foreign media, but Chavez also revived “The Land in Reclamation:” Guyanese territory which Venezuela thinks is theirs, dating back to Bolivar.
LikeLike
March 5, 2014 at 7:06 pm
VR Kaine
“Good article, important points, but it is in itself quite skewed. The economic model being pushed is completely unsustainable. The country is crashing. Black market exchange rates for dollars is now 1,100% higher than the official government rate.”
Thanks for bringing this up. I don’t mean to pile on your comment as though we may actually share the same views here (we probably don’t), but it brings up some serious point to me as I read the article:
1) It’s easy for some to read a pro-socialism, anti-oil, white-guilt article from the left and automatically consider it to be the truth, not considering that it might be just as biased the other way as the pro-oil, right-wing articles they critcize. Beyond that, many liberals still don’t like doing the hard math, and like you said, the economic model currently being pushed will be difficult if not impossible to sustain. Where’s the liberal media reporting on that?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/at-markets-chavez-successor-falls-short/2014/01/31/ac85c62a-8518-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html
2) I’m no fan of what big oil has done to that country (read anything John Perkins) but hating what they’ve done does not make me run into the arms of a Castro or Chavez like so many others like to do, proclaiming them as peoples’ heroes as this article tries to under the guise of appearing impartial.
At Chavez’s level exists what does at every top level, whether it be right wing or left wing: greed, corruption, and a desire to control. Rather than acknowledge this or do the hard math on the type of economy their heroes are promoting, however (or the $ they are skimming), left-wing reporters instead seem to figure that pointing out skin complexions is far more important.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/9993238/Venezuela-the-wealth-of-Chavez-family-exposed.html
3) Arb praises this liberal white-guilt guy here, but to me he’s just as ignorant and hypocritical as any right-wing article to the other side.
I don’t buy that Chavez was an economic Hitler, but people on the left, don’t they pause to think that these nations’ leaders are doing their own work in deliberately creating poverty? And at the same time, while they’re cashing in on that 1100% exchange rate for USD? Nah. They ignore it, and it seems perfectly fine if the left-wing media leaves that alone so long as they mention some free school built somewhere.
Worse, they’ll avoid private sector growth and instead make some idiotic comment that those who appear to be doing well simply seem to be of “whiter complexion”, and show us yet again how Chavez is supposedly loved.
Stay away from reporting on the corruption Chavez willfully and for decades took advantage of at the expense of his people, and instead focus only on those who put it on the table for him to take. Makes sense, I guess, since liberals love victims and perpetual victimhood, and thefore Chavez must end up being one no matter what else they have to ignore to leave him a hero.
A big thanks to Mark Weisbrot for getting the down and dirty on events happening in South America as though he’s somehow got a handle on the truth through coke-bottle thick liberal lenses? How about a big thanks to Weisbrot for showing why the left-wing, white-guilt media is just as position-drunk as his counterparts are on the right, and why the press corps today seem to pretty much SUCK anywhere worldwide when it comes to wanting, or caring to tell the truth?
LikeLike
March 6, 2014 at 7:20 am
john zande
@VR
“Stay away from reporting on the corruption Chavez willfully and for decades took advantage of at the expense of his people”
In Chavez’s defence, it seems he never lined his pockets. I’m in Brazil and hear a fair share of Venezuelan news and nothing has ever been alluded to… Unlike Lulu who enriched himself and his family in obscene ways while pretending to be the “workers hero.” That’s another story. For all his silliness, Chavez did mean well, and in health and education achieved a great deal… all of which is indeed ignored by US media. His problem was this: he wasn’t smart and played populist politics. If you haven’t lived in a S American country then its hard to fathom the ugly division between rich and poor. Hell, I’m Australian and it was a like a punch in the brain when i fully got a handle on it all. This doesn’t make a fan of Chavez’
LikeLike
March 6, 2014 at 7:23 am
john zande
woops, let me finish that thought without hiting post too soon :(
This doesn’t make a fan of Chavez or his methods, but his intent cannot be faulted. Chile, in my opinion, is doing things right. They, like Chavez, have focused a great deal of attention onto education, but unlike Chavez, they’re efforts have been toward quality, not quantity. Every teacher has had to sit exams to see if they’re in fact qualified. Universities have been flooded with money to train up new teachers, and salaries have increased to reflect the overall drive. It’s a long-term program whose efects won’t be fully felt for decades, but that is the way to approach serious structural problems.
LikeLike
March 6, 2014 at 9:30 am
Vrkaine
Hi John,
Thanks for your comment. I hate to nitpick, but you say that Chavez didn’t line his pockets and yet we have articles like the telegraph one indicating that he did? Also, with the education and health, i have seen this reported but are you saying that perhaps not reported in enough detail? I would agree in the same way I believe that left-wing media hasn’t in fact “reported” on Benghazzi even though they’ve sure mentioned it a few times.
As for the division between wealthy and poor, I haven’t lived it but I have seen it first hand in MX and heard second hand from friends native to Ecuador, Nicauragua, Brazil, and Argentina.
Overall, I’m for any small underdog country getting a fair chance to succeed, the same as with any small company here going up against a giant. I hope for the best, I just don’t trust ANY media outlet to singularily giv an accurate score along the way.
LikeLike
March 8, 2014 at 2:40 pm
john zande
Hi Vrkaine… Apologies, didn’t see your comment until now. I must also apologise, i didn’t click on the linked article the other day. Interesting. I hadn’t heard that before. It’d be a real pity if that is true, but in many ways not surprising.
There’s nothing to report on Benghazzi beyond the facts. It was a CIA station, not a consulate, and it was attacked. 4 American personnel died. There were THIRTEEN “Benghazzi’s” under George W. Bush:
Jan. 22, 2002: Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami Attacks Indian U.S. Consulate
June 14, 2002: Suicide Car-Bomb Outside U.S. Consulate in Karachi
Oct. 12, 2002: String Of Bali Bombings Included U.S. Consulate
Feb. 28, 2003: Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked For the Second Time in One Year
May 12, 2003: 36 People Including 9 Americans Die After Terrorists Storm U.S. Compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
July 30, 2004: Islamist Attacks U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Dec. 6, 2004: Five Staff and Four Security Guards Die in U.S. consulate attack in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
March 2, 2006: Third Attack on Karachi U.S. Consulate Killed U.S. Diplomat
Sept. 12, 2006: Four Gunmen Stormed the U.S. compound in Damascus, Syria
Jan. 12, 2007: Greek Terrorists Fired a Rocket-Propelled Grenade at the U.S. Embassy
March 18, 2008: A Mortar is Fired at the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen
July 9, 2008: Three Turkish Policemen were Killed When Gunman Fired on the U.S. Consulate Istanbul, Turkey
Sept. 17, 2008: 16 People Including 2 Americans Die in an Orchestrated Attack on the U.S. Embassy Sana’a, Yemen
Where was the manufactured “outrage” then?
LikeLike