Advertisement
In contemplating the failed coup of
April 11-14 in Venezuela, only one fact
presents itself as indisputable: there are so many different versions of "the truth" circulating, that it is doubtful anyone really knows what exactly happened, and what will happen next. The media has played a significant role in the propagation of any one of the various "truths". US press, most notably the New York Times, printed an editorial on April 13 calling ousted Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez "a ruinous demagogue" whose removal from office was a victory for Venezuelan democracy as it would "no longer be threatened by a would-be dictator." The Times reported on April 13, that the forced resignation of Chavez was an end to the "turbulent three-year reign of a mercurial strongman" and "firebrand populist". The Times goes on to confirm for us that this forced resignation by the military (though this wasn't a military coup according to our government and our mainstream press) came after large protests in which "at least 14 people were killed by gunmen identified as his supporters." This is an interesting commentary as it is still unclear who exactly those snipers were, although it seems much more likely that they were part of the opposition as the first four people shot were pro-Chavez demonstrators.
The BBC's report of the protest and the coup was lopsided and biased as well. In its April 12 news report of the coup, the BBC quotes only opposition leaders, among them Guacaipuro Lameda, who claimed it was Chavez's armed "citizens' committees" that had fired at the opposition protesters. This same BBC article also quotes opposition leader General Efrain Vasquez Velasco who, in addition to General Ramirez Poveda, was educated at the infamous School of the Americas, I mean, Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
The independent press has been a bit biased in its reporting as well by presenting Chavez as a man who has been victimized by the elite-the oil barons, the wealthy land owners, the intelligentsia-for wanting nothing more than to eradicate poverty in his country. While it is absolutely true that Chavez has tried to address the needs of his main supporters, the poor (which make up about 70% of the population), he has done so through an aggressive, Marxist approach that has scared landowners who feel their land could be stolen from them by their government. There is also fear that Chavez has become an autocrat since his election due to the fact that he placed his own supporters in key leadership positions, making it possible to have his newly rewritten constitution (1999) ratified easily. While this is the democratic process at work, and a process with which those of us here in the US are familiar, it is easy to understand why this would make nervous the citizens of a country with a long history of government corruption and junta-esque domination by either one of the two primary political parties.
Most disturbing has been our government's role in the spreading of lies and damaging propaganda about Hugo Chavez in order to first gain popular support within Venezuela for a military coup which it would help organize by way of advice and funding ($877,000 to anti-Chavez groups provided by the US National Endowment for Democracy in the past year, with $1 million earmarked for the same purpose for the coming year), and then legitimize the coup internationally by first pretending that this was not a coup but a "resignation", and then blaming the entire protest and takeover on Chavez's "illegitimate government. Calling a president, who was elected twice by a landslide illegitimate, calls into question what exactly our government means when it refers to democracy, a form of government based on the principle of government for and by the people. Obviously, our government does not consider Venezuela's poor, who still overwhelming support Chavez, to be people. What matters to our government is having puppet leaders in Latin America who will allow the US to continue its expansionist colonization southward until it controls the entire hemisphere. Hugo Chavez is a nationalist, a leftist and a populist who has no interest in signing over Venezuela's sovereignty to the US. It is clear why George W considers him an enemy. He doesn't know his place. Neither did Salvador Allende of Chile, which ultimately got him killed.
The BBC's report of the protest and the coup was lopsided and biased as well. In its April 12 news report of the coup, the BBC quotes only opposition leaders, among them Guacaipuro Lameda, who claimed it was Chavez's armed "citizens' committees" that had fired at the opposition protesters. This same BBC article also quotes opposition leader General Efrain Vasquez Velasco who, in addition to General Ramirez Poveda, was educated at the infamous School of the Americas, I mean, Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
The independent press has been a bit biased in its reporting as well by presenting Chavez as a man who has been victimized by the elite-the oil barons, the wealthy land owners, the intelligentsia-for wanting nothing more than to eradicate poverty in his country. While it is absolutely true that Chavez has tried to address the needs of his main supporters, the poor (which make up about 70% of the population), he has done so through an aggressive, Marxist approach that has scared landowners who feel their land could be stolen from them by their government. There is also fear that Chavez has become an autocrat since his election due to the fact that he placed his own supporters in key leadership positions, making it possible to have his newly rewritten constitution (1999) ratified easily. While this is the democratic process at work, and a process with which those of us here in the US are familiar, it is easy to understand why this would make nervous the citizens of a country with a long history of government corruption and junta-esque domination by either one of the two primary political parties.
Most disturbing has been our government's role in the spreading of lies and damaging propaganda about Hugo Chavez in order to first gain popular support within Venezuela for a military coup which it would help organize by way of advice and funding ($877,000 to anti-Chavez groups provided by the US National Endowment for Democracy in the past year, with $1 million earmarked for the same purpose for the coming year), and then legitimize the coup internationally by first pretending that this was not a coup but a "resignation", and then blaming the entire protest and takeover on Chavez's "illegitimate government. Calling a president, who was elected twice by a landslide illegitimate, calls into question what exactly our government means when it refers to democracy, a form of government based on the principle of government for and by the people. Obviously, our government does not consider Venezuela's poor, who still overwhelming support Chavez, to be people. What matters to our government is having puppet leaders in Latin America who will allow the US to continue its expansionist colonization southward until it controls the entire hemisphere. Hugo Chavez is a nationalist, a leftist and a populist who has no interest in signing over Venezuela's sovereignty to the US. It is clear why George W considers him an enemy. He doesn't know his place. Neither did Salvador Allende of Chile, which ultimately got him killed.