Return to: Home | Politics

187 comments from readers

Picoroco
12 July 2007 at 12:28

Ms O'Keefe's blinkered one-sided article is typical of a neo-con view of Venezuela. She states that the charge against the right-wing RCTV channel was that it was guilty of anti-government bias. The charge, no the fact, was that RCTV was guilty of something much more serious. It openly flouted the law by actively promoting a coup against a democratically elected government. Chavez, despite what Ms O'Keefe's mendacious article says, did not 'close' RCTV ( it still operates as a satellite and cable channel within Venezuela), he refused to renew its terrestrial licence in May because of its undemocratic actions.

What is it with European, so-called left-wing publications and their willingness to side with an imperialist US agenda that sees Chavez as the next anti-christ? Read Znet or Americas.org for a considered, balanced view.

Neil Clark
12 July 2007 at 13:25

"Alexsander Lukashenko (known as Europe's last dictator) "

By whom, Ms O'Keefe?

Answer: by Condoleeza Rice and the US State Department who label any leader who doesn't toe the US line a 'dictator' regardless of whether the leader in question holds regular democratic elections. The problem with Lukashenko, from the US viewpoint, is the same problem with Hugo Chavez: they are both extremely popular leaders who govern for the benefit of the majority of their people, and not for the interests of global capital. And in today's world that's enough to get you called a 'dictator'.

rtyphus
12 July 2007 at 13:39

I hrdly think that Chavez is the worst thing that could have happened to Venuzuela. However, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why Human Rights watch criticised the issues surrounding the broadcasting licence of RCTV, if the whole case against Chavez has been formulated by US imperialists. Media Lens never answered either.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/22/venezu15986.htm

RedDaybreak
12 July 2007 at 13:59

Neil Clark should have little think about the well documented human rights abuses that go on in Lukashenko's Belarus. He's certainly a dictator. I suspect Neil, you'd be quick to defend Stalin if he was still around! As for Chavez, I think he's a rather different kettle of fish from some of those he consorts with...

The despicable Bush administration meanwhile hasn't got a leg to stand on when it comes to criticising other regimes.

No Volveran
12 July 2007 at 14:54

I am a regular reader of New Statesman because it offers an alternative news source to that of the mainstream media. However, unfortunately on this occasion the journal has completely succumbed to the agenda of those who control the mainsteam media: capitalists.

First of all, as 'Picoroco' correctly stated above, this article is itself guilty of misinformation. Chavez did not close RCTV, he did not renew its licence, a completely legitimate act of the state against a company that had blatantly violated the terms of its licence. The hue and cry over the death of the 'freedom of expression' does not stand up against the fact that the vitriolically anti-Chavez opposition still has its main media outlets untouched, and is using them to full effect. It is interesting to note that at the same time as this hysteria, the Pakistani government, which is certainly not democratic but is a friend of Bush et al, has viciously clamped down on all dissent and freedom of speech in the press, using violence freely, but not a word has been expressed on this matter in our 'free press'.

The whole of this article misses the fundamental point - there is not a civil war in Venezuela, but an open class war. Until this is understood, we will limit ourselves to pointless complaining about the 'unpleasantness' of public debate, which is in reality an effect of the class war between the poor and disposessed, who now finally have some political power, and the rich, the oligarchy, who fearing the loss of their privilege use every excuse to attack the government - the RCTV case being the latest excuse. In relation to this, the author would do well to refrane from eulogising about the students aiming for 'reconciliation' (something unimaginable in a class war - the viciousness of the 2002 coup is testimony to this), considering the recent evidence showing that their protests were orchestrated by the very same imperialist media that feels threatened (manuscripts of their speeches were found to have been written by certain corporations, who were obviously 'sponsering' the protests). These students may be sincere, but those who play them to their advantage are not, and are very dangerous.

The article is littered with emotive and unreliable anecdotes ('With a power-crazed Chávez at the helm' - it remains to be shown how he is power hungry, it is merely stated emotively), and where it does refer to facts these have been shown to be false or misleading. Furthermore, the quotes featured, which appear to be exclusively anti-Chavez, ironic in a nation that recently gave 63% support to him, show a deep misunderstanding of Chavez's role - he is not manufacturing the situation, but is responding to it, and reflects the mood of the masses. That his support is real, that his position is based on a mass movement, is shown by the fact that Chavez was only saved from a coup by a spontaneous movement of literally millions. Thus such comments 'Chavez has not learned you cannot create solidarity by decree' are ludicrous - Chavez's entire power is based on a very real solidarity that existed prior to his presidency - from 1989 to be precise, a year when the then government not only viciously suppressed dissent, causing the deaths of unknown 1000s, but also liberally employed press cencorship in relation to its actions, something that Chavez has never done, nor is it ever reported in such articles as this.

The reality is that the fact that you are 'forced to be on one side or another' is not some manufactured dictate of Chavez, but a consequence of the class struggle, something Chavez exists in relation to but did not create, and the unpleasant aspects of which should be blamed not on Chavez but on the reactionaries.

This article has shown it is entirely victim to the agenda of said reactionaries, and proves that 'The freedom of the press belongs to those who control the press'.

Daniel Morley, Hands off Venezuela (personal capacity)

angrywelshman
12 July 2007 at 15:07

The divide in Venezuela is between the rich gringos (often) of Spanish descent and the poor - people of a native or mixed-race origin denied for generations proper healthcare and education and little or no economic opportunities. Chavez did not create the schisms in his country - colonialism and capitalism did. Just have a look at the way the vote divided in the elections if you don't believe me!

No pasaran!
12 July 2007 at 15:28

What a load of reactionary twaddle!

Neil Clark
12 July 2007 at 15:59

reddaybreak, fyi here's the British Helsinki Human Rights Group's report on Belarus.

http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?CountryID=4

I have never defended Stalin and certainly wouldn't if he was around today. Fidel Castro can legitimately be called a dictator: Lukashenko not.

defiantlyright
12 July 2007 at 17:09

What a lot of you on the lunatic lefty fringe don't want to deal with is the fact that the article, while it makes errors on the details, it has it dead right on the large picture. Hugo could have attempted to transform his country with through less divisive politics. Instead, having tons of money at his disposal has allowed him to stack every institution with his cronies. He is becoming just a slightly distorted mirror image of the rightwing he detests. He is just as Macchiavellian as any right wing politician that you loonies detest. I am so happy Bush could not transform the Congress into a permanent ally. I am so glad there is a vibrant opposition to him. I am so glad he can rule for only two terms. Chavez wants to rule till kingdom come. Surely among you are those who are orgasmic at this probability. You will defend any distruction of any civil right as long as it is done in the name of construction your long for socialist paradise. I wonder if you condemned Chavez when he had launched his coup? The argument that RCTV had incited the overthrow of the government may very well be true. However, RCTV should have been entitled to due process, tried and convicted in a court of law and then shut down by a court order. No one man, in any country or government, socialist or capitalist, should have so much power. Is there anything about Chavez that you dont find objectionable? Or is he the totally perfect man?

RedDaybreak
12 July 2007 at 17:21

Sorry Neil, I misjudged you. You're a different sort of reactionary to the kind I had supposed. BHHRG indeed - bunch of fruitcakes!

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=europe&c=belaru

No Volveran
12 July 2007 at 17:25

your response and argument 'is there anything about Chavez that you don't (?? Presumably you meant do?) find objectionable completely fails to deal with the main points - the article was totally devoid of facts and argument, and was mostly emotive, and you have just repeated this dire journalism. Secondly, most of us had pointed out that to focus on Chavez is not the point, the there is a mass movement and class war, and therefore one cannot simply view Chavez and his actions in isolation, as if he initiates them abitrarily, for his own desires. Hence when says he will change the constitution through the PSUV or being electable more than twice, this does 'increase his power', in a sense, but also popular power - chavez has massive support and should not leave government, allowing some reformist to take over, and although the PSUV will undoubtedly support him, this is because he is at the head of the democratic class movement which they would be the grassroots power of.

Also, please do not degrade this debate by language such as 'lunatic lefty fringe' - i hardly think supporters of a president with 63% support in his own country and making headline news could be called lunatic nor fringe.

petrous
12 July 2007 at 17:34

Your article is dead on ! Bravo.

Despite what a few accolytes write here in the comments section, Anyone who visibly tries to fasten himself to seat of power, using fraud, coercion, threats and any other means legal or not can't be a democrat with good intentions. Any one who avails himself of inflammatory classist rhetoric to divide and rule is a shameless opportunist and scoundrel at best.

Chavez and his hounds vilify, blacklist and marginalize anyone who is a dissenter (Tascon's List is the most visible testament to this). Is this the new 21 century hallmark of a democrat?

He should be condemned, for wasting the nations wealth on buying votes at organizations the OEA, that can protect him with their bought and paid for votes. Billions of dollars handed out to greedy regimes with votes there ensured that the closure of a TV station would be redressed as an expiry of license issue!

The only merits the regime has is having devised new ways of cloaking tyranny so that for the longest time it would appear as a democratic regime in the eyes of the people inside and mainly outside of the country.

No Volveran
12 July 2007 at 17:42

is redistributing wealth from rich to poor 'wasting the nation's wealth'???!!! As i said before, this is a CLASS WAR - you are a fool if you think the right wing do not have lists of all the most prominent leaders of the left wing. You view democracy in a supra-class perspective, as if we can have a government with socialist policies but be nice and friendly with the rich and powerful. As they have shown in the past, these reactionaries are not to be trusted - they are the ones arrogantly manipulate the masses to install coups (i.e. dictatorships over and above the masses) - they will not accept chavez's government nor any form of redistribution of wealth.

Your response is, like the others, totally devoid of facts, arguments and actual events - a lot of hot air about 'buying votes' - but nothing real. You have also totally failed to respond to any of the comments and arguments of those you disagree with

Colonel Blimp
12 July 2007 at 17:43

The ladies in the photo seem nice.

No Volveran
12 July 2007 at 17:45

also, Chavez's failed coup of 1992, although i would criticise it as a method, did not involve the lying to and manipulation of the masses, nor the murder of innocents, and, in fact, made him a hero amonst the masses, something the 2002 plotters obviously were a million miles from, hence the fact that the masses, without organisation, despised the coup so strondly they spontaneously moved against it and toppled it.

mglesne
12 July 2007 at 19:30

Sure Chavez has a big mouth, and when he speaks for hours at a time, nearly every day, some of it is likely to be ill advised. But Chavez has called for reconciliation and unity a million times - all of which was ignored. Worse is to give credence to the notion that when Chavez called on his followers to counter-protest it was actually a veiled call to arms. This is ludacris and terrible journalism. Lets not forget it was the opposition that began the shooting - and killed more Chavez supporters - on the fateful day in April 02.

The achievements of this Government are real and not just in awakening class consciousness. They include a 150% increase in the bottom 80% of the population in just 3 years! They also include access to health care, literacy, higher education, job training, housing, vacant agricultural land, afordable meats and groceries, a say in one's workplace and local government, etc. That is why Chavez has become more popular over time, not less. The people of Venezuela know what is happening in their country more than any Western journalist. And BTW, the rich and private businesses are doing just fine.

As for RCTV, we now have reports that it is set to go nationwide on cable. It's supposedly banned news reports have been on Globovision (#1 station) since almost the day it lost its license. They have not fired one worker. But still we must read about it being "closed." As for why the courts were not an option for the treason RCTV displayed (censoring news when it was needed most, and lying blatently to justify the coup), it is because the Court showed itself to be corrupt when it ruled that in fact no military coup took place. It was all a dream apparently. If no coup took place, then RCTV could not have assisted it. Chavez could have unilaterally revoked the license then, but decided to wait 5 years for the proper procedures... acting within the law as he has always done.

mglesne
12 July 2007 at 19:32

That is a 150% increase in the INCOMES of those in the bottom 80% in 3 years. This was quoted by a head of the Supermarket employer association yesterday in El Universal... and corresponds with a recent Venezuelan-American Chamber of Commerce study (as well as the Government).

Ronsee
12 July 2007 at 19:46

Alice O'Keeffe can be excused for writing such a biased article as she is paid for filling space, but Petrous should not follow suit with such emotive retoric without offering some facts to support his opinions.

Ron

petrous
12 July 2007 at 20:27

It is good to know that anyone disagreeing with the schizoid schemes of the mad man (and his foolish groupies) is a right winger ! Far from it . The only common thread connecting those who do not like the current regime and its potentate is common sense. The one thing that a few responses here clearly lack. For example how is spreading the Bs,. around the globe (except at home) helping the poor? How is embracing a former hostage taker in Tehran helping the poor; those saps have not been able to help their own poor in more than 27 years since their so called revolution. The only reason they keep from laughing when the tropical despot visits is because they as many others are getting some free gasoline out of it. Meanwhile back home despair and repression is the order of the day!

By the way we really like all the proof Ronsee puts on the table ! We are sure the accolytes spreading the propaganda for the regime are all pious souls who never see a fat pay check.

mglesne
12 July 2007 at 21:49

The myth that Chavez goes around giving away billions in other countries is just that. The deals always get something in return... from Argentina they trade oil for cattle, from Cuba they get 15,000 doctors, from Iran they are getting paid cash. The discount, if any, is usually from cutting out the middle men and speculators and jointly building up local refining capacity. And holding meetings with another important OPEC leader is not aso unheard of. Meanwhile the US, UK and Canada go around embracing state sponsor of terror Colombia's President Uribe, who's own first cousin can now be added to the long list of Government and party members accused of assisting death squads.

molly
12 July 2007 at 22:27

the 50% increase in income of the poor equals $1 going to $1.50

Given the huge increase in oil money venezuela has I don't think that is a very good increase

aeortiz
12 July 2007 at 22:29

Picoroco, I'm sorry but please give some proof that RCTV "actively promoted a coup". All the information that has reached me suggests they aired live coverage of a demonstration during one of Chavez's speeches.

molly
12 July 2007 at 22:32

class war? man the middle class are lower working class in comparison to the uk standards. why would u want a class war? what you gonna do? steal their corollas?

I left and my income has shot up in the uk. By the way they still owe me my corolla but at least the 4 gunmen didn't shoot me so maybe they need a little more indoctrination on the merits of class war

mglesne
12 July 2007 at 22:48

Molly, last time I checked, a 150% increase in income means $1 turns into $2.50. That is, incomes have more that doubled. But i doubt you'll be convinced as even a 50% increase is apparently shabby for you. I don't know what kind of raises you get in the UK...

Aeoritz, RCTV played a key role actively censoring any news that was not according to the party line during the coup. This included information that Chavez had not resigned and that other countries were calling the coup undemocratic. They completely blacked out the millions of protesters filling downtown Caracas to demand Chavez's return. But for me their worst crime was in replaying over and over, in the critical moments, a video of a supposed Chavista sniper firing on peaceful opposition marchers below. In fact RCTV had another camera angle at the same location that clearly showed the shooter above an EMPTY street trying to ID the real snipers, who were opposition provacetuers. All documented in the doc "Revolution Will Not be Televised." The news director resigned in protest, as did many employees. This was a blackout and lies in the service of a military coup that shredded the Constitution. In the US or UK they'd be guilty of the highest crimes.

No Volveran
12 July 2007 at 23:28

In relation to Molly's comment: 'why would you want a class war? What you gonna do? steal their corollas?' - Not only is this incredible poorly expressed, unclear and confusing, but secondly, is guilty of the same subjective mode of thinking that assumes Chavez must be manufacturing the whole thing, as if he deliberately creates conflict out of nothing, as if this conflict does not have a real base in the structure of society, existing prior to and independent of Chavez himself. I never stated I WANT a class war, it has nothing to do with wanting - ideally, I would want a peaceful, class free society. But that does not exist. What does exist is class society, and there IS a class war. I was merely stating it exists, and it is the basis for this oppositional tendency in Venezuelan society, not that I want it or encourage it.

Ronald
13 July 2007 at 00:18

Chaves is the South American version of Kadaffi, a complete nutter forming a Batman and Robin duo with Morales of Bolivia. Why does Chaves need to import Cuba 'doctors' , planes load per day, from the Cuban geriatric criminal and "democrat". It will all end in tears of course as the buffoon will eventually be toppled by the Venezuelans themselves.

bayofpigs
13 July 2007 at 00:38

Subsequent to showing 'Death on the Rock' Thames Television failed to have its license renewed - allegedly lost in a secret auction. RCTV's sedition was much more serious. Why all the fuss? Simple answer: because Venezuela is a US target for regime change. They've been using similar tactics through Washington based NGOs to 'inspire' youth movements throughout Eastern Europe, just like those Venezuelan students with their speech written by a PR company. Pick a colour, give the movement a one word name and destabilise a democratically elected regime with the aid of this sort mendacious reporting.

mglesne
13 July 2007 at 00:44

Ronald, Venezuela had to import doctors from Cuba because 1) they lacked sufficient numbers to treat everyone and 2) most good ole Venezuelan doctors wouldn't be caught dead setting up shop in the 'popular' neighborhoods of any of the major cities, or impoverished rural hamlets. Cuba, with more doctors per capita than anywhere else in this hemisphere, had plenty to spare. Cuba also sends thousands of doctors to Africa, Central America, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Carribean, etc.... for strictly humanitarian reasons.

Charly
13 July 2007 at 02:20

Very accurate article. Also lots of pro and con shouting in the stadiums during the current Copa America matches.

ProgressiveCynic
13 July 2007 at 02:49

Echo@ NS has definitely sunk to a low point publishing this reactionary rubbish. A civil war would be exactly what Ms O'Keefe would like to happen not what is going to happen.

Mark Espejo
13 July 2007 at 04:41

You need to tell your reporter to report responsibly. For example, "Since May, when the government shut down RCTV", this is false and irresponsible. RCTV is still broadcasting. This article is very one-sided, you should have higher standards.

Ergo
13 July 2007 at 07:27

There is not much that can be added to the views of no volveran with whom I completely agree. But it is quite hilarious that someone should point out in relief the limited power of George W. Bush, who has time to leave his poisonous spoor on yet more countries and parts of the world. There have been two Bushes so far within 20 years, and it appears there may be two Clintons. This speaks either of a fortuitous concentration of superior DNA, or a democratic deficit. You choose. As for restrictions on freedom of the press, they may seem more subtle in the US and Europe (to idiots) but are no less real. Bush bypassed the US congress in 2002 and wrested the power to declare war on Iraq, and any other country of his choosing, for himself alone. And, keeping these facts in mind, calling Chavez a dictator when he was ousted in 2002 by a US directed coup is indicative of the extent to which symbols and form have replaced meaning and content.

jakeMilton
13 July 2007 at 07:57

Ms. O'Keefe may be right about Chavez. But my question is : will another Pinochet bring human rights & press freedom to Venezuela? The Americans are visibly hiring the so called left journalists to start a media frenzy before its military adventure.

Picoroco
13 July 2007 at 08:27

Aeortiz, Mglesne has already responded to your request for sources showing RCTVs complicity in the 2002 coup. But if you are interested in watching the relevant excerpt from 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised', you can do so here. Andres Izarra, who is interviewed on the programme, was the News Manager at RCTV during the coup. As Mglesne rightly points out he resigned from the organisation as a result.

Picoroco
13 July 2007 at 08:29

Sorry, I thought this site would accept a hyperlink. The relevant URL is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QTRlPKQWbI

subprimate
13 July 2007 at 10:41

It's very difficult when you are outside a country to appreciate what is going on within it. I went back to Venezuela in 2006 after a ten year absence. Of course, the middle class, lifestyle unchanged, were still mainly very anti-Chavez, and the working class were mainly pro. Caracas was split down the middle into east (anti) and west (pro). But the point was that Chavez had not only implemented real social programmes that had begin to transform the lives of millions, he was also a supreme educator. He would spend an hour on TV going through a country report from an international agency to explain in detail what was going on in the national accounts. I spoke to ordinary people who could clearly explain the details of the national transport plan, the machinations of the opposition and the workings of imperialism etc - and they weren't afraid to say it. The working class in Venezuela have been armed with knowledge - this is a kind of democracy that may be a million miles from what we know in Britain: lies, spin and privileges for special interests (ie billionaire, the City). I hear crime in Ven is still rampant, which is sad, and the police are still corrupt (I experienced it). But this article appears to have a political agenda- and I ask what an alleged social democratic magazine is doing publishing something like this for?

Robert Powell
13 July 2007 at 11:19

This article really does read like it was written by a smug undergraduate on a below par student journal.

notwelcome
13 July 2007 at 15:29

My experience of travelling in Venezuela was really negative - people were really brash and rude. I was very disappointed. I wondered if it was because I'm a US citizen and the extreme messages that come out of Chavez's mouth - I say that as someone who loathes Bush and is really a liberal Democrat. Personally I thought this was a really interesting article and I wondered if Alice had been made to feel unwelcome in any way? Surely if you have divides you should work to heal them?

No Volveran
13 July 2007 at 15:49

i suspect the reason for the crime in Venezuela at the moment is the instabitilty of a society rocked by class war - when a country undergoes revolutionary awakening but the control of the working class has not been established, there is a kinda situation of dual power, and this undermines traditional authority whilst the working class is still not yet able to put its foot down and transform society

RedDaybreak
13 July 2007 at 16:16

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, eh No Volvoman?

Andy Bain
13 July 2007 at 17:34

Why is it that at the crucial points where the capitalist world order with all its horrors is threatened the 'liberal' media is often the first to have a go at the challengers.

If you look closely and honestly at progress in Venezuela you will see that the plight of the poor is being reversed (is that so scarey?) and a vital peoples' democracy is mushrooming.

Why not send a reporter over there?

TRex
13 July 2007 at 17:52

O'Keefe wrote a good article that has brought all the slamanders out from under their rocks. Venezuelans have a dictator. That is undeniable. He rules by decree. He does what many people in this commentary approve of as good things. It is indeed good to distribute wealth more equitably. But Hugo is also an immensely self-indulgent man, whose needless provocations on the international stage are of no benefit to anyone. He is a militarist, who is determined to arm himself to the hilt. His language of the immanent attack of the US is straight out of George Orwell's 1984. HIs politics of equality is bizarrely driven by a politics of fear. He is not Bolivarian at all; he is Orwellian.

Ergo
13 July 2007 at 19:08

TRex seems to be claiming that there is absolutely no threat to Venezuela and Chavez. Well just a cursory review of US "activities" in Central and South America over the past fifty years or so should disabuse anyone of the idea that Chavez is paranoid, before even considering Bush's inflammatory language.

I'd be concerned; paranoia after all is

a state of being separated from reality and not being afraid or concerned under the circumstances fills the bill. Who attacked a country claiming WMD existed even though every intelligence agency on land,

sea, air and space could not back that claim. Chavez? So who is paranoid?

bayofpigs
13 July 2007 at 20:25

I wonder if TRex knows that the rule by decree is a type of power-transfer allowed under the Venezuelan constitution of 1999, that expressly permits the President to issue executive orders. The constitution continues to guide the country's overall legal framework so none of the decrees can supercede constitutional law.

This enabling law is not new as Venezuela's previous constitution allowed for similar power shifts to the executive and past presidents used it through the 70's, 80's and 90's. In 1974 for example, Congress gave President Carlos Andres Perez the right to "rule by decree" on a number of economic matters and he passed a whole bunch of new regulations - instituting a minimum wage increase, freezing market prices of necessary goods etc. etc. Perez was a close ally of the US so it was fine and dandy with Washington.

Stated Newman
13 July 2007 at 22:00

A lot has already been said here so I'll try and keep this brief.

First, for a really balanced and informative article about the RCTV issue I recommend;

Gregory Wilpert's

RCTV and Freedom of Speech in Venezuela

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2059

As for Alice O'Keefe's article it is a shame from the NS. I don't want to assume any particular agenda on her part but the article is largely one-sided. The sources imply that she was on a flying-visit and couldn't sort any interviews with senior Chavista's at short notice.

As a journalist who has worked and lived in Venezuela recently I know opposition activists often pose as being neutral and can be easy to misidentify. For journalists who are making brief visits and who are less familiar with the overall situation, as Alice O'Keefe appears to have been, this can be an even easier mistake to make.

Besides the factual errors already highlighted and the one sided nature of her piece Alice O'Keefe's highlighting of the need for a "third force" in Venezuela is reminiscent of Pyle's viewpoint in Graham Greene's - The Quiet American. While idealistic and well-intended the insistence on the need for a "third force" despite the reality of the Venezuelan situation is at best naive and at worst very dangerous. This is due to the proven danger of fanatical anti-democratic forces inside Venezuela and proven US subversion/aggression from abroad.

There are many legitimate criticisms to be made of Chavez and the Venezuelan situation but this article, in tone, emphasis and content, misses the mark.

Alex Holland

No Volveran
14 July 2007 at 00:51

no one seems to mention in relation to the 'Ruling by decree' that Chavez's orders are revocable (and his entire Presidency recallable) by popular vote, through the constitution. No one seems to mention that what he is carrying out with this rule is simply what he was voted in on, so it is highly democratic, indeed more so than going through merely representative parliament - Venezuelans have directly elected an individual on a programme, now he is carrying it out.

stanlee
14 July 2007 at 10:48

I just want to see the other side of the Venezuelan developments. Though, a section of the world media is waging a not-so-strange battle against a president who appears to be determined in carrying out his pro poor policies, President Chavez still remains the most popular politician in the country. Why? The poor living in the shanty towns of this South American country are mere 'fools' to support a 'tyrant'?

bayofpigs
14 July 2007 at 14:14

I would suggest reading about El Caracazo if you're looking for the roots of Chávez's popularity with the Venezuelan people.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/iachr/C/58-ing.html

would be a good starting point.

The criminal dictator Pérez is living happily in Miami, along with all the other Latin American mobsters, where the US government allows him to openly call for the assassination of Chávez.

gwynaled
15 July 2007 at 02:25

Ms O´keefe´s article was what one expects of a smug middle class british wannabee on a quick visit to the latest trendy happening, which she only half understood. The sad thing is not what the article says about Hugo Chavez but that it was written for a so called progressive current affairs magazine.

dutubahu
15 July 2007 at 10:40

get your facts o'keeffe

marie2trees
15 July 2007 at 13:27

In the editors introduction to the website - "I trust you will be impressed by the quality of the content on offer and by its intelligence and edge"

As regards the article on Chavez you have to be seriously joking. As somebody said, obviously written by a middle class wimp who didn't speak to anyone from the barrios. But then the editor is an ex public schoolboy so can't expect him to notice how one-sided it was. Somebody who "doesn't even own their own house" is obviously a good representative of the dispossessed in Venezuela.

I'm from the Manchester working class and when I went there it seemed no worse than Moss Side or Salford. The women in the barrios are so like the women I grew up with -more power to their elbows. Chavez recognises it is through them and the programmes they are helping implement in the barrios that will help the poor and he thankfully listens to them more than the types interviewed by your reporter.

The opposition should remember that the poor are more numerous and if they choose to go out and vote for the person who is helping them, then that is democracy in action. They should get over it and stop fermenting all the divisiveness they keep accusing Chavez of - though they are proving very adept at "controlling" inept western reporters.

tc
15 July 2007 at 16:59

Class politics across South America are race politics. The poor have had NO chance across the region and they are marked by their badge of colour. In Colombia class struggle is real war... Venezuela's masses will never gain the British working class post war benefits that we take do for granted without fighting for them. They have nothing else but Chavez to lead them out of centuries of oppression. Why can't the NS not see that?

long spin

Carlos
15 July 2007 at 18:52

Venezuela is advancing to a full national development with opportunities for all. The rich that have enjoyed the oligarquical democracy pro USA i snow defeated. The reaons why of this: The poor 80% of the population is sick and tired of lies and explotation. The oil is now serving the nation and not BP,EXXON,CHEVORN etc,. that is the difference...Latin America is different now...colonialism is dying a slow death and so is the USA EMPIRE

Martin O'Neill
16 July 2007 at 12:12

Alicia O'Keeffe's article on Hugo Chavez fell lamentably below the standards of reporting that one would hope to expect from the New Statesman. It's analysis of the political situation in Venezuela was, at best, superficial, and it did little more than parrot the standard criticisms of Chavez that emanate from the U.S. right.

NS readers expect much higher standards of political analysis than this. Moreover, we should be able to hope for more than the dull, reactionary politics of this article. I hope that future NS reportage from South America will be of a much higher standard. (For decent NS coverage of South America, I recall a number of excellent pieces by Simon Hooper.)

Calvin Tucker
16 July 2007 at 18:27

O'Keeffe's claim that the protesting students are representative of Venezuela's student population is factually incorrect.

Last month student representives from both the pro and anti Chavez camps were invited to address the National Assembly. Each student was allowed to speak uninterupted for as long as they wished.

The debate was screened live to the nation on all TV channels.

So much for O'Keefe's fantasies about a lack of freedom of expression!

Has Cindy Sheenan or Brian Haw been invited by the Congress or House of Commons to put their case uncensored to the entire nation?

Now here's the interesting thing. After the first opposition student spoke, all the other opposition students walked out, thereby missing out on their right to free speech... which had been given to them by none other than this "tyranical" Venezuelan Government that O'Keefe tries to terrify us with.

But the drama didn't end there. One of the opposition students had accidentally left behind his speakers notes. A pro-Chavez student read the notes and discovered that they had not been written by the opposition student, but by a professional opposition advertising agency!

So much for O'Keefe's protestations that the opposition students are not part of the right wing opposition and are only about promoting "the idea of "national reconciliation".

O'Keefe parrots the disinformation about the non-renewal of RCTV's public broadcast licence. RCTV directly participated in a coup which kidnapped the elected president, abolished all elected institutions, and installed a tyranical dictatorship which DID close down TV stations and shoot civilians in the street. The morning after the coup, the coup generals thanked RCTV for their support, live on air.

Do British broadcasting laws allow Channel 4 or ITV to conspire with army generals to overthrow the Brown Government?

Perhaps O'Keefe could take some out from writing fiction to answer that question.

If anyone is interested in reading fact-based analysis of Venezuela, I would recommend the excellent www.venezuelanalysis.com

I have also written widely on Venezuela, some of which is published on my Guardian CiF column and on the website I co-edit.

Calvin Tucker

Co-editor: www.21stcenturysocialism.com

Guardian column: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/calvin_tucker/

Stiles
16 July 2007 at 18:49

Glad that most of the comments here are taking O'Keefe to task. Good post by Calvin Tucker by the way about the students. Very disappointing that The New Statesman has joined in with the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal etc in demonising Chavez who was reelected with 63% of the vote just last December.

I would heartily recommend John Pilger's new film "The War on Democracy" that includes good stuff on Venezuela.

Nerys
16 July 2007 at 19:26

I was so appalled at the standard of this article that I had to go to the great effort of registering in order to post a comment. The talents of Ms O Keefe and her 'researchers' are best focused on what they know best - irrelevant reviews of the London arts scene - a quick google (oh please do!!) reveals that these 3 people were the least best placed to ever write anything about Venezuela, let alone politics. Kampfer should be ashamed, he has done a terrible disservice to the New Statesman, which is already sliding - see coverage by the lamentably poor Nigel Fountain (yet another anti Chavista whose emotional engagement with those of a Venezuelan origin skews their objectivity). Meaningful debate does not come from publishing ill informed rubbish and waiting for the protests to come in. The research and writing on this would not even pass a SAT test for 9 year olds. Utter trype and nonensense, get back to Hoxton and look at art work, the three of you certainly do not have the qualifications for political analysis.

CocoLoco
17 July 2007 at 01:43

Have any of you ever lived in Venezuela ? I don't think so, as what is written in the article very nicely describes what is going on there.... just reality of daily live. If you want to know what the poor in the barrios are thinking, have a look at their web site - if you can read spanish .... http://radardelosbarrios.blogspot.com

mat_ador84
17 July 2007 at 06:58

There is no doubt that there is something happening among the poor of Caracas, and that is a good thing. They are learning to demand what would otherwise never be offered, and are organising themselves independently in the interest of making sure these demands are met. However, as No Volverán correctly observed, Chavez is not actually an integral part of this movement. Rather he is exploiting it for his own personal and political agenda.

Chavez could transform Venezuela without forming alliances with Islamic Fundamentalists and anachronistic post-Soviet despots and without speaking in apocalyptic terms about US influence, (which in the long-term only make US interference more likely.) Of course it's important that American hegemony in the region is challenged. However, the truth is that the US has never had so little interest in Latin America, being bogged down in its Middle Eastern blunders, and the challenge could be made quietly and efficiently.

I draw your attention to Brazil, where poverty was reduced by 20% between 2002 and 2006 (accornding to the Fundacao Getulio Vargas), under the Presidency of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva (A trade-unionist forged in the opposition movement to the military dictatorship, as opposed to a military officer with a failed coup on his CV). Unlike Venezuela, which is totally dependent on its oil revenues and is punching well above its weight geopolitically, Brazil could realistically in the long term become a political and economic power, without resorting to chasing foreign demons, the eternal refuge of the scoundrel.

The truth is that what interests Chavez is power and international influence and he is using the poor of Venezuela as a means of maintaining the former in order to pursue the latter. The sinister opposition and America's pathetic (and hardly unprecedented) support for its coup attempt to an extent justify Chavez's actions and rhetoric, but only in the same way that September 11th helped the Bush administration pursue its opportunistic agenda. If Chavez loved his people as much as he claims to, he would focus on helping them improve their neighbourhoods, schools and hospitals and forget the posturing and empty rhetoric which only serve to indulge his over-inflated ego.

Calvin Tucker
17 July 2007 at 15:21

Who do you think you are kidding, CoCoLoco?

Only in the mind of an opposition fanatic could the website he linked to be described as "the website of the poor of the barrios". It is, as CoCoLoco knows full well, an anti-Chavez disinformation website that is as representative of the Venezuelan poor as the Count Dracula is of vegetarians.

The US Government is spending millions of dollars on disinformation of this sort - this money is channeled through NED and USAID and given to what they call "civil society" groups, which is a by-word for the upper and middle class opposition.

The facts are that 80% - 90% of the working class and poor of the barrios consistently vote for Chavez. Chavez's national approval rating according to the latest DATOS poll is over 70%, and Chavez won the last election with 63% of the vote.

*******************************************************

mat_ador84 is equally misinformed. The idea that Chavez is "not actually an integral part of this movement" rivals CoCoLoco's post for the prize for the silliest comment of the week.

The problem in Venezuela is precisely the opposite. It is Chavez alone who can put millions of people on the streets, and it is Chavez to whom the majority of Venezuelans look to for leadership.

The whole point of the new 6 million strong united socialist party (PSUV), is to create a political infrastructure that is self sustaining, participatory, and can strong enough to withstand an assassination or unexpected exit of Chavez from the presidency. Likewise the development of the communal councils will decentralise decision making to the grass roots, and involve millions of ordinary Venezuelans.

ALL of these developments in popular democracy have been spearheaded by Hugo Chavez, who has spoken frequently about the over-reliance of the Revolution on his personality.

mat_ador84 also appears to know next to nothing about the extent of US attempts to undermine and destroy Venezuelan democracy. In 2002 they gave the green light to the military coup, and then immediately recognised the short lived dictatorship. The Venezuelan opposition is funded by the US Government. There is also a corporate media disinformation campaign against Venezuela, which portrays Chavez as a dictator and an enemy of free speech (to their shame, the New Statesman appears to have joined in).

The idea that the very real threat posed by the US to Venezuela is in some way comparable with the Bush's largely fictitious 'War on Terror' is so superficial is hardy merits a response. Bush represents a corporate elite of billionaires, whereas Chavez represents the working class, the poor and the disenfranchised. mat_ador84 might not be able to see the difference, but Venezuelans can.

mat_ador84 suggests that Chavez should be "focusing on helping them [Venezuelans] to improve their neighbourhoods, schools and hospitals."

If mat had bothered to learn even the most basic facts about the Chavez era, he would know that that is precisely what Chavez is doing. A free health service has been rolled out across the country, illiteracy has been wiped out, a million more kids attend school, government backed supermarkets selling half price food have opened in every barrio, the minimum wage has risen enormously, unemployment is down, and even the opposition survey firms admit that real income for the poorest 60% of Venezuelans have more than doubled under Chavez.

That's why Chavez has a 70% approval rating, and why he has won every election and referendum since 1998 with massive majorities. It ain't rocket science.

CocoLoco
17 July 2007 at 15:55

Calvin Tucker, why dont you say it straight out: You love Cuba and want Venezuela going the same way. That the people of the country (all of them ! not just one group) are the loosers is of no concern to you .... contrary to me, people come first not ideologies, and what you are doing is nothing than repeating state propaganda without even thinking. What is anybody gaining if the salaries raise is lower than the inflation ?

Calvin Tucker
17 July 2007 at 17:22

CocoLoco

Salaries for the poorest 60% have doubled in REAL terms, i.e. after inflation has been deducted. That's what I said in my post. That's what the INE statistical institute says. That's what the even the opposition-owned survery firms say.

The people of your country have spoken in ten elections and referenda, and they have rejected everything that you and the opposition stand for.

Chavez is not being judged on empty promises. He has been in power for 8 years, so he is being judged on his track record.

Two thirds of the population you ludicrously claim to speak for, like his track record on income growth, health, housing and education.

That's why they keep voting for him.

Why can't you respect that?

CocoLoco
17 July 2007 at 21:11

Calvin Tucker, voting in a democracy is secret, so no problem to vote for an opposition candidate or in a referendum to be for the recall vote , in Venezuela you end up on a list (Tascon list p.ex. ) and you loose your job, you can not find a new one as all companies working in any way for the government have to prove that they have nobody on those lists on their pay roll.

The country has 24 Million people , about 50% of the population is under 18 years old (figures from OAS, UN ) ... but on the election list are 18.5 Million people. If that would be the case in your country, would you believe the elections are regular ?

By the way, I am not from Venezuela, just a neighbour

bayofpigs
17 July 2007 at 23:27

CocoLoco, if you want us to believe your propaganda I suggest you get your figures right. The CIA currently gives the population of Venezuela as 26,023,528. Other sources state that citizens available for military service (i.e. aged 18-49) number 12,393,634. The age at which one can vote in Venezuela is 18. The RE (electoral register) for Venezuela at the end of 2005 was about 14 million, not the 18.5 million you claim. I note that you say that your figures are from OAS and UN, presumably to give them some credence. The RE was thoroughly audited in late 2005 by CAPEL (Center for Electoral Promotion and Assistance) based in Costa Rica and they found that it was "largely accurate and was completely appropriate to serve as the basis for elections".

mglesne
17 July 2007 at 23:30

Loco, this "Tascon list' that the opposition loves to scare foreigners is a non issue. It has been buried and anyone who thinks they were discriminated against can take their case to court (some have). the list did not dervice from the Government or secret election results. It derived from those who chose to sign a recall referendum that the opposition then falsified (adding names). One misguided legislator then decided to post the list so the public could check to see if their names were added erroneously. It was soon taken offline and told to be buried, at the orders of Mr Chavez.

The election roll problems are not uniqu to Venezuela and are being sorted out by a non-partisan team, which even Sumate is involved. Serious election observers have said the results of all elections were clean. They all tracked with what polls were saying beforehand - and today.

CocoLoco
18 July 2007 at 01:57

To make one thing clear, I am just a normal midel age house wife from a neighbouring counry of Venezuela, and as I have some language knowledge I tried a few left discussions groups in Europe. Human Rights etc are also in the head lines of the New Statesman.

You are all very nicely in line with your collogues in Germany and France. I have learned in the last days one thing for sure: If you are left, you stop thinking for yourself, you repeat propaganda as if it is the bible in a catholic church. Somebody calls himself left and that is enough to follow like a bunch of sheeps. Every opposition is automatically paid by the US. One does not like Chavez so automatically one loves Bush - but the enemy of your enemy is not automatically your friend. Any politician who is polorizing his truth, who is trying to make enemies out of different groups of the population has no respect for democracy and human rights.... and a left authotharian regime is as bad as one on the right side of the spectrum.

The most stupid comment is the denying of the existenance of the Tascon List .... I guess you deny also that Chavez dismissed 20.000 workers - and most of them were just workers ! just because they joined the strike .... in your country you would be the first one to fight for the right to strike ! You should live in a country like Cuba or Venezuela .... but I guess you would all live well and join the rojo rojito movement and get richer and richer on the back of the really poor !

StopsAtGreen
18 July 2007 at 09:57

If so basic a fact as the renewal of the RCTV license is wrong, I have grave doubts over the rest of this article.

Nerys
18 July 2007 at 10:34

'RCTV was predominantly an entertainment channel' -

spot on!

and Peter Sutcliffe was predominantly a truck driver

Adolf Hitler was predominantly an artist

Is Alice still in Wonderland?

No Volveran
18 July 2007 at 12:00

Coco Loco what you fail to do is ever mention any real facts, anything verifiable, or any argument, you simply repeat lines of propaganda and popular prejudice (that all left regimes must be authoritarian, that all 'lefties' are loonies who automatically accuse the right wing of being funded by the US). What you fail to do is to respond to the facts and arguments of the 'lefties' - hence every claim the opposition is financed by the US gov. has been backed up by facts, rather than empty phrase mongering, which you seem to enjoy - all such claims and facts have not been seriously challenged by you.

bayofpigs
18 July 2007 at 12:09

CocoLoco the middle paragraph of your last comment was a sweeping ad hominem. Furthermore mglesne did not deny the existenance (sic) of the Tascon List, just doubted the use to which you claim it was put. Perhaps I should explain for people not in the know, that it was the list of people who allegedly signed up to have Chávez recalled. Tascon naïvely put the list on his website so that people who hadn't signed could see that they had been misrepresented. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for a recall under the Venezuelan constitution don't you need 20% of the electorate to sign. In this case they collected 2.4 million signatures, so 2.4 million must have been at least one fifth of the electorate in 2004. Further evidence that the 18.5 million you claim as "on the election list" is a tad exaggerated.

CocoLoco
18 July 2007 at 13:38

The Tascon list is still in use, just taken off the web site - it was naive to put it on a web site, but certainly not naive but with purpose to establish a list like that. As you would know, some of the internationl oil companies left the Orinoco belt in the last weeks and PdVSA took over - but not the workers. More than 1000 men were refused because they are on the Tascon list ! We talk workers here not management !

You should start reading not just the government web sites but perhaps a news paper Tal Cual from Theodore Petkoff - ex-guerilla, communist .... but a democrat , and because he is a democrat he is part of the opposition http://www.talcualdigital.com/

With just taking your information from the government source you really think you are informed about what is going on in Venezuela ?

I never wrote that 18,5 million are on the Tascon list, the opposition who signed is on it.

The last election in 2006 CNE claimed to have 18.5 million on the election list.

bayofpigs
18 July 2007 at 14:20

CocoLoco you clearly either didn't read or understand my comment. I was pointing out, as in a previous comment that your claim that there were 18.5 million on the RE was fallacious. I stated that the number of signatures needed for the recall election was further evidence that your figure and therefore the only fact you have given us in several posts isn't a fact at all.

PonyJony
18 July 2007 at 15:07

My grandfather has been trying to get the government to pay his retirement money for years. When he finally gave up on the regular procedures and hired a Chavista to do the job, the chavista told him the case had been buried because he was on the Tascon list. In six days my grandfather got his retirement money, less 40% of commision for the chavista.

CocoLoco
18 July 2007 at 15:12

The figures have changed quite a lot since the referendum, the figure I gave is from 2006 - I don't remember the figures from the referendum, I only rember there was a big change - and there were lots of discussions about the big amount of new voters.

PonyJony
18 July 2007 at 15:13

You brits should do what Alice O'Keefe, leave the comfort of your homes and head to Venezuela. Chavez is a gangster, and his government is run mafia style.

Just look at this video: http://www.noticias24.com/actualidad/?p=6392

In it, Juan Barreto, the Major of Caracas, gets on a first fight with a random citizen, when he found himself booed in a Football stadium. At night he went to the Government TV, and on Prime Time threatened to punch the guy in the face again.

If you want to try to understand Venezuela you should forget about Marx and start reading about Al Capone. Our Major threaten us with punching our faces, not with Gulags or any socialist rethoric, pure old school violence.

PonyJony
18 July 2007 at 15:20

And please notice the sponge bob square pants T-shirt the Major wears when he threatens the citizen on Government TV. Together with his Cartier http://www.noticias24.com/actualidad/?p=6410 the perfect Venezuelan revolutionary attire.

Calvin Tucker
18 July 2007 at 15:25

Once again, CocoLoco has simply invented the "facts" to support the opposition's disinformation campaign.

The PRECISE number of registered voters at the time of the December 2006 election was 15,921,937.

The figures are published on the CNE (electoral authority) website here: http://www.cne.gov.ve/noticiaDetallada.php?id=4055

Calvin Tucker
18 July 2007 at 16:01

I can also correct CocoLoco on income growth during the Chavez presidency.

The precise figure for the rise in incomes of the poorest 58% of Venezuelans (social class E) is provided here by that well known commie firm AC Neilsen. ;-)

They show the REAL income of social class E going up 130%.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums...wars/ income.jpg

PonyJony
18 July 2007 at 16:10

Don't be ridiculous Calvin Tucker. When Chavez took power the prices of oil were 8 bucks a barrel. It's now over 60$. We sell around 2 million barrels a day. There's enough money comming in the country to erradicate poverty in a year. Instead, our crime rate has tripple because it is the most effective way to freeze society, to make sure the poor remain poor (and hoping for the saviour) and the rich get richer than ever, which is the case in Venezuela.

If you are in doubt, ask Gustavo Cisneros (Fortune 100 number 17). He is now doing business in Venezuela in a way he's never been able to before. There's absolutely nothing socialist about the Chavista Government. Just know that. If you like socialism, Chavez is the last guy you should admire. He is an Oil man, a gangster, just like George Bush, who is as close to Cisneros as Chavez, and serves as the link between these two incredibly succesful Oil men.

Calvin Tucker
18 July 2007 at 16:26

So there you have it, folks. The main article was riddled with so many factual innacuracies and unsubstantiated allegations, that Pinocchio himself must have blushed.

The comments from the anti-Chavez gang, if anything, display an even greater contempt of the facts. Their case is so weak that they have resorted to inventing the evidence, from electoral fraud to income growth to the size of the electoral register.

The only hard fact posted is the inconclusive video evidence of a Chavista mayor being involved in a scuffle at a football match with an opposition supporter. If that's the best evidence of "dictatorship" they can come up with, I think even Alice O'Keffee can sleep easy in her bed tonight.

Here's a video of one of our very own British "dictators", the deputy Prime Mininister no less, throwing a well aimed punch at a pro-hunt demonstrator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRQDnGTcc4A

Human Rights Watch have been informed.

Calvin Tucker
18 July 2007 at 17:02

PonyJony

What IS ridiculous is to deny the established facts in pursuit of your agenda.

The figures on income growth come not from me, but from AC Neilsen and DATOS, sources which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as pro-Chavez.

The figures show that real incomes for the poorest 58% of Venezuelans have more than doubled, whilst incomes for the rest have fallen slightly in real terms.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/oilwars/income.jpg

The figures from the INE statistical institute also show the same pattern, as do the figures from the opposition owned Datanalysis survey firm.

If you want to know one of the reasons why oil prices have risen to historically high levels, you might wish to look at Chavez's hawkish policies within OPEC which have restricted production in order to raise prices. This policy was opposed by the opposition, which opposes everything Chavez does on the principle that it's Chavez doing it.

However, Chavez is the elected president, so he gets to decide, not this inept and unelectable opposition. And he has decided, with the support of most Venezuelans, that the proceeds from the oil bonanza he is partly responsible for, should be spent on raising the living standards of those who live in dire poverty. And frankly, short of winning an election (which the opposition is not very good at), there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

Your faux concern that rich businessmen are still investing in Venezuela (Hugo, you sell out!) provided a moment of high comedy in your otherwise dire postings.

PonyJony
18 July 2007 at 17:16

Calvin, you are forget that 1 dollar was 500 Bs when Chavez took power. Right now 1 dollar is 4000 Bs. That's why the income is higher, because the money is weaker, you Euro idiot. Come to Venezuela, see for yourself, quit your burgeouise comfort and come, you'll be more furiously against Chavez and Cisneros than any of us.

PonyJony
18 July 2007 at 17:19

and by the way, Oil prices are high because of the war in Iraq, idiot.

Calvin Tucker
18 July 2007 at 17:45

PonyJony

Please familiarise yourself the term "real income growth", which is what the survey firms are talking about, and then come back to me with a thought-out rebuttal.

Oil prices are determined by a number of factors. One of those factors is OPEC oil quotas, which Chavez has played a key role in setting since he was elected in 1999.

In the meantime, lay off the personal attacks. They only demean you and weaken your argument.

Cheers

Calvin

PonyJony
18 July 2007 at 18:02

You have to understand it becomes personal when a British dude is discussing my home. Chavez is no abstract poetic leader for me, no inspiration to fight against Blair or Bush, Chavez is the dude who has me living in fear. None of this can stop becoming personal, because I don't discuss your home with others online, because your country is yours, and my country is mine, and you've evidently never even visited it. So unless you move to Caracas and try to understand what it means to live under a Gangster Government, you have no right to display statistics or any other crap.

Why don't you talk about the 18 thousand violent deaths we had in Venezuela last year? Why don't you face the fact that more people died violenty in Venezuela in 2006 than in Iraq? I don't see you discussing that, because Chavez serves your agenda to create a socialist movement in the UK. But what you need to understand is that Venezuelans are human beings, not lab rats for the white british supremacist to study. It's disgusting to see you praise Chavez when you can go out and walk your neighborhood at night without fear, when you can vote for whomever you like and you know Blair won't last forever (ups, he is not in charge anymore, what a trip, I remember when we use to change Presidents in Venezuela).

Keep your ignorant racist confused agenda to yourself. Venezuela is living in fear, and a big part of it is thanks to ignorants like you, who buy on Chavez's lies.

AliceOK
18 July 2007 at 18:02

Thanks for your comments, both positive and negative (you have certainly lived up to the blogosphere's reputation for bolshiness!). A few points have been raised that I would like to respond to, both to clarify some factual points and to counter some of the qualitative criticisms which have been made.

Firstly, the issue of the government "shutting down" RCTV. Some of you have pointed out that the government chose not to renew RCTV's licence. The effect of this was that when I was in Venezuela RCTV was completely off-air. Since Monday 16th June this has changed slightly, as the channel has been broadcasting to a limited audience on cable and satellite. Nevertheless, the majority of Venezuelans - 70% of whom opposed the decision not to renew the licence - still do not have access to it.

The government clearly had some valid reasons for its decision. RCTV's support for the 2002 coup was indefensible (although other channels which did the same but subsequently agreed to tone down their criticisms, such as Venevision, have not met the same fate). As I said in the piece, the aim of creating a channel to represent "the real Venezuela" is laudable. The problem is that, as I observed, TVes is also being used for less positive purposes, for example screening "news" programmes which unquestioningly promote a "complete union between the population and the armed forces". I imagine that all of you (or at least most - there are a few loose cannons out there!) would agree that this kind of propaganda is not in the interests of any section of society.

On the qualitative criticisms: this piece was deliberately not a historical analysis of Venezuelan politics, or a ring-around of either Chavistas or oppositionist politicians. It was a report that tried to communicate how it feels to be in Caracas now. I talked to ordinary people, most of whom had very mixed feelings about the government. I heard (and quoted) many positive things about what has happened to Venezuela under Chavez, but many, many people also have serious - and in my opinion valid - concerns. It is deeply counterproductive to simply ignore them or write them off as "Imperialists". They are Venezuelans, who have a better knowledge of life in their country than most of you, or indeed me. I think we should listen to them.

Some of you seem to be interested in Venezuela because it represents a "big idea", which you desperately want to see proved right. I am interested in the opinions and experiences of those who live with the reality of the Chavez regime day to day. What I saw and heard led me to the conclusion that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to raise the political temperature (the heat of which is evident on this page). Venezuela needs a leader with the maturity to calm the situation down and work with all sections of its deeply divided society. I am not convinced that Chavez will be capable of that - but let's hope he proves me wrong.

PonyJony
18 July 2007 at 18:18

Miss O'Keeffe, the only reason Venevision was not shut down, even though it did the same as RCTV, is because Venevision belongs to Gustavo Cisneros, the leading businesman who made the deal between Chavez and the traditional oligharchy.

I thank you for coming to Venezuela to find out the truth for yourself. Many europeans love the "big idea" Chavez represent, just like we all did when we met him ten years ago. But as you know, none of the big idea has translated into reality. It is only rethoric, never true solutions, only pieces of hope to remain popular.

Stiles
18 July 2007 at 19:06

I would be a bit more generous with Alice and just put her down as a fence-sitting liberal but her headline calls Chavez a tyrant, her article says that he is power-crazed, and on top of that previously in New Statesman she wrote another very tendentious article on Venezuela called "The Chavista War on the Cinema" which was also riddled with inaccuracies and alarmism.

As to her point about Chavez raising the temperature, didn't he calm things down after the coup? His message to the people was in fact concilliatory, calling for no revenge measures. You can see that in the film "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised".

Stiles
18 July 2007 at 19:11

By the way, all praise to John Pilger who also writes here. He has just done a great film "The War on Democracy" that I think will be on the TV later this year. It includes reports from Venezuela, Bolivia and Chile. In the archive here there is a report from him just a month before the 2002 coup "Chavez should be supported by all democrats. Chile must not happen again."

See http://www.newstatesman.com/200203110011

Calvin Tucker
18 July 2007 at 19:18

Alice O'Keeffe

Frankly, I thought that was an extremely lame and defensive response. I am going to blunt here, so please fasten your seatbelt.

Your piece contained numerous factual inaccuracies and unsubstantiated allegations, and your grasp of Venezuelan politics and society comes across as superficial at best.

The piece is headlined "From hero to tyrant", and yet you provided no evidence whatsoever for your claims that Chavez is a tyrant, other than to mislead your readers with factually incorrect information about the non-renewal of RCTV's public broadcast licence.

Incidentally, RCTV went a lot further than merely supporting the coup (although that alone is good grounds for non-renewal). They actively participated in the coup, co-ordinating events with the army generals. This can all be seen on RCTV's own broadcast footage, if you care to watch it.

RCTV's standards of journalism would shame even Rupert Murdoch's 'Sun' newspaper. An example of their "journalism" can be seen here, where they have photo-shopped a picture of a car lot of new vehicles in California, USA, and superimposed a sign designating it as a government military base. This was presented to the viewers as conclusive evidence of Chavista corruption.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmjX7_uvT1Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2...

You say in the first paragraph of your piece that "The divisive policies of "El Presidente" are turning friends into enemies" and go on to suggest that "we should listen to them [Venezuelans]."

Indeed you should!

Yet for some reason you don’t follow your own advice. You appear to be oblivious of the fact that Venezuelans are already listened to through the ballot box, the communal councils and other forms of developing participatory democracy. The latest DATOS opinion poll puts Chavez's approval rating at 71% (8% HIGHER than his vote at the last election), which makes a mockery of your claims that his "friends are deserting him because of his divisive policies."

It is this sort of lazy journalism which has rightly caused you to be lambasted here on the comments section. How this sorry attempt of an article got past your editor is beyond me.

The only original thought in the piece was your hopelessly naive plea: why can't we all just get along?

Alice, Venezuela suffers from huge disparities in wealth and income. The majority have been excluded from the political system for decades, and shot at in the streets if they protested, for example during the 1989 Caracazo. If you knew the first thing about Latin America, you would know that the privileged elites (and their friends in Washington) do not give up power without a fight - hence the 2002 coup and the abolition of all elected institutions.

If you want to plead with anyone, I suggest that you plead with the opposition (and let us not forget that George Bush is also part of this opposition) to recognise the democratic right of the two thirds of Venezuelans who have rejected the injustices of the past and want to build an inclusive Venezuela based on constitutionality and equality. Chavez has urged dialogue in the past, but he is not willing to be endlessly blackmailed by this corrupt and undemocratic opposition, and he has public support behind him.

Instead of worrying yourself about the alleged motivations of those who support the Venezuelan Revolution (which incidentally bear no relation to your caricature), I would suggest that next time you try to report and analyse the facts, not invent them. People might have more respect for your opinions if you do.

Calvin Tucker

Co-editor, http://21stcenturysocialism.com/

Guardian blog: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/calvin_tucker/

PonyJony
18 July 2007 at 19:59

Calvin, Are you really that naive? Or just pretending? Do you really think there's a chance to vote againt Chavez when if you do you risk getting fired? Do you really think it's possible to vote against Chavez when that means forgetting about receiving any compensation from the Government even if it belongs to you?

Stop trying to understand Venezuela and its numbers with a British democrasy way of measuring things. Alice may be wrong about many thing, she is British after all, no way she'll ever understand this place. But at least she tried. You are obviously not trying, you are just trying to understand numbers without caring for the reasons behind those numbers. And that's just classic British Colonial attitude.

Calvin Tucker
18 July 2007 at 20:48

PonyJony

I don't own so much as donut in Venezuela, and if you want to talk about colonialism in Latin America, you should join with Chavez in directing your fire at the actual imperialists: the Bush regime (I would normally call it the 'US administration', but as Alice O'Keffee talks about the 'Chavez regime', I thought I'd delegitimise US democracy using the same linguistic sleight of hand)

You appear to be living in a state of denial. Your real problem is not with me (I don't have a vote), but with the two thirds of Venezuelans who have rejected what the opposition considers their god-given right to rule. It's them you have to convince, and thus far they remain decidely unconvinced.

Chavez's election wins have all been confirmed free and fair by the international election observers. The ballot is secret, as confirmed by the Carter Centre, the OAS and the European Union.

The December 2006 EU report says: "The electoral process complied in general with international standards and withnational legislation as regards the management of the electoral administration and the electronic voting system. The high turnout in the Presidential Elections, and the peaceful environment in which they were held, together with the candidates’acceptance of results..."

That the defeated opposition candidate, Manuel Rosales, publically accepted the legitimacy of the result, drives something of a coach and horses through your argument, wouldn't you say?.

The Presidential election results were also in line with all the recognised opinion polls, including opposition ones. According to the main opinion polls conducted on the eve of the presidential election, Chavez's lead was as follows:

Zogby - University of Miami: 29%, Associated Press - IPSOS: 32%, Datanalysis: 27%, Datos: 27%, Consultores: 17%, Evans McDonough: 22%

(The actual result had Chavez winning by 26%)

Are even the opposition pollsters, like Datanalysis, part of this grand conspiracy of yours?

The opposition did make a (rather pathetic) attempt to fabricate polling data in order to claim fraud after they were defeated, but in the end it fizzled out. If anyone is interested, I have written about it here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/calvin_tucker/2006/11/po...

PonyJony
18 July 2007 at 20:53

Chavez won elections, Bush won elections, Hitler won elections, I guess you think that makes them all great for their nations, right?

Calvin Tucker
18 July 2007 at 21:04

...and the Venezuelan opposition can't win elections, so they organise coups instead.

Almost 80 comments into the debate, before someone mentioned Adolf Hitler. We were on course for the internet world record in Adolf-free comments, and then you had to go and spoil it.

PonyJony
18 July 2007 at 21:29

Let me ask you something, why did the Chavista Government declared that there was no Coup in 2002? Have you ever thought about that? Why is it that the Chavista Supreme Court disagrees with you and says there was never a coup made by the opposition? I gather you get your info on Venezuela from Irish filmmakers, but do your homework dude, for your own sake, you are looking like an idiot in front of anyone with a little knowledge of the situation.

Calvin Tucker
18 July 2007 at 22:04

"The Chavez Government has declared there was no coup in 2002"!?

What on God's earth are you smoking?

The (non-Chavista) Supreme Court pretended there wasn't a coup...

...but the kidnapping of the elected president, the abolition of all elected institutions, and the installation of a dictator, somewhat undermined this curious pronouncement.

I don't mean to be rude, but you are not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, and I've more interesting things to do than argue with a opposition fanatasist who wouldn't know a hard fact if it landed on his arepa. I'll leave it to the readers to decide which of us is the "idiot".

Good bye.

PonyJony
18 July 2007 at 22:20

That's the supreme court of Venezuela you are insulting my friend. And if you are to respect elections, you need to respect the supreme court, and they declared there was no coup. So stop justifying your escape. You have shown your evident ignorance on the Venezuelan situation so you are correct to stop before you make a bigger fool of yourself. Go to Venezuela, then you can talk. Perhaps your smile will fade a litte. Perhaps you will join every socialist in Venezuela and fight against this fascist.

Robert Powell
19 July 2007 at 09:53

Not good enough Ms O'Keeffe. You deal in impressions not in facts and your impressions were based on meeting people who plainly didn't live or work in the poor barrios. Why didn't you go and see whether Chavez's policies were working (or not) or would that have required a proper journalistic effort ? Instead you appear to have floated around (bits of) Caracas taking it in but failed to glean anything of substance. At best this was a wasted opportunity, at worst ... well I'd rather not say.

bayofpigs
19 July 2007 at 13:02

Alice O'Keeffe, that RCTV closure disapproval rating you quote, 69.4% was the actual figure, was from a poll by Datanalisis. In July 2002 Datanalisis' President Jose Antonio Gil Yepes told the Los Angeles Times that Chavez "has to be killed." Hardly impartial are they?

q.v. http://www.counterpunch.org/delacour08072004.html

CocoLoco
19 July 2007 at 14:54

Nice article today in Tal Cual with the copy to prove what they are talking about. The Tascon list and others are well alive . Tal Cual got hold of a carefully elaborated list in which each employee of Sincor (Orinoco Belt) is judged according to whether they signed for the consultative referendum, for the recall vote or had their signature repaired. This list is shown here including the names of those fired. An elaborate system of X's next to each name and each referenda was placed next to each person's name to determine whether they were "apt' to continue working in the country's oil industry. The four fired recently are clearly marked with a V and they all signed against Chavez, failing to pass the loyalty grade. None of those considered "apt" has been fired and those not yet fired with X's next to their name are sure that they will soon join their co-workers in the ranks of the unemployed.

And some of you still think that Venezuelans trust the secret of the elections ? That it is a fair democracy ?

In Venezuela today people are extremely carefull to whom they speak about which subject , just like they had to do under Hitler, Pinochet, Ulbricht , Stalin etc

How can you say to defend human rights and democracy and the same time you defend Chavez and brand the complete opposition as paid by the US ? As said before, if you want to be informed, stop reading only the government propaganda and start also reading information from all sides of the oppostion - than start using your brains and think for yourself !

mat_ador84
19 July 2007 at 15:35

I would have liked to have responded earlier to Calvin Tucker's response to my post on July 17th, but unfortunately I was working all day yesterday, so didn't have the chance. I live in Colombia and teach English to demobilised teenage soldiers, who fought with guerrila and paramilitary groups, at great personal expense. Despite having belonged to armed groups representing totally opposite ends of the political spectrum and having committed atrocities in the name of these conflicting ideologies, the kids (and that's what they are) actually get along extremely well with each other. Want to know why Mr Tucker? Because none of them really knew what they were fighting for in the first place.

Unlike the 'poor of Venezuela' (who we all seem to be labelling as though they were a single unwiedly mass containing no differing shades of opinion or circumstance) the poor of Colombia have been listening to empty rhetoric from groups that claim to represent them for four decades. What they have learned is that words are usually meaningless and sometimes extremely harmful. There is nothing sadder than a well-meaning person repeating slogans they don't understand, except a not well-meaning person doing the same.

It is a basic theory of revolutions that a great outburst of energy from below is always eventually harnessed by an elite group (which exercises a monopoly over opportunites of advancement) using slogans, images and, usually over-exagerrated, 'threats to the revolution'. If anyone knew this it was Trotsky who told us that 'First the Party substitutes itself for the Revolution, then the Central Committee substitues itself for the Party and then a Single Leader substitutes himself for the Central Committee.' I wouldn't want to suggest that contemporary Venezuelan politics have anything in common with revolutionary Russia, but the process of substitution, which turns a grass roots movement into an elite project, more interested in self-defence and geopolitical interests than the fundamental aims of the 'revolution', certainly applies.

I did not say that Chavez was doing nothing to improve conditions for poor people in Venezuela, at this stage he is still reliant on his popular support, which no one is denying he has. This does not mean, however, that, if and when he is no longer accountable to popular opinion, that the original aims of the movement will be abandoned in order to defend the 'revolution' and further Venezuela's geopolitical, ie. elite interests. What I actually said was that Chavez's priorities are clearly the latter.

I also notice that Calvin Tucker did not respond to my comparison with Lula's Brazil, which is achieving similar results in poverty reduction, without aggravating regional relations, changing the constitution or relying on the income of a single resource (which Latin American nations have been doing for far too long.) Furthermore this is in a country which in 2004 had a Gini coefficient (inequality index) of 54.0 compared to Venezuela's in 2000 of 44.1. (That is to say, whose 'class war', another term which has lost its meaning to the agendas of those whose use it, should be substantially more explosive.) What Lula knows and Chavez doesn't, is that the key measures of political maturity are (1) representing society as a whole and not one sector against another, and (2) focussing on internal problems and not chasing foreign monsters. Interestingly these are both measures by which Chavez has more than a bit in common with a certain George W. Bush.

Calvin Tucker
19 July 2007 at 17:13

mat_ador84

You attack Chavez not for anything he has actually done, but bizarrely for what you claim he is going to do in the future!

I'd hate to have you on a jury.

However, the actual jury - the Venezuelan people - take a different view. The latest Latinobarometro survey shows that amongst Latin American countries, Venezuelans have the second highest confindence in their democracy. That figure has gone up substantially under Chavez, this proto-dictator of yours.

There are more democratic mechanisms in the Venezuelan constitution, including the right to recall all elected officials up to and including the president, than in any other constitution on earth.

These mechanisms have been used in practice by the opposition, as in the 2004 presidential recall referendum.

Is that right available to the citizens of Colombia? Brazil? Britain? The USA?

Are protesting students in any of those countries invited to address their parliaments, and their words transmitted live on all TV channels?

Nope, they are not.

And yet, for you, it is Chavez who is the tryant-in-waiting! Bizarre stuff.

I don't know the Brazilian figures, but the poorest 60% of Venezuelans have enjoyed a 130% real income rise under Chavez. Brazillians can choose whomever they want as their leader. That's their decision. Likewise, it is up to Venezuelans who they want as their president. And two thirds of them want Chavez and the socialist project he is embarked upon. But Venezuelan socialism is about more than rising living standards, and providing health and education. It is about changing the nature of democracy itself, by involving millions of people in direct decision making and avoiding the mistakes of previous socialisms.

See my article here:

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/socialism_makes_a_co...

Your claim that the US threat to Venezuela is imaginary, is only credible if you erase from your memory, Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, and the 2002 Venezuelan coup. I could go on, but I suspect you have got the point.

Venezuelan socialism IS about ruling in the interests of the whole of society. That's what it means: social - ism. And that's precisely why the wealthy Venezuelan elites will do anything to prevent it, including spreading disinformation and organising a coup.

CocoLoco
19 July 2007 at 17:49

Calvin Tucker, whenever you put a link to a web site it is one from the Chavez PR machine --- and you really think you know what live today is in Venezuela ! You are absolutely ignorant about daily live for most of the people. in this country

Calvin Tucker
19 July 2007 at 18:52

CocoLoco

The link is to an article of mine, so rather obviously it reflects my views. Your ignorance has been fully exposed in the comments above, for example your spurious claims about the electoral register and about income growth. I note you have avoided repeating your false claims, which is to your credit.

bayofpigs
19 July 2007 at 18:54

erm, Coco I think you'll find it's a link to one of Calvin's own articles.

CocoLoco
19 July 2007 at 19:38

sorry, really igorant of me .... and I see Tucker writes also for Venezuela Analysis .... now I understand much better ! A collegue from Eva Golllinger .. .... one of those getting paid by the government in Caracas .... than one can not expect that he knows how the average person in Venezuela really lives .....

Nerys
19 July 2007 at 23:04

Oh how dull, that oft repeated, libelous and pathetic argument - anyone sympathetic to Chavez is getting paid by the Venezuelan government.

God Cocoloco, what next - anyone who is not Venezeuelan does not have the right to comment on developments in the country.

Why on earth do you not just keep the debate moderate, balanced and respectful. Here is a very basic fact. There are a lot of people who like, voted for and admire Chavez. It really is THAT simple. So quit this rubbish about PR machines, people getting paid. Just accept that people have hearts, ethics and views. It is called pluralism.

mat_ador84
20 July 2007 at 03:01

Calvin Tucker, I am not judging Chavez on something he hasn't done, I'm judging him on his rhetoric, obvious use of Blair-style spin and opportunistic alliances with people no 'Socialist' should in his right mind be associating himself with. In his professed political aims he is apparently left wing, but in his tactics he is little different than the manipulative and hypocritical Western politicians he attacks.

I have never denied that Chavez was legitimately elected, nor that he is genuinely popular amongst 'the poor of Venezuela' (a term which I'm still waiting for a clear definition of), nor that significant strides have been made under his leadership in terms of poverty reduction. What I have said is that the same achievements could have been made without all the drum banging, which I am suggesting reveals what Chavez's true interests are: satisfying his personal narcissism, protecting his power and further his elitist geopolitical interests, all of which have about as much to do with the welfare of the Venezuelan people as the Nazi-Soviet pact had to do with helping the European proletariat. This is the point I’m making, nothing more, and no number of statistics can change that.

Chavez’s popularity is beyond doubt, but then his Right-wing neighbour Uribe has a 70% approval rating from the Colombian people, despite using skewed and misleading rhetoric which rival that of Chavez. Does being popular make a politician right? I think you’d agree not in the case of Uribe, although you seem to think it does in the case of Chavez. The fact is that politicians know how to manipulate people – it’s what they do. Uribe does it by playing on Colombians’ well-grounded fears of insecurity, Chavez does it by stirring up Venezuelans’ justified resentment at the high (although pretty normal by regional standards) level of national inequality. To suggest that he has the long-term answers to these problems is to give him far more credit than he deserves. A prediction: if Venezuela becomes as insecure as Colombia traditionally has been, and it looks like it could (for the first time Caracas has a higher crime rate than Bogotá), maybe the ‘national security’ paradigm will replace the ‘national equality’ paradigm and Venezuela will swing back to right.

Calvin Tucker
20 July 2007 at 12:18

mat_ador84

In the real world, states make strategic alliances and trade with with nations that have different social and economic systems. For example, the biggest customer for Venezuelan oil is the USA, a country which has ruthlessly exploited and murdered its way across Latin America for more than 100 years. Venezuela also trades with Colombia, a country whose government is complicit in the death squad murders of hundreds of trade unionists and activists each and every year.

Whilst both Iran and Belarus have different political systems from Venezuela, they certainly haven't done anything like that to the people of Latin America. The Venezuelan system should be judged on its own merits, which include participatory democracy and a social agenda of rights for women, gays, and indigenous people.

Venezuela is facing a very real threat from the US, and they are not going to allow themselves to be militarilly, politically, diplomatically and stategically isolated. That really would be a betrayal of the revolution you don't support.

The reason I bang on about Chavez's election wins and popularity is because there is a co-ordinated disinformation campaign to delegitimise Venezuelan democracy by falsely portraying Chavez as a ballot rigger and a tyrant. If you read the anti-Chavez comments here, you will immediately notice that almost all of them contain bare-faced lies, and almost none of them contain any hard facts or evidence.

It is simply not true that Chavez could have achieved the same results without challenging the wealthy elites who previously weilded huge power and influence. Unlike in Brazil, almost all the proceeds from Venezuela's economic boom have been passed to the poorest 60% of the population. It is that hard fact, together with the all important transfer of power from the elites to the working class and poor, which explains why Chavez faces the wrath of the elites.

For obvious reasons, the elites can't openly admit that truth, so they invent stories about tyrany and electoral fraud to justify their refusal to accept the democratic wishes of the Venezuelan people.

Allan Brookfield
20 July 2007 at 15:57

Oh dear !! Alice arrived in Caracas, where as she correctly says everyone is politicised….and fell in with the wrong crowd.

I visited Caracas earlier this year and of course I encountered the same OPINIONS as those reported..both in the media and in conversations.. However my investigations extended further. I met many people who lived and worked in the poor barrios in the City…people who under the leadership of President Chavez (no need for inverted commas!!) are now enjoying access to education and health care for the first time and who are transforming their lives by working together in their communities.. Far from being a “tyranny” Venezuela appeared to me as a vibrant democracy where ordinary people not only talk politics but take an active role in decision making including the new all empowering Community Councils.

Life for these people is undoubtedly better than in the past when the ruling elite pretended they didn’t exist.

On the particularities of the article, the Venezuelan Government had every right to NOT RENEW a licence for free to air tv which had expired to a company which had supported the military coup in 2002. Surely, Alice as an (I assume) experienced journalist must be aware that the protests apparently about RCTV are part of a well organised dirty tricks campaign financed by the US which earlier this year included food hoarding

Yes Alice is correct in reporting that Caracas has a high crime rate…as in the United States. Hopefully this will decline when the advances of the new Venezuela become more apparent to all…and the streets will be as safe as those in Havana

I am appalled that a reputable journal of your standing should not only publish this article but also give it such prominence. Surely you would NOT publish an article on the state of Britain based on a quick reading of the Daily Mail and a few conversations with disgruntled people!!

PonyJony
20 July 2007 at 16:33

Calvin Tucker is not on Chavista payroll, he uses arguments they haven't use in two years. He's obviously just an uninformed fan.

and Allan Brookfield comparing venezuelan crime rate to that of the US is both hilarious and insulting. 14 thousand violent deaths last year in Venezuela my friend. There were only 5 thousand average a year before Chavez. He has trippled crimen rates, his best technique to freeze society and guarantee that the poor remain poor (the key to his popularity).

Let's discuss the 250 Rolls Royce the chavistas are driving around Caracas.

Calvin Tucker
20 July 2007 at 17:16

PonyJony

Even the opposition survey firms admit that real income for the poorest 60% of Venezuelans has more than doubled under Chavez. This has been explained to you on several occasions, and the links provided.

If you wish to throw words like "misinformed" around, you need to, a) get your facts straight, and b) demonstrate that the sourced facts that I post are wrong.

Any source for these 250 Rolls Royces?

Nope. Thought not.

PonyJony
20 July 2007 at 18:35

Calvin, vente un día para Venezuela, deja el culillo, británico mamaculo.

PonyJony
20 July 2007 at 18:43

That's the trick Calvin, raise their salaries 20 Pounds a month, trap them at home with crime. That way they love you, but they can't leave their Ghetto. Freeze society so they continue hating the rich, loving you for raising their salaries. It's everything socialism fights against.

PonyJony
20 July 2007 at 18:53

Try to understand the chavista model for a second, not just praise the statistics. He doesn't built hospitals, he sends Cuban doctors with bandaids to the ghettos. He sends them to people that has nothing, so they love him. But he could very easily built them a hospital, with, for example, the 18 million dollars he gave Danny Glover to make a movie. But the hospital would fix the problem, and that would risk his popularity, because at some point, if the poor stop being poor, they start demanding more than small raises in their ridiculously low wages (minimum wage is now 100 pounds a month, it's easy to raise 60% when you sell 3 million barrels of oil a month). He doesn't fix the problem, just gives enough for people to be thankful and continue voting for him, while they are trapped in crime, hating the rich (because they do make shit loads of money).

In the bolivarian universities you can get an engineering degree in 8 months, even if you are iliterate when you go in. Is that title worth anything? Does it make you an Engineer? Probably note. But does it make you see Chavez as a saviour? Does he make you vote for him? Absolutely.

If anyone around here is a true socialist (every socialist in Venezuela is furiously against Chavez) know that Chavez resembles Bush in most of his politics. He is just a much better politician than Bush. But there's absolutely nothing socialist about Chavez, he is a huge capitalist with an imperial style expantionist agenda that's going pretty well.

PonyJony
20 July 2007 at 19:00

Here's some info on the Chavista affair with Rolls Royce: http://comunismovenezolano.blogspot.com/2006/12/rolls-royce-...

PonyJony
20 July 2007 at 19:03

Here's a NY TIMES article you should read, about Gustavo Cisneros and Chavez http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1081EFC395A...

bayofpigs
20 July 2007 at 19:32

Don't see anything about 250 Chavistas driving Rolls Royces in that article. Just that Bavarian Motors are going to be selling them there again. The economy must be improving under Chavez.

20 July 2007 at 23:28

Dear Alice,

I'm genuinely impressed by your willingness to enter this forum. If I'd published something I expected to be controversial, I'd probably keep my head down: you didn't, so fair play to you.

Having said that, you say on this thread (to an audience of, what a dozen obsessives) "The government clearly had some valid reasons for its decision. RCTV's support for the 2002 coup was indefensible" Why did you omit this from your article?

I'll copy here a letter I sent to the Editor (which was unpublished). I'll warn you now - it contains the word "hack". This relates solely to your Venezuela article: I hope you can take this as constructive criticism.

************************************

Alice O’Keefe’s article on Venezuela unfortunately bore the three hallmarks of the hack: unsupported assertions, factual inaccuracies and an absence of context.

O’Keefe states (but fails to demonstrate) that Chávez is "power-crazed" and that revolutionary rhetoric is "divisive". She goes on to repeat the false claim that RCTV was "shut down" by Chávez. In fact, RCTV is still able to broadcast on cable and satellite: the Government simply refused to renew its licence to broadcast on public airwaves.

The missing context is that the Chávez government is Venezuela’s first real democracy for decades. This democracy has been under concerted pressure from the US Government - backers of so many anti-democratic movements and oppressive regimes in Latin America and elsewhere. This pressure peaked in 2002, when RCTV (with US approval) participated in two attempts to oust the democratically elected government.

Behind these failings, O’Keefe’s article reveals a different truth about Venezuela. She presents a country in which the population is actively engaged in political processes – free to protest against their President’s decisions, but ready to defend their democracy (as they did in 2002). Is this the mark of a "tyrant"?

*************************************

I should alert you that I conceived of the notion of the "three hallmarks of the hack" after I watched a Richard Littlejohn documentary. Please don't let your work put you in his bracket!

Calvin Tucker
21 July 2007 at 09:28

Ponyjony

I read the article you liked to, and as I suspected there was absolutely nothing in it about Chavistas driving around Caracas in 250 Rolls Royces.

Yet again, you have just invented a story to smear your opponents.

If you had a real case against Chavez you wouldn't need to tell bare-faced lies, would you?

Likewise, your post on the Venezuelan health service is complete nonsense. New clinics are being built at rapid rate, and Venezuelan doctors are being trained at the Latin American Medical School in Cuba.

marie2trees
21 July 2007 at 11:57

I am still wondering why John Kampfner, the editor, decided that this article, so lacking in context, and so one-sided, was good enough to splash across the front page and put a lot of left-wingers off the magazine.

I'm sure he knows better than this as this is not the first time he has done it.. What has he got against Chavez? John Pilger is one of his columnists and one would expect that he would value this great journalists opinion on such a contentious issue.

Does Kampfner fear the cyber bullies? There is a certain level of wimpishness about the article.

Since there seems to be no level of support for Chavez amongst even the left leaning media, is Kampfner afraid of being different? Doesn't like to be mocked at their little soirees?

He seems to be happy to give prominence to pro Chavez articles and letters but only afterwards. So he knows this makes many readers angry so why do it a second time?

Exactly how has the well organised anti Chavez block, who seem to be concentrating their manipulation on the international media as they have completely failed with the Venezuelan people, succeeded so well with the leftist media of the UK?

The UK media fell for the RCTV "student protests" hook. line and sinker.

I'm really interested to know what was going through his mind as he approved the cover and I hope he does not do this same thing a third time to Chavez.

It might increase sales as the people really interested in Venezuela on either side want to read it so they can write in, but they will never buy the magazine again. He's certainly lost quite a few readers amongst my acquaintances.

PonyJony
21 July 2007 at 18:48

Nobody can drive a Rolls Royce in Venezuela unless he is with the Government, you would get kidnaped otherwise. The brand has returned to the nation because of the Chavista wealth. I can't believe i have to explain the most basic stuff. Seriously, be brave and come visit us if you want to have an opinion. Things like these will become obvious.

No clinics are being built. If you know of one, please name it.

And yes, you can get an Engineering degree in 8 months in the bolivarian universities, even if you are illiterate when you go in. Please explain the objective of a program like that if you think it's not simple populist propaganda.

bayofpigs
21 July 2007 at 19:54

"Barrio Adentro is now expanding not just in numbers of volunteer doctors and geographic area but in scope. While in the January 23 neighborhood of Caracas, Militant reporters visited several of the new “modules” built every several blocks in that district. “Thirty-eight of them are under construction,” said Casadiego, in a neighborhood with a population of 1.5 million. “Two were just inaugurated last week.”

These are two-story structures. The bottom floor will be the walk-in clinic while the top is a small apartment that can comfortably accommodate two doctors. The modules are being built with government funds and will provide better facilities for the Cuban volunteers. Until now, all Cuban doctors volunteering in these neighborhoods have been living in the homes of people who offered to host them.

Popular clinics, scheduled to be built starting this year, will expand primary care offered through the modules operated by the Cuban doctors, said Casadiego. They will include modern equipment and a larger number of doctors specializing in various medical skills so they can offer minor surgery, dental care, and other such services. “These clinics will replace the state-owned ambulatorios,” Casadiego said, referring to walk-in clinics built under previous regimes that have largely stopped functioning in most working-class neighborhoods. “The popular clinics will offer free medical care to all, regardless of income,” he said."

from

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1170

q.v. also

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0105jardim.htm

http://www.newint.org/features/2006/06/01/poverty/

Calvin Tucker
21 July 2007 at 20:31

PonyJony

I have been to Caracas, thank you. Given your absolute ignorance of the country, I am beginning to wonder whether you are from Venezuela at all.

I think we have all got the message by now that you don't Chavez. Don't you think your argument against him would more powerful if you tried to explain in a rational considered way what exactly it is that you don't like about him?

Making things up discredits your case.

Please review all the false allegations you have made in this thread, and then come back and try and engage with reality. Because at the moment it's difficult to take anything you say seriously.

PonyJony
21 July 2007 at 21:53

Glad you recognize it, Bayofpigs, he only gives tiny clinics with one or two Cuban doctors. Small stuff to mantain hopes, but never a real hospital to fix the real problem. Only bandaids, and ideological ones, with "doctors" hired to proclaim the benefits of the revolution.

My dear Calvin, I basically don't like him because he has turned my country into one of the most dangerous places on earth. Even if everything else you love about him were to be true, the fact that 14 thousand people die violent deaths every year now, is enough of a reason to want him out. He turned Venezuela into a War Zone. And I know you don't care about Venezuelans dying (I guess the most effective way to reduce poverty is letting the poor kill each other, that seems to be the chavista way). But I happen to face that violence every day.

And Don't think I haven't noticed how you continue avoiding the question of what purpose does the bolivarian universities Engineering degree in eight months have, if its not propaganda. By insulting me or questioning mi nacionalidad, britanico cabeza de guevo, you won't make me stop reminding you the true of this scam: Little health help (Cuban doctors, ambulatiorios, never hospitals, even your people admit it), and fake Education (fake degrees that lead to nothing but votes).

If you convince me of those 3 points I'll love chavez:

a) The benefit of having trippled the violent crimes rate in Venezuela in less than a decade.

b) Why doesn't he build a hospital, or provide the existing ones with medicines. Why replace the existing ones with small clinics with Cuban Doctors? There's a great hospital in 23 de Enero, he should provide it with medicines, not close it to open small Cuban clinics.

c) Why create an entire network of education that provides illusory university degrees in less than a year? Why not create real universities, or improve the existing ones? Why torturing the Universidad Central de Venezuela, which was on the top five in Latin America and is now on the verge of being shut down because Chavez refuses to give it funding (a public school).

Answer those three questions and we can have a civilized discussion about Chavez. Otherwise you are just repeating numbers because they make you feel rebelious in your british comfort.

And if you are into writing a little more, let me know how would you feel if a British President changes your constitution in order to allow indefinite reelection for the rest of his life.

Calvin Tucker
22 July 2007 at 09:13

PonyJony

The British "president" (as you call him) can already be re-elected for the rest of his life, and we don't have a written constitution to change.

The procedure for changing the Venezuelan Constitution to end presidential term limits (which are currently restricted to two), is as follows:

The president can propose an ammendment. This ammendment then goes to the National Assembly for debate. If it is passed with a two thirds majority, it then goes to a nationwide referendum of the whole people.

As you can see, Hugo Chavez can't change the Constitution. You just made that up. Only the people can do that in a referendum. This is the problem with the opposition. They spread lies and disinformation.

Ponyjony - You have shown a disregard for the truth that borders on the pathological. I have no interest in spending any more time cross-checking your mostly invented facts. All I would say to you is try and get out of your middle-class ghetto and go and see the other Venezuela where most of your compatriots live. You might learn something.

PonyJony
22 July 2007 at 19:44

By refusing to answer my questions you have put in evidence both: your ignorance on the venezuelan situation, and your blind desire to justify it.

I hope European readers are not naive to the degree of accepting your escape, and will always remember the three most important questions that need to be answered by any serious person who wishes to defend the Venezuelan President:

a) What's the benefit of having trippled the violent crimes rate in Venezuela in less than a decade.

b) Why doesn't he build a hospital, or provide the existing ones with medicines. Why replace the existing ones with small clinics with Cuban Doctors? There's a great hospital in 23 de Enero, he should provide it with medicines, not close it to open small Cuban clinics.

c) Why create an entire network of education that provides illusory university degrees in less than a year? Why not create real universities, or improve the existing ones? Why torturing the Universidad Central de Venezuela, which was on the top five in Latin America and is now on the verge of being shut down because Chavez refuses to give it funding (a public school).

I get it bro, you are into the Chavez concept because it makes you feel important in the UK. And that's okay, if I lived in Europe I would also probably defend Chavez because I have to admit, the guy is cool and what his speech stands for could make Europe a better place. But to suggest that what the national assembly decides gives Chavez any more legytimacy is just hilarious. He owns it my friend. 100% of it. And yes, it's because the opposition is made of worst idiots than him. But the fact is that, and proclaiming his legitimacy because of the national assembly is simply too ridiculous, even for you.

The Venezuelan situation will be solved by Venezuelans. And Chavez will become another great T-Shirt to wear in a London rave. We just need more time for the new generation (the reconciliation generation that grew up under the Chavista disparity) to grow and take over the mess left by our parents. And no, there won't be civil war. You need two to fight. And not one person of the new generation believes in violence.

aadamb3
24 July 2007 at 09:02

I like the fact that the US military has done a profile on Chávez and found him insecure. It would be natural state for a man with a death sentence on his head from so called democratic nations like the US.

Still what about Bush, Cheney and Blair? I mean if we profiled Bush who talks to God about launching wars that have killed a million – what would it look like? ….Deranged, homicidal maniac: Psychopath, hubris, mammon, with schizoid tendencies. Cheney is no better but we could add he is a man who loves war and death. Has for Blair the word patsy applies, like Bush and Cheney he is man who has a love of power and death and immorality: All three are pathological liars who have harmed the own societies with glee.

aadamb3
24 July 2007 at 09:21

PonyJony, the flow of the argument puts in hostile tone and an arrogant one. You are wealthy man with an education. Still your claims have no backing nor do you provide for negative evidence. Your simply making claims. Then demanding you be answered. You position lack a depth and a pou sto: a historical position from which you stand.

arc1
24 July 2007 at 09:24

So the New Syatesman believes in freedom of the press? Or to take a recent example, there was a famous photo of the 'thin man' supposedly a prisoner of the Serbs in early 1999, used by the British press to propagate for an attack on Yugoslavia. Philip Knightly(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Knightley), who is who is known for his specialty is photo journalism, investigated it. And he determined that it was probably the reporters who were behind the barb-wire and it wasn't a concentration camp in Kosovo, but a refugee camp in Albania. And that the 'thin man' was actually quite obese, but the photo had been altered to make him look thin.

One newspaper in the UK followed up the investigation, a small one called LM. Because everyone else was infuriated, ITN (which had used the photo) sued LM for libel. UK defamation laws are among the worst, it's up to the accused to prove they didn't act in malice, well normally that's the prosecution's responsibility. Almost as bad as in Singapore.

Because ITN is a big company and they sued 3 people, not on whether or not the photo is a forgery but if LM were acting with malice, they were closed because of that. And what was the reaction in the British press? Pride, over closing down a small paper for challenging the validity of a photo. Philip Knightly then wrote a critique of the UK press on this issue, and logically they didn't report it.

Alice O'Keeffe doesn't believe in freedom of the press anymore than politicians who give invite-only press conferences. Nor does the New Statesman believe in the Right of Reply and factual reporting, I can bet the next time I send a corrections letter to NS, nothing will be done anymore than like those hypocrites in TIME magazine.

RedDaybreak
24 July 2007 at 11:51

Hmm Living Marxism. The people who marched under the banner 'Victory to Iraq' during the protests against the first Gulf War. The professional contrarians who eked out a living by always taking the opposing view even if it meant pretending the genocide by their Serbian friends wasn't taking place. Still like all the other ex-Revolutionary Communist Party people, arc1, you argue your case really well. And of course right here, right now you are being denied a right of reply...

Disproving your own point in the same sentence now that is unusual among your kind!

PonyJony
25 July 2007 at 06:35

I'm just asking the real questions, not the theoretical Euro snub socialist from afar crap. It's easy to be socialist in London. Go to www.thechestore.com and just spend your pounds with joy.

sr1
26 July 2007 at 03:12

RedDaybreak, the arguments I made are clear, consistent and proven even before I made them just then.

If we believe in freedom of the press, someone can surely point out that they have evidence a photo published is a fake. Alice O'Keeffe can misrepresent events in Venezuela if she likes, she can threaten to sue me and other posters if she wishes, either way she's ignorant about the issues she's writing about or lying.

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say she's ignorant. But that still means she shouldn't have written the article in the first place.

Charly
26 July 2007 at 03:23

Calvin Tucker's objectivity keeps being questioned in various blogs. To those Venezuelans who know of him he is what they qualify as "tarifado"

free2dissent
26 July 2007 at 04:18

I concur with the various critiques of the notoriously slanted neo-con article—It omits more than admits.

It's interesting that when any progressive force begins to compete against western imperial power, they're automatically slandered, even by our so-called left. I disagree with the main article’s critique. I also would add that lest we forget the long and terrible rightwing repressive history in Latin America aided by western capital and US military might we are bound to think that what Chavez is doing is strange. Fighting elite capitalist forces is no easy and delicate matter.

Lets remember that it was Venezuelan elites aided by the US that attempted a violent overthrow of Chavez but were rebuffed by popular support. I would wager that anyone here if faced with the same onslaught by elite power would no doubt not behave any differently. Popular revolutions have been few in number compared the long terrible reign of bloody rightwing dictators who have been “Our Allies.” So, by all means, give Chavez a chance before jumping to conclusions.

Calvin Tucker
26 July 2007 at 12:59

Really, Charly? And what sort of blogs might these be, I wonder?

If you think I am not being objective, then you need to rebutt my points using facts and evidence. Why not give it a go?

Resorting to personal abuse indicates you don't have a credible argument. I'd welcome a debate with an oppositionist who could put a case without inventing the facts. Is there such a person out there?

PonyJony
26 July 2007 at 16:34

Chavez is progresive? That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. The dude is an homophobic, racist, nationalist, ultra military, and a proud confessed wife beater (with far more girlfriends than Udai Hussein) , not to mention anti semite (because that, again, seem like something progresive to be in contemporary Europe) and to some brits he comes off as progresive. That's how insane the world we live in is. In Britain he would be hanged. A man who said he doesn't trust an animal that bleeds for four days and doesn't die, refering to women. A man who tried to put the director of Secuestro Express in jail because he included a Gay soldier in his movie (I respect homosexuals, he said, but to suggest there's homosexuals in the armed forces is treason).

It doesn't seize to amaze me how nobody of the Chavez defenders in this blog can anwser the real question: What's the benefit of having trippled the crime rate in less than a decade. The 14 thousand Venezuelans who died last year demand your answer. If you can't answer that question, stop disrespecting their memory. Or is it that letting the poor kill each other is also some progresive technique to reduce poverty?

And like I said, Calvin Tucker is not a tarifado. He uses arguments from three years ago, and the Tarifados are updated weekly.

Calvin Tucker
26 July 2007 at 17:12

He also eats babies, usually with a dollop of ketchup.

"In Britain he would be hanged," you tell us.

Britain abolished the death penalty in 1965, so Hugo will be quite safe from the hangman's noose next time he pays us a visit.

"how insane the world we live in is"

I didn't know you did irony.

WillB
26 July 2007 at 17:23

Without debating the validity of the visibly contentious arguments put forward by Alice O’Keeffe in her article, the hastily commissioned repost by Colin Burgon in last weeks NS has highlighted what I consider to be a serious failing on behalf of the editor John Kampfner.

A journalist writing for a current affairs magazine such as the NS should, on publication of their piece, be able to rely on the total support of their editor regardless of public opinion. Let us not forget that Mr Kampfner gave his editorial go-ahead for the inclusion of the piece just as it appeared. We must presume that he was as aware as Ms O’Keeffe must have been in the writing of it that it would ruffle the feathers of a significant section of the NS’s readership.

The ensuing furore has I’m sure exceeded both O’Keeffe’s and Kampfner’s worst fears but this should not cloud the inexcusable actions of the latter in commissioning and publishing not simply a counter-argument but instead a very personal and vindictive attack on Ms O’Keeffe herself.

Given the scale of impassioned opinion in this case one can see the justification for the exposure of another viewpoint in the magazine but not under any circumstances should the editor (whose first allegiance must be to his staff) commission such a piece and allow it to become so spiteful a personal attack. Regardless of anyone’s thoughts on Ms O’Keeffe’s point of view we must agree that in doing so Kampfner has portrayed himself as both disloyal to his staff and as a man unwilling to shoulder the responsibility for his own editorial decisions.

PonyJony
26 July 2007 at 17:40

It's easy to laugh at Venezuelans from the safety of your London home, Calvin Tucker.

Calvin Tucker
26 July 2007 at 17:51

Insanity knows no borders, PonyJony. And I reckon the two thirds of Venezuelans who voted for Chavez would be laughing along with me.

PonyJony
26 July 2007 at 17:53

The difference between me and you, Calvin, is that I don't claim to know anything about the UK, and you, in the UK, claim to know more about the country I live in than me. That's the problem with Neo-Con white supremacist like you. You think you own the world. You think Venezuela is a social experiment for you to test a thesis. You don't care how many people die, you just want to use our lives as arguments for your personal ideological agendas.

PonyJony
26 July 2007 at 17:55

I personally voted three times in those elections, my friend. It's so easy to get an ID with a different name and register yourself to vote, it's laughable that you use those elections as an argument. But I already explained to you the basis of Chavez popularity, I won't write them again because you insist in ignoring them.

Calvin Tucker
26 July 2007 at 18:24

Kampfner's error was in publishing O'Keffee's unsubstantiated allegations and uncontextualised gibberish in the first place. Having done so (and seen the predictable reaction), he was faced with a problem: Defend the indefensible, or drop O'Keffee right in in it.

Kampfner took the cowards way out.

That's between him and his God.

Colin Burgon's response was neither spiteful nor personal, but a succinct rebuttal of the appalling factual errors in O'Keeffee's "journalism".

Calvin Tucker
26 July 2007 at 18:36

PonyJony

So having demonstrated your complete ignorance of both your own country and mine, you are now confessing to electoral fraud!

A perfect example of example of why this dishonest opposition is discredited in the eyes of most Venezuelans

PonyJony
26 July 2007 at 18:52

The fraud is the opposition and the Government, you are right about that.

PonyJony
27 July 2007 at 03:36

This is the Chavez I voted for in 1998:

http://doc.noticias24.com/0707/och26.html

It's chilling to read him today, after everything turned out to be a lie. The same lie you guys in Britain praise today.

bayofpigs
27 July 2007 at 09:49

New Statesman has a strange idea of what is a popular article. The number of comments an article receives does not make it popular as can been evinced here. The rebuttal has been consigned to the website's twilight zone while this fetid tripe chunters on. The Orwellian named National Endowment for Democracy must be laughing its socks off.

Admin
27 July 2007 at 11:21

Bayofpigs, popular here means most clicked on not most commented on. The 'rebuttal' spent an entire week on our carousel and has been replaced because there's a new issue of the New Statesman out. Hope that's cleared up the confusion.

Ben Davies, editor newstatesman.com

Calvin Tucker
27 July 2007 at 11:50

PonyJony

What you seem unable to grasp is that British people didn't elect Chavez. The Venezuelan people did. Not once. Not twice. But three times. And with increased majorities.

There's no point in complaining to us. It's YOUR country, and he's YOUR president. And you have every democractic mechanism in place to remove him, if that is what the people desire.

I wish my country had provision for a recall referendum, like yours does. Blair would have been gone long ago and the iraq war might never have happened.

PonyJony, in the end you have to accept that the Venezuelan people have rejected the past and want to build a society based on human need, not the profit motive.

By all means oppose Chavez. That is your right. But coming on this forum and inventing lurid stories, just makes you look like a deranged fanatic. Chavez keeps on saying his opponents are rabid reactionary lunatics, and when people read your posts, they must be thinking, "Hm, I guess Chavez has a point".

There is a place for an opposition in Venezuela. But it has to be a reasonable opposition that accepts constitutionality, stops inventing facts, and stops taking cash from the US Government.

Trying to delegitimise Venezuelan democracy and soften up public opinion for another coup is a high risk strategy for the opposition. They lose what influence they have, for example their breathtaking stupid boycott of the last parliamentary elections which left them with zero representation. They are unable to properly represent ther own supporters, and in the end they only really delegitimise themselves in the eyes of the population.

The bottom line is that the opposition strategy hasn't worked. After 8 years of Chavez, he is stronger and more popular than ever, and the oppoition is weaker and more despised than ever before.

The tectonic plates that underpin Venezuelan society have shifted irreversibly, and not even a dozen Pinochets could put them back. You can accomodate yourself to that fact, or you can drift off into irrelevancy. It's your choice.

Calvin Tucker
27 July 2007 at 12:06

Ben Davies

As you are obviously following this thread, perhaps you could explain how an article which fell so short of basic journalistic standards came to be on the front page of the NS?

Unsupported assertions, unsubstantiated allegations, a total ignorance of the basic facts, no attempt at objectivity, no attempt to go into the barrios where the most people live...

What on earth is going on in your editorial meetings?

bayofpigs
27 July 2007 at 12:59

Ben Davies

Thanks for the clarification. You might be better off with a heading of 'Most viewed' as neither clicks nor comments make an article 'popular' (i.e. liked and enjoyed by people). At least the article has a link to the rebuttal - one point in your favour.

IrritatedofTonbridge
27 July 2007 at 14:02

I hope this fatuous observation by bayofpigs is ignored by the moderator!

Jenny Webb
27 July 2007 at 14:20

I've sat on the sidelines watching this 'debate' unfold. I can't say I particularly agreed with the article but the rudeness of people's comments is just astonishing. How much spare time you must all have to fight your virtual revolution! I can't help wondering if this had been a male journalist whether the tone would have been entirely different. Grow up the lot of you!

Calvin Tucker
27 July 2007 at 17:08

Jenny -

I have no idea what you are talking about. There hasn't been a single comment about O'Keffee's gender or a single sexist comment made on this entire thread!

The issue is purely about why the New Statesman saw fit to print this woefull piece describing Chavez as a "power-crazed tyrant" and provided no evidence whatsoever to back this up.

Colonel Blimp
27 July 2007 at 17:21

I thought my comment was quite sexist...

PonyJony
27 July 2007 at 17:34

That's the nature of the chavista revolution, Jenny. A macho revolution for a misoginist society. Before Chavez got divorced from the fouth woman he has had kids with, he used to tell her, live on TV, get ready because I'm comming home to give you what's yours. It was on a regular basis that she appeared publicly with a black eye, and after she went publicly against him, she confessed Chavez is a wife beater. Chavez never denied the charges, but said she was simply ungrateful.

It's only sad that he has flourished on the most basic side of a society that is in many ways more progresive than him, but that he has managed to bring back to its most unfortunate roots.

It's become evident in this post that Chavez continues to bring out the worst in people, even in lands as different as yours. Anybody with an opinion different from his is an Enemy of his revolution, in Venezuela. And anyone with a opinion different from Calvin Fucker is also insulted in this blog.

At the end of the day, Chavez will be in power for another 30 years. The international left will continue defending his legitimacy (if they were smart enough, they wouldn't be were they are), and Venezuela will continue suffering the iron fist of the bolivarian oligharchy.

PonyJony
27 July 2007 at 17:48

Quick question: one thousand million dollars in weapons spent Chavez last week. There's five million homeless in Venezuela.

What would you do if you were Homeless?

Calvin Tucker
27 July 2007 at 18:04

PonyJony

Any source for your claim that Chavez is a wife beater? Or is it along the same lines as your invented story about the Rolls Royces? I suspect so.

Women's rights have been given a high priority in the Venezuelan constitution. A women's bank has been set up to provide cheap loans to women who wish to start co-operatives and small businesses. Unique to Venezuela, the work of housewives is recognised in the constitution, and they recieve a wage paid by the state.

For more info on women's rights:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1353

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1415

Calvin Tucker
27 July 2007 at 18:15

Another non-point from Pony Jony.

Venezuela's defence budget is LESS as a proportion of GDP than the other main Latin American countries. And they don't face the possibility of a US intervention.

Do you have a source for the figure of 5 million homeless? Or is that an invention too?

Mission Negra Hipolita (set up by the Chavez administration) is guiding the homeless to shelters and rehab centers providing medical and psychological care. Those joining get $65 a week in return for community service work. - source: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1965

PonyJony
27 July 2007 at 18:20

Venezuelananalysis is not a source, its propaganda.

Flyer
27 July 2007 at 23:32

Hands up all those who live in Venezuela... Calvin Tucker? PonyJony? Alice O'Keefe?

Is this anything more than an ego battle? I live in Venezuela but have better things to do than get into arguments over Chavez with strangers. I try to avoid the topic with all but my close friends.

I can see the rich setting rays of sun striking the imposing verdant peaks of the Avila from my balcony where I sit typing, to the backdrop of repeating car alarms and rising smog from the street below.

How is it on your respective parts of the world, Mr. Tucker and Mr Pony?

Flyer
27 July 2007 at 23:41

Oh, and does anybody actually know how much Eva Gollinger is getting paid for her vomit-inducing propaganda pieces?

To tell the truth is virtuous but convenient lies are priceless...

bayofpigs
27 July 2007 at 23:51

How eloquent, and not even in your first language?! Thank you for sharing that Sebas you've painted a picture in my mind with just a few words. Are you a poet? If not have you considered giving it a go?

bayofpigs
27 July 2007 at 23:57

My comment was of course in response to your first post Sebas - what a shame your second made a nonsense of your first: "have better things to do than get into arguments over Chavez with strangers" - I don't think so.

mephisto
28 July 2007 at 02:39

I dont know how many people that give his opinion on this article, live here in venezuela. I can see people that appologize extensively in favour of chavez...I guest you to come to our country and see our realty. We are know in a way of became as Cuba at indiferent sight of many of calling DEMOCRACYS ...I so hard to Understand that a presidents that are making a constitucion to his size and aproved its with most of the people in disagreed with this incostitucional way of do it is really a dictator.... a president that attack television channels ond close it ,that use and abuse of his total power and summision of state institutions is really a dictator and very dangerous for us , for the region and for the free world

Demo-yo
28 July 2007 at 09:19

"CHAVEZ" NEVER WAS A HERO EVER IS GOING TO BE A "MURDER-COMUNIST" PLEASE HELP VENEZUELAN PEOPLE"

bayofpigs
28 July 2007 at 09:25

Getting back to Eva Gollinger for a moment, the money that she received was for doing legal work for VIO in Washington.

She refuted these old allegations as follows:

"Again, I have absolutely nothing to hide in my work or my finances. Say or write what you wish, but you will find no evidence of any financing of political activities that I have carried out - nor have I done any legal work for the Venezuela Information Office since the initiation of my investigation into the financing of various Venezuelan organizations and individuals. Not that there would be anything wrong if I were - after all, being paid for your expert services as a professional is vastly different from receiving funding from a foreign government to build a political movement intended to result in a regime change. "

Calvin Tucker
28 July 2007 at 11:46

The problem with this debate is that one side (the anti-Chavez gang) doesn't back up their points with facts and evidence. Instead, they invent facts to back up their opinions. Screaming in block capitals that Chavez is a dictator or a murderer, is evidence of nothing, except perhaps of the mental state of the commenter.

I have counted at least 8 entirely invented facts about Chavez that have been posted here by his detractors.

Lies have been posted about:

the electoral register

Chavistas driving around Caracas in 250 Rolls

Royces

poverty increasing

the number of homeless

Chavez being a wife beater

Chavez closing RCTV

electoral fraud

the Venezuelan constitution

On each occassion, I have asked those who have invented these facts to provide evidence to back them up. On each occassion, they have failed to do so.

There is a word that describes the tactics that these people use. It's called disinformation. The purpose is to delegitimise Venezuelan democracy and the Chavez presidency. If Chavez can be successfully portrayed as a tyrant or a dictator, this provides the justification for another coup, assassination, sanctions or US intervention. This is an age old strategy of the US in Latin America, and it is despicible of the New Statesman to give active support to this disinformation campaign.

Calvin Tucker
28 July 2007 at 11:47

Here is another example of PonyJony making things up:

"He doesn't built hospitals, he sends Cuban doctors with bandaids to the ghettos. He sends them to people that has nothing, so they love him. But he could very easily built them a hospital"

The facts, however, shout the loudest:

Mérida, July 26, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced the construction of 15 new hospitals across the country at an event in Caracas yesterday. The new hospitals, along with the remodeling of existing hospitals, make up the third and fourth phases of the Barrio Adentro (Inside the Barrio) health program.

PonyJony
28 July 2007 at 15:45

You nailed, Calvin Tucker, when you yourself posted the news that include the word "ANNOUNCED". Chavez did announced the construction of 15 new hospitals. Just like he announced the end of iliteracy, just like he announced he was going to turn La Carlota, the private airport of the very rich that, in the heart of Caracas, serves to private planes today, when he announced he was going to turn it into a park for the poor.

That's the clear problem here, Calvin. Venezuelans have learned to tell the difference between what Chavez announces and what Chavez does. You obviously haven't. And that's the very reason you defend him.

bayofpigs
28 July 2007 at 19:18

"Venezuela is the first and only country to meet the commitments adopted by the region's governments in 2002 in Havana to drastically reduce illiteracy."

UNESCO

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/3...

PonyJony
28 July 2007 at 20:11

Chavez declared Venezuela free of illiteracy three years ago. And this month, 5% of those registered in his party PSUV declared themselves unable to read. That's the beauty of his announcements. They mean nothing but hope.

PonyJony
28 July 2007 at 20:16

Chavez also recently announced the creation of three socialist cities. We'll be talking in ten years about his new announcements, but no cities would be built. That's his revolution. Announce and announce so the international media repeats what you announce, and give locals tiny beats to keep them hopping while you blame others for the ineficiency of your government.

bayofpigs
28 July 2007 at 22:22

So lets see if Camino de Los Indios will be built. The we'll know if Pony-Jony is leading us up the garden path.

Calvin Tucker
28 July 2007 at 22:37

The Barrio Adentro health programme has 4 stages. Stages 1 and 2 have been completed and a free health service has been rolled out across the country. Stages 3 and 4 involve the renovation of existing hospitals and the building of new ones.

Chavez's approval ratings on health are around 65%, so either the Venezuelan people are exceptionally stupid, or Chavez is doing a good job.

Calvin Tucker
28 July 2007 at 22:42

"And this month, 5% of those registered in his party PSUV declared themselves unable to read"

Any source for this claim, or is this another invention of yours?

aida hernandez
29 July 2007 at 00:52

When I read Mrs. O´keefe´s article I was really mad, I even thought about taking a plane to London and even sueing her or at least talking to her, but after a while, reading all the comments on this foro, well many people have answered for me. Thank you very much to the people that, not living in MY COUNTRY as I AM A VENEZUELAN, are so well informed. One little suggestion to Mr. Tucker, with some kind of low class people it is best not to get engagd in a back and for discussion, don´t even answer, they would never be able to see or accept that not everybody in this country hates President Chavez, for them there would always be something wrong with whatever he has done or is doing or will do, we have to live with this. It is o.k., bye the way Chavez has been married only two times not four, and I know for a fact that he has excellent relationships with both his ex-wives, and also I never saw Nancy or Marisabel with blackeyes, and it is not true that they ever said any such thing, I do live in Caracas, and I have not seen a Rolls Royce yet, where are they? it is a beautiful car, I would like to see one. I do not work for the government, I do not receive any kind of benefit (I do not need it, as I am not a poor person), I do not think the President is perfect, I think he and his government have made many mistakes, and yes there are many things that have no yet been done, I do criticise what needs to be criticised, but I would never lie, as I really hate lies and on the other hand lies tend to have short legs....The site Noticias24 is not a source it is right wing propaganda.

I have a questions, what is the "Cardiologico Infantil" a grocery store??, What is the CDI of Chuao as many others?? another grocery shop?. Where is it that a can get a College education in 8 month?, Why didn`t any body complain when, recently, President Alan Garcia CLOSED two TV stations and three papers?, why isn´t anybody complaing about the president of Egypt?, third term (21 years in power) ....Why did Manuel Rosales, or better yet, Teodoro Petkof both accepted that Chavez had won?, why did they not call fraud?, . well I could go on for hours, but I do have other things to do, I need to polish my english it is terrible, so in advance, please excuse my mistakes, bye for now, Alicia please don´t lie anymore, it is not nice at all, and it will not do anything against Chavez. There are some other real problems to criticise you need not lie, believe me, it is not necessarry.... again sorry for the mistakes and one more thing, you don't need to trash me, at my advanced age I could care less...... Mrs. Hernandez

maria gonzalez
29 July 2007 at 07:24

I am a venezuelan woman, and truly got tired of read so many misconceptions from all sides, and will be more tired if try to answer one by one all the topics exposed, (an its contrary answers), so please accept only my mere version of this sad bussiness. Beforehand, I state that am not in disposition of answer any of new tirades, even contradicting my sayings. The fact is that Hugo Chavez plotted into the Army for fifteen (15) year with the old radical leftwinged politician and communist, after the Castro's guerrillas had been overcame by the same Army in which Chávez in a covered operation went undermining. At last, in 1992 he (and other people in a putsch) effected the plan, that couldn't gain the power. While he was in prison, in november, 1992, another coup to which he adhered from prison, failed too. After Dr. Caldera gained the presidency, he was released from jail. (Dr. Calderas is his Godfather). He defended at next presidential poll the abstention, and also the popular right to rebellion. (What a difference nowadays¡) Offering a change from the stagnant before governments, he open in people the hope of improvement and development, and was elected. Immediately he promoted a Constituent Assembly, by tricks (from those far days¡) he got majority and he, himself send the new Constitutional text for accept.

The few representants of whatever other thoughts was unarmed to could defend other constitutional modifications, (Dr. Jorge Olavarria gave a remarkable speech where showed how democracy was going to be lost by the Government spinning its web). Since then on, Chavez have not stopped from arise the war of classes clearly explained by Marx as a pre-requisite for the Communist "People's dictatorship". But, like a good deal of population didn't accepted be suppresed in so a maquiavelic form, had to change somewhat the tactic: So he began not only the war of classes, yet the fraud with all the "legallity": changed the electoral autorities, changed the poll method to an "ellectronic" (easier to modifie the results), accepted a heavy quantitie of strangers whom he gave venezuelan citizenship, plus other rascalities I do not refer now. Deciding substitute near all the existing institutions by its "revolutionaire" contraparts, began the task of creating the correspondent parallel institutions: a.k.a. Barrio Adentro for the Health Ministry, Robinson, Ribas and Sucre and other for Education, and so on. Promoted the increase in the number of High Court Judges (taking care the new ones be red, very red, until the extreme of the desecration by themselves of they own honor, when cried when taking the charge :Oooh, ahh, Chavez is not lefting¡ While this, too the Army have his go-to-be substitute in the Reserves, a sort of trapical black shirts or ss cognating with the Defenses from Noriega's or any other Praetorian Guard you can imagine. At all this, PDVSA getting less and less oil production (and money), (guess you why), while they milk from there more and more ...us dollars, of course. You see part of it in a big bunch of unashamed new riches, making great ostentation of their riches, (ask the scottish distillers, and big country sedans dealers). While all this, scarcity came, high prices rise, black market comes up, imports are biggest than ever. Insecurity and violence are rampant plaguing the country, killings rise and rise (what if they deny it). The population is, slice by slice deprived from its civilian, politic and human rights, and the President (hear very well, note, the President says he will send near a renewed Constitution, with the new article(s) of his...continued, or indefined, or ethernal presidency. Mrs. O'Keefe, next time, don't let them butterfly on your "biased" opinions, explain crudely the ugly and damned facts: so, opposition people are coupsters, truly, you chavist see who your leaders are: coupster, schemer, spinner...and so on, to finish at last, in Dictatorial deffenders

Calvin Tucker
29 July 2007 at 12:25

I thought the last two comments illustrated the divide in Venezuela, not only in narrow political terms, but also culturally and intellectually.

The first post (from Mrs. Hernandez) accepted that there were legitimate criticisms that could be made of Chavez, but said that these should be made honestly and not by lying. In other words, for a criticism to valid it must flow from the facts.

The second post (from maria gonzalez) is typical of the mindset of the opposition. For her, Chavez is a ballot-rigging dictator, who has presided over falling oil revenue and rising inflation. And nothing you can ever do or say will change her mind.

The problem with this mindset is that it simply denies all reality that doesn't fit the slogans. Arguing with these people is like arguing with a member of a religious cult.

Every last detail of Venezuela's elections have been scrutinised at length by armies of international observers from the Carter Centre, the OAS and the EU. All of them say that the process is "free and fair" and meets international standards. Not only that, but the actual results were in line with the opinion polls.

None of this matters to the opposition: they say that Chavez is a dictator, so no amount of factual evidence to the contrary will cause them to change their minds.

And then we slip of on a tour of opposition fantasy land. Inflation has risen under Chavez, we are told. This looks like a black mark against him... except for one problem. It isn't true. Inflation, whilst still high at 19.4%, is around half what it was when Chavez came to power in 1999 (the pre-Chavez figure was 36%).

Now, the opposition could say "well, we think that given the current economic situation, inflation should be a lot lower than that, and this is what would do about it"

But they don't. Instead they just lie. And lie. And then lie a little more.

Oil revenue, they tell us, is decreasing. The facts, however, are the precise opposite. Revenue has massively increased, in part because of Chavez's hawkish policies within OPEC of restricting quotas in order to raise prices.

These are not my facts. They are the facts as accepted by all global financial institutions and businesses who operate in Venezuela. They are the facts as accepted by all the international election observers.

And if you think about it rationally, it is obvious that a president who is presiding over an oil boom and redistributing the proceeds is going to be very popular.

PonyJony
29 July 2007 at 15:32

This is what you have to understand: Carter and everyone else said the elections were legitimate because the votes were there. But the trick happened before the elections.

In a country where the registered voters are more than the population above 18 years old, you have to admit there's a fraud. Also, when you get fired from your job if you don't vote for Chavez, there's a fraud Carter can't see, because he only sees the votes.

Chavez did win the elections, but he won the elections by forcing his employees to vote for him, and by giving Venezuelan nationality to 2 million colombians in exchange for their vote. And Rosales and Petkoff are with him, just like Arias Cardenas (our current ambassador in the UN), the last candidate to run against Chavez. It's a cycle. They go against Chavez in the elections, then wait a couple of years, and joing his government back again.

You want a source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjZ4sJ504H8

That's Arias Cardenas, the current ambassador of Venezuela in the UN. He is one of the top Chavistas. And in the link you'll find an interview in which he says Chavez is an assasin that needs to be stopped. That was when he was the leading candidate against Chavez. And yes, he lost the elections, making insane electoral mistake, only comparable to those of Rosales.

Please explain this. Was he crazy? Or was he just playing a role to legitimize his leader in elections that years after you continue to praise? If you have an alternative theory, I'd love to hear it.

PonyJony
29 July 2007 at 15:37

And by the way, he is calling him assasin by saying Chavez was the only one who killed people on the so called 11 April Coup.

And this is one of the top chavistas today. Please explain. Why our current Ambassador to the UN calls Chavez a President with a sick mind, dirtied by Venezuelan blood. Do not avoid this question again, Calvin Tucker. If you claim to be so informed of the Venezuelan situation, you should at least respond to this key chavista figure's statements. Was he right? And if you were Chavez, would you name him your most important ambassador after this?

Freedom
30 July 2007 at 21:53

Mrs Hernandez,

I am pretty sure that you have already you brain washed.

It is amazing you are living in Venezuela and still said that about Chaburro, go to Merida, Trujillo, or in the same Caracas, kids with no food, shoes, or a place to live. Que Verguenza!

ASKAIN
31 July 2007 at 01:27

The only that has done a coup d'etat is Chavez. When their military friends realize that was going to remove to the military tanks from the PLAN AVILA request the resignation to him, that is that was not a Military coup but a rebellion of its same friends whom they to avoid a bloodshed.

PonyJony
02 August 2007 at 16:48

Glad to finally see how Calvin Tucker accepted that Chavez is a fraud.

Admin
07 August 2007 at 13:36

Chavez has brilliant democratic credientials as has been well documented. But Chavez is Venezuelan, and it is understandable that after winning so many elections and having consistently positive ratings he's getting annoyed that foreigners arrive who call him "power-crazed" , a tyrant and would-be dictator, and that they do this without ever speaking to the poor, who he has made it his mission to help.

Since he didn't even punish the people who overthrew him in the coup of 2002 and who abolished the Constitution, the National Assembly etc etc (obviously excellent democratic credentials) it is highly unlikely that he will actually deport such ridiculous foreigners.

That your writer was accused of being so "middle class" is very relevant in this context, as it is a very class based struggle, the middle classes in Venezuela are not like the middle classes here but your reporter allowed herself to identify with them and not look for the other side of the story - something a working class reporter would not have done.

It is very regrettable that you are all such products of public schools that you think this charge is of no consequence.

It might be worth looking up exactly who Manuel Espino is, but then doing any research on Latin America was never a strong point. But you could always just talk to your excellent columnist, John Pilger or just watch his film "The war on democracy" - lots of good stuff on Chavez's demoratic credentials.

Marie Hayashi

PonyJony
08 August 2007 at 17:10

The poor support Chavez, and those who support Chavez will always stay poor because that's the only guarantee he has to keep them needing him. After a decade, the poor stay poor, and the rich are richer than ever. If the rich ever realized that Chavez is the best man to control the poor while letting the rich do business, they will quit oposing him, and that will be the end of Chavez. So things should stay as they are. The rich making money, the poor happy with their leader that feeds them hope. And stupid British dreamers thinking Chavez is a true socialist while he lets capitalism rule the nation like never before.