|
by the phony "controversy" around the Chavez government's de-licensing of a corporate monopoly TV station, RCTV, which had actively participated in the failed rightwing military coup against the democratically elected Chavez government. TV airwaves are PUBLIC airwaves, and are licensed and regulated by every government in the world. RCTV had a 20 year run as the Faux News of Venezuela (only worse, if you can imagine), and finally committed outright treason, during the failed coup. When their license came up for renewal, the Chavez government denied the renewal and opened the station to independent broadcasters. The Bush-CIA, which runs the "opposition" in Venezuela--the tiny, privileged, rightwing elite--managed to organize some public protests, phonily touting "free speech" (can you imagine what "free speech" would be like now, in Venezuela, had the rightwing military coup succeeded? --anyone who dared to raise their voice against the junta would have been thrown out of airplanes, or cut up into pieces and thrown into mass graves, tortured, 'disappeared'...massive REAL repression of free speech would have occurred), but, when the National Assembly (dominated by ELECTED Chavistas) invited the rightwing "students" to come in off the streets and debate the matter before the National Assembly, these students had nothing to say--no intelligent argument to make--and walked out in a huff, at the beginning of the debate, using the excuse that the opposition students (anti-RCTV, pro-Chavez) had said something they didn't like. (I don't know what it was--but it was a debate, so, if they didn't like something that was said, why didn't they counter it with their own points?)
Meanwhile, the pro-Bush government of Peru had de-licensed several TV stations. It is a relatively COMMON occurrence around the world. But nothing was said about THAT. No, this focus by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and their operatives here at DU, on this ONE de-licensing--in a situation in which the government had overwhelming cause to deny a license--was part of a global corporate predator/Bushite campaign to paint Hugo Chavez as a "dictator" and to discredit the Bolivarian social justice movement, because it is so incredibly popular throughout South America, and is effectively changing South American politics and economics for the better.
Similarly, when Hugo Chavez recently proposed that the people of Venezuela VOTE on a change to the Venezuela Constitution that would permit him to run for (and BE ELECTED TO) a third term, the rightwing scream machine started on that, as further evidence that Hugo Chavez is a "dictator." He wants to be "president for life," they said--calling up stereotypes of past tinpot dictators in Latin American "banana republics." Of course, the same thing was said by the rightwing in this country about FDR, who ran for and won FOUR terms as president, and died in office in his fourth term--they called FDR a "dictator." The rightwing seems unable to make a distinction between being powerful and being a dictator--a very telling vacuum in their understanding of politics. NOTHING can done without power. You want to save a country from a rightwing-caused Great Depression? You MUST have power. How you GET it is the issue--by stolen elections? by fiat? or by the will of the people in democratic elections? And even though both administrations--that of FDR and that of Hugo Chavez--were/are characterized by a vast expansion of participation by ordinary citizens--and especially the poor and the previously excluded minorities--in public life and government--a huge gain for democracy--the men who LED this vast expansion of democracy get termed "dictators" by the right, because the right believes in rule by the rich elite, not by the majority of New Dealers or Chavistas.
So now, where are they--these anti-Chavez 'hit and run' posters? Likely they don't even KNOW that Bush-friendly Uribe supporters in Colombia are proposing THE SAME THING for Uribe--a Constitutional change to allow him to run for another term. I have little doubt that elections are fixed in Colombia--a country where rightwing paramilitaries with very close ties to the Uribe government have been running rampant, slaughtering union organizers, small peasant farmers and political leftists, and engaging in drug trafficking. Fair elections--and honest polling--are just not possible in these conditions. If you campaign against Uribe, you might find yourself in a mass grave. So I don't trust that a referendum on this issue in Colombia will truly reflect the will of the people. In Venezuela, by contrast, elections have been heavily monitored--by the OAS, the Carter Center and EU election monitoring groups--and have been repeatedly certified as honest and aboveboard, and the basic facts of the election system--how votes are counted--indicate extraordinary transparency and fairness. If the Venezuelans vote to allow Chavez a third term, we can be as sure as it is possible to be, that it is a true reflection of the will of the majority. Not so in Colombia.
Where are the rightwing trolls who call Chavez a "dictator," when it comes to the ultimate fascist dictation--in Colombia--killing political leftists, and union and community organizers? They never mention it. They don't seem to care. And where are they now, regarding the fascist Uribe whose supporters want a "president for life"?
I am so sick of this lying hypocrisy! In Venezuela, NO ONE is jailed or murdered for their views. In Colombia, it is a common occurrence. They oppose the power of a genuinely elected leader, Chavez, and completely ignore the horrible fate of so many political activists in Colombia. And they are doing the same thing with regard to Guatemala--a favorite Reaganite killing field (200,000 Mayan villagers slaughtered in 1980s, on suspicion of being "communists"!)--where FORTY leftist political candidates, family members or campaign workers have been murdered in the current election cycle. They ignore it! You don't see any of their posts descrying the political violence in Colombia and Guatemala, because they DON'T CARE about democracy AT ALL. And they dare to call Chavez a "dictator"--the leader of a country with the most vital and inclusive political culture in the western hemisphere, where, if you oppose an action of the government, they invite you into the National Assembly (congress) to debate it!
It's very interesting that Uribe is being coy about this "president for life" business, and so is the Bush State Department. The Bushites are well aware of their lies about Chavez, and how poorly they have gone down in South America. They would, of course, love to have fascist dictators all over the continent, funneling billions of dollars in ungodly profits to their oil corporation buds and other corporate predators, and smashing democracy wherever it dares to raise its head. But they have to be a bit careful in an area of the world where, despite the effort of their corporate news monopolies, they don't control public opinion. Uribe running for a third term, to keep the rightwing fascists in charge in Colombia--a major milk cow for Bushite arms and drug dealers, corporate agriculture and "free trade"--would likely yield howls of laughter in the left-dominated continent (--as did Hugo Chavez's remark at the UN about Bush being "El Diablo"). The Bush Junta is very much on the "outs" in South America--where country after country has elected leftist (majorityist) governments--and in Latin America generally, among most people. Can they get away with touting a rightwing "president for life" while demonizing a leftwing president for seeking a third term? Here, they have complete control of the national narrative, and the election machinery--and don't give a fart if the public opposes them--and can say and do anything they like. Not so in South America.
Also, it's quite interesting that Chavez and Uribe have developed a friendship, and that Uribe has asked Chavez to negotiate a hostage release with the leftist guerrillas in Colombia--and possibly to mentor a peace treaty. Even a politician like Uribe, who is supported by billions of U.S. tax dollars, is aware of Colombia's increasing isolation and ill repute in a region that is fast going democratic. And Uribe is said to have balked at his rightwing compadres' plots to assassinate Chavez and other democratically elected South American leaders (likely Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, who opposes the corrupt U.S. "war on drugs")--plots that no doubt originated in the Bush White House. SOMETHING is happening in South America around the thought, "Latin America for Latin Americans"--a reaction to decades of U.S. interference--and it is even affecting some rightwing circles. Uribe is nothing if not a wily politician, who has managed so far to avoid impeachment and prosecution for the crimes of his regime, and who seems to have popular support (--though I greatly distrust polls in Colombia). It may be that, to survive, he has to distance himself from the Bushites and his own extremists. In any case, Uribe's behavior points to the profound influence that Hugo Chavez is having on South American politics, and to the vast sea change that is occurring in U.S./South American relations, with the rise of the Bolivarian social justice and democracy movement.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
