"Chavez bid for more state control"

One witness to the Chávez address says:

quote:

---

...mark this day -- I think we may well look back on it years from now as the day Chavez began pulling the plug on capitalism in Venezuela. He put in a new cabinet, featuring both a member of the CP and a self-described Trotskyist -- actually, two -- the new minister of labor, and Chavez himself.

Chavez said when he proposed to the cde. that he take the post, the cde. replied, look, I want you to hear this from me, not it reaching you via someone else. I'm a Trotskyist. And Chávez said he replied that how could that be a problem. He (Chavez) was a Trotskyist too, a follower of the line of Permanent Revolution.

Moreover, it was ultra-conscious. Moments before he had highlighted a member of the Venezuelan Communist Party, saying he was proud that his cabinet was the first one in Venezuelan history to have a member from that party.

Obviously, Chavez intends that the new party be inclusive of all revolutionary-socialist-minded trends highlighting the inclusion of both the traditional pro-Moscow forces and their nemesis.

And then -- I don't think most people will note this, but I sure did -- he explained that it was necessary to destroy the old Venezuelan state, and build a new communal, revolutionary Bolivarian state. He said you could not build socialism with the old bureaucracy. He projected this as a step-by-step process ... but for the explicit purpose of deepening the revolutionary process, he's asked the legislature for a one-year grant of extraordinary legislative powers for the council of ministers.

---

quote:

---

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela during the swearing in ceremony of his new cabinet gave a fiery speech in which he announced a series of radical measures. If carried out they would be a serious blow against the power of the oligarchy and imperialism in Venezuela. The proposals he made reflect the sharp turn to the left in the country as a whole. They reflect the real mood of the masses and their desire for radical change and an end to capitalism in the country.

In December he won a massive victory, the biggest ever since the Bolivarian Revolution began. The balance of forces is now weighted very heavily in favour of the Venezuelan masses. Chavez has absolute control of parliament and massive support among the population. The conditions exist for snuffing out capitalism once and for all.

The list of measures announced by Chavez would mean striking at the very heart of Venezuelan capitalism. It is not by chance that an article that appeared in the Washington Post yesterday, commenting on his speech, appears under the title "Chavez accelerates Venezuela's socialist revolution". The title encapsulates very well what is happening in Venezuela. The serious bourgeois analysts understand what the Marxists understand. Capitalism could be eradicated in Venezuela quite easily.

Marxists cannot but give full-hearted supported to the measures announced by Chavez. We have consistently argued that the Venezuelan revolution cannot stop halfway. Either it moves forward to the expropriation of the commanding heights of the economy, thus breaking the power of the oligarchy and imperialism, or the process could unravel, with the oligarchy using its control of the economy to carry out acts of sabotage and wear down the revolution.

---

[ 09 January 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6243299.stm

"Chavez bid for more state control"

Thus making it sound as if nationalization equates to setting up block committees and staging summary executions.

---

I thought the tone of the article was fairly neutral, actually. Nationalization does increase state control over the economy - that's the whole point, no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

I don't think, however, that nationalization in itself destroys capitalism. Capitalism moved more or less happily along in the post-war period up until the 1970s in the West with much more state ownership than we have now. In a lot of cases, the state firms acted much like private firms.

---

quote:

---

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez was sworn in to his second full term as President [today], promising to dedicate himself to the construction of Venezuelan socialism. In his speech following the oath of office Chavez provided few new details about his second term, outlining a program that would lead Venezuela towards “21st century socialism” and that the process would be “radicalized” and “deepened.”

...

The oath of office that Chavez gave was rather unusual, in that he swore it in the name of Jesus Christ, who was “the greatest socialist of history,” his children, the country’s liberators, and the people of Venezuela that he would “not give rest to my arm nor rest my soul, that I will give my days and nights, my entire life to the construction of Venezuelan socialism, of a new political system, of a new social system, of a new economic system.” He ended with, “Fatherland, socialism or death!”

A large part of Chavez’s two-hour speech consisted of an analysis of Simon Bolivar’s writings on social justice, which, according to Chavez, implied that capitalism cannot achieve social justice, but that only socialism could.

...

To be clear about what he meant by achieving social justice, Chavez stated, “The time has come for the end of privileges, the end of inequality, and nothing and no one can make us stop the car of the revolution, cost us what it may.”

---

Also, this short article is worth a look:
To understand Venezuela, it is necessary first to understand Cuba.

[ 10 January 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

The press freedom group Reporters Without Borders on Friday condemned a decision by President Hugo Chavez not to renew the broadcast license of an opposition-aligned TV station, saying it will be a major setback for the Venezuelan media.

The Paris-based group called it a "serious attack on editorial pluralism" in a statement e-mailed to journalists, and urged the Venezuelan government to "reconsider its stance and guarantee an independent system of concessions and renewal of licenses."

Chavez, who was re-elected by a wide margin Dec. 3, has warned repeatedly that the government could deny licenses to media outlets that he accuses of trying to oust him — including RCTV.

Announcing the decision Thursday, Chavez said: "There will be no new concession for that coup-plotting television channel."

RCTV was among several private media outlets that supported an opposition-led strike in 2002 and 2003 that failed to unseat Chavez.

---

The Reporters Without Borders Fraud
The strong suspicions that have surrounded the dubious and partisan activities of Reporters without Boarders (RSF) were not unfounded. For many years, various critics have denounced the largely political actions of the Parisian entity, particularly with regards to Cuba and Venezuela, whose characteristics that utilizes propaganda is obvious. The positions of RSF against the governments of Havana and Caracas are found in perfect correlation with the political and media war that Washington carries out against the Cuban and Venezuelan revolutionaries.

Finally the truth has come to light. Mr. Robert Ménard, secretary general of the RSF for twenty years, has confessed to receiving financing from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization that depends on the U.S. Department of State...

zmag link

[ 13 January 2007: Message edited by: Banjo ]

Here's a more reasonable point of view:

quote:

---

Yesterday, the BBC reported that President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela announced that the license of Radio Caracas Television will not be renewed in March 27. I am normally a supporter of Chavez. I do not support him in all things, however. I am not a socialist. I support him in his dignified refusal to allow his people be used as a puppet again of the United States and international corporations. I also support him in his decision to rid television of advertising.

Chavez has made his reason clear: he will not tolerate media outlets that participates in a coup against him. RCTV and multiple privately owned Venezuela media outlets supported a failed coup in 2002 and a general strike against Chavez in 2003.

When Chavez came into power in 1999, he resisted the Venezuelan Murdochs from establishing themselves into his regime. He also eliminated advertising in the mass media. Ever since, the vast majority of the private media outlets have been rallied against Chavez. Chavez's socialism direction is also an obvious threat to these privately owned Venezuelan media empires.

Chavez said RCTV was "at the service of coups against the people, against the nation, against national independence, against the dignity of the republic".

....

Venezuela's media empires mimic ours [in the USA]. Their media outlets are owned by a wealthy elite who desire more power and larger media empires without regulation. They also are directed with purposeful political agendas.

When the strike happened, the Venezuelan media giants relayed 700 images of the protests every day.

However, when Chavez was kidnapped and they reported that he had resigned, there were massive protests demanding Chavez be restored to power. These rallies in favor of Chavez were not relayed by them.

The media giants are in favor of capitalism. They are in favor of the days of old when the wealthy few had power over the poor masses. The free press is ideally the conscience of the public. However, as Venezuela demonstrates, when media conglomerates take over the free press, they are no longer the conscience of the public. They become, instead, the conscience and will of the elite and powerful.

Despite overwhelming solidarity of opposition against Chavez from the major media outlets, Chavez won his last recent election in a landslide. The majority of Venezuela supports Chavez. Their media does not represent their views or express their will. They support an agenda that the majority of the public opposes: a return to capitalism, a return to the days of the elite class ruling over the poor class.

It is something to keep in mind as our mainstream media will add this to their anti-Chavez cannon fodder. You can expect the mainstream media to gloss over these facts. You can expect the mainstream media to decry with zeal Chavez's attack on RCTV. Meanwhile, just remember that this same media pretending to love the freedom of expression has violated our freedom of expression.

When hundreds of thousands rose in protests across the United States, the mainstream media gave them 15 seconds of coverage from helicopters, reducing any message, if allowed, to ridiculous sound bytes. Simultaneously they would host a disproportionate ratio of right-wing "experts" to push for war.

When obviously forged documents were used as proof that Iraq was seeking Uranium, none of them questioned it. When the Downing Street Memo emerged to show the Bush Administration were looking for anything that could be presented as evidence to support a policy, the mainstream media was oddly quiet about the scandal. In Britain, it brought outrage in their media.

This is the same mainstream media that refuses to allow airtime for messages by Adbusters that criticize our over-advertised and over-consuming culture.

This is the same mainstream media that acted as lapdogs during the Iraq invasion, allowing themselves to be embedded, and avoiding showing the true face of war in Iraq.

This is the same mainstream media that is still squabbling whether to call the constant chaos, bloodshed, and executions in Iraq as a 'civil war' or not.

Don't be fooled. The mainstream media is not quite the conscience of the people. They are routinely polite to their corporate affiliations, advertisers, let themselves be guided by conservative owners in prioritizing and slanting the news, and express special hostility towards anyone who dares to organize on a labor level for better treatment, pay, and benefits.

---

quote:

---

Venezuela's five largest television channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - are privately owned and universally hostile to the Chavez government. Aligned with them are nine of the ten major national newspapers.

---

[ 10 January 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Starting in the 30's as a result of pressure from our growing socialist movement many steps were taken that by today's standards would be considered "revolutionary".

Whole scale nationalisations occurred (especially in transport, energy and communications). Large corporate cartels were forcibly broken up. State owned media surfaced (the CBC) and many foreign owned or dominated media outlets were forcibly shut down or forced to change their ownership to reflect Canadian ownership and values (the radio station CFRB in Toronto is one such example as it's license was revoked from the US controlled NBC and forced to re-emerge as a Canadian station). One of today's remnants that reflect these times is the CRTC (something that still drives the right wingers and stations like CFRB nuts).

Chavez is merely following the "new Deal" or CCF policies that lifted our northern nations out of poverty. The only difference is when we did it, we weren't threatened with invasion, foreign countries spending millions to disrupt these plans or "christian" preachers like Pat Robertson praying for our leader's assasination.

Something that Venezuela is doing that makes its revolution different from ours is its role as a good neighbour to other Latin American countries:
Venezuela aid cements ties with Nicaragua

quote:

---

A potentially huge economic and social-assistance package from Venezuela to Nicaragua, to be announced this week, will help kill off US ambitions of maintaining its influence in Central America, Caracas said at the weekend.

In an interview with the FT, Miguel Gómez, Mr Chávez’s ambassador to Managua, said the assistance package would help transform Nicaragua. “Over the next five years Nicaragua is going to feel the effects of true co-operation based on solidarity, not one of trade and speculation . . . we want to infect Latin America with our model.”

Mr Gómez said he was not in a position to value the package but said it could run into billions of dollars, and would range from agricultural machinery, energy-related infrastructure and fuel to house-building projects, health and educational programmes. He described it as “a boost for the further expansion of the leftwing movement in Central America.”

The deal, which he said aimed to supply the Central American nation with 10m barrels of refined products a year, much of it petrol and gas, involved Nicaragua paying 60 per cent of the cost up front with the remaining 40 per cent payable over 25 years with a two-year grace period and only 1 per cent interest a year.

Mr Gómez insisted the bulk of the resulting debt to Caracas could be paid in the form of Nicaraguan sugar, beans and meat.

The package would also involve energy-related infrastructure, such as fuel- storage facilities and, possibly, an oil refinery.

He said Caracas was also contemplating building a pipeline between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to be able to sell oil to countries such as China.

In other areas, assistance would include a house-building scheme involving 200,000 new dwellings and a new road linking the Atlantic and Pacific coasts

---

Of course to neo-libs like EmmaG providing assistance to a neighbour is the antithesis of her capitalist Darwinian world just as it was to her kindred spirits the robber barons 70 years ago.

BTW, Emma before you post about "free speech" try contacting your cable provider to ask to subscribe to aljazeera or see what needs to be done to get either a TV or radio licence in our country (here's a hint you about a billion in the bank and the last name of Asper).

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
"Reporters Without Borders" has been exposed as a fraud,

---

They decided to throw out democracy altogether and take control by military force and they have the audacity to come back and complain about licenses not being renewed, and a couple of MIT economic shills not being sure the election was valid - and shit like that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
Funny, nobody here seems to mind RSF/RWB when their criticism is leveled at the U.S.

---

Reporters Without Borders was exposed as a U.S.-funded anti-liberation outfit long ago on babble.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
Don't forget that Chavez also planned and executed a coup in 1992, when there were democratic alternatives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Reporters Without Borders was exposed as a U.S.-funded anti-liberation outfit long ago on babble.

Maybe we should repeat that every few months for the edification of new posters.

---

Borg International Evil Sharia-Bolshevik Conspiracies Incorporated regrets the error, and will see to it that all nominally independent carbon based life form entities are properly interlinked a soon as possible.

Thank you for drawing attention to this error,

BIE S-BCI
Evil is not just an option, it is a mission!

[ 12 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I am so glad that someone like Chavez would never be elected in Canada.

quote:

---

So, if Harper revoked the licences of Canadian stations for planning a general strike against him and trying to bring down his government and outlawed any advertising on TV everyone here would support it?

---

Let's actually get things straight.

Firstly only one tv station was involved. There are several others tv stations operating not to mention radio and print media that express rather strong opposition to Chavez and the Venezuelan government. Even this station can continue to operate via cable they have just lost the license to broadcast on public airwave frequencies.

No licence was "revoked" the licence was not renewed, this may seem like semantics but it is not, the terms of the existing licence was in no way violated, when it came up for renewal it was denied, there is nothing particular illegal about that, governments grant licences they can fail to renew them.

The owners, operators and adminstrators of this station did not just organize a general strike, the actively advocated in and partipated in a coup, overthrowing a democratic government and threatening to kill the president.

If Harper and his cronies get a majority they would happily kill of the Cbc for a lot less than that.

quote:

---

I am so glad that someone like Chavez would never be elected in Canada.

---

Because it's unlikely that someone of indigenous or african ancestry would be elected Prime minister?

or because no government in Canada would actually get the support of 68% of the voters instead of 37%?

[ 12 January 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

EmmaG:I am so glad that someone like Chavez would never be elected in Canada.

N.R. Kissed: Because it's unlikely that someone of indigenous or african ancestry would be elected Prime minister?

or because no government in Canada would actually get the support of 68% of the voters instead of 37%?

---

Actually I think she has something against "Catholic communists".

With EmmaG its always about the "Catholic communists" and never about the facts (like ignoring Chavez's repeated warnings on ignoring climate change).

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Because it's unlikely that someone of indigenous or african ancestry would be elected Prime minister?

or because no government in Canada would actually get the support of 68% of the voters instead of 37%?

[ 12 January 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

---

[ 13 January 2007: Message edited by: pogge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shazum:
they were actually given a broadcast license

---

They were given a license but with such a heavy burden placed on anyone who would carry the station that no one did.

ETA:

quote:

---

long before Fox News

---

No. A proposal for a Fox News North made by CanWest in combination with Fox was approved long before Al Jazeera was. They just didn't go ahead with it.

[ 13 January 2007: Message edited by: pogge ]

[ 13 January 2007: Message edited by: pogge ]

RCTV's owner, Marcel Granier, played a key role in the April 2002 coup d'etat against President Chávez and has used his station to engage in an ongoing campaign of anti-Chávez propaganda and efforts to destabilize the nation through distorting and manipulating information to create panic, apathy, fear and violence in Venezuelan society. The station's clear violations of the telecommunications regulations and the Constitutional guarantees that protect freedom of speech and access to true and accurate information provide sufficient reason to deny the renewal of its license to use the public airwaves. Unlike the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times (Fidel Chávez?, January 11, 2007) mistakenly claims, Chávez and his government are not "shutting down" the private media station. RCTV can continue to operate on the private airwaves, i.e. cable and satellite television. As would be the case in any country where law and order are respected, RCTV will not receive a renewal on its license to remain on the public airwaves because it repeatedly violated the law during more than a decade.

Unfortunately, international groups that allegedly protect freedom of the press and of speech around the world, have fallen under the influence and manipulation of RCTV president Marcel Granier, who through his close relationship with Washington, is conducting a campaign to defend his station by using the banner of freedom and liberty. But consistent lawbreakers and coup leaders should not receive the support of international press watchdog groups and human rights defenders. Rather, those groups should praise the decision of the Venezuelan government to maintain the public airwaves in the hands of the people. The license so abused by RCTV will most likely be granted to various community and alternative media groups and stations in Venezuela that have emerged over the past few years as a result of the direct encouragement and support of the Chávez administration.
....

quote:

---

His ambitious social programs are built on Venezuela's petroleum wealth, but President Hugo Chavez is increasingly talking up environmental causes and urging the world to cut back on oil use to fight global warming.

He wants to use some oil revenues in a venture to manufacture solar panels and has begun doling out millions of energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs to homes nationwide.

Some critics say Chavez's campaign is mostly rhetoric, noting this is a country where government subsidies have gasoline prices at 12 cents a gallon, car sales are booming and vehicle exhaust chokes litter-strewn streets.

But Chavez says Venezuela can be an example, and he has begun exhorting his followers to drive less and take public transport. His government plans a windmill farm to generate electricity on the Caribbean coast and is exploring more uses for cleaner-burning natural gas.

"Venezuela is one of the countries that least contaminates the environment, but nevertheless we want to give an example and be at the vanguard," Chavez said at a news conference Thursday.

He called U.S. oil consumption - which handsomely funds his government - a leading cause of the world's environmental troubles.

"They're destroying the world," Chavez said, citing melting glaciers in the Andes and predictions of rising sea levels. "The human race will be finished if we don't change the world capitalist system."

---

One might also note that the former private owners were both American, a country that is decidedly hostile to Chavez's government. Would the US allow an Iranian company to control its entire electrical and communications grid?

[ 04 February 2007: Message edited by: edgewaters72 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by edgewaters72:
Would the US allow a Chinese or Iranian company to control its electrical and communications grid?

---

Probably not, but when it's Gulf oil princes taking over U.S. ports, Bush suddenly became an internationalist.

[ 04 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
The BBC has had it in for any socialist based government from day one. Further proof of how far "new" Labour has strayed from it's roots and how there really is no difference between a neo-lib (the BBC) and a neo-con (Fox News) when corporate interests are at stake.

As an aside, I find it quite ironic that a state owned broadcaster that only exists because of previous socialist governments can criticise another country from doing the same thing.

---

that's a good point, about how BBC started.

it is totally against England's interest to alienate Hugo Chavez. North Sea oil production is plummeting; BP output peaked in the quarter ending June 2005.

the England have a euphemistic term for when old people die because they can't afford to put coins in their pay radiators for heat. they call it "excess deaths", and the numbers are in the tens of thousands.

England needs oil; Venezuela has oil. if i was Tony Blair i'd be real nice to Hugo Chavez.

Chavez has never attacked or threatened any other nation. In fact assisitance (in reduced fuels and money) has been the benchmark of his leadership.

What has the neo-libs and neo-cons upset is he's one of the few leaders in the world who doesn't bow and scrape to the New World Order.

In fact his criticisms of it are amongst the best one liners coming out right now:

Chávez makes a monkey of Bush

quote:

---

In the lexicon of political insults it will take some beating. Already known for his somewhat colourful use of language Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez has probably written himself into the history books for a new sidewipe at his US counterpart George Bush.

In the latest salvo in the war of words between the two countries Mr Chávez described Mr Bush as "evil," a "criminal" but then added that he was "more dangerous than a monkey with a razor blade".

---

quote:

---

Reporters without Borders no longer knows what to invent in its disinformation war against the democratic and popular government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. While one supposes that the Parisian organization only concerns itself with freedom of the press, in reality it carries out a fierce political battle against the Bolivarian government. Less than ten days after revealing numerous lies in an open letter, RSF returns to the charge and openly declares itself against the constitutional reform submitted to the December 2, 2007 referendum.

“On the eve of the vote Reporters without Borders states its concern relating to two articles of the new text, dangerous for freedom of the press,” declared the organization headed by Robert Ménard. The “current reform […] dangerously distorts the initial heading, by means of articles 337 and 338, and threatens freedom of the press,” RSF stated. Let us see what the reality is.

Article 337 stipulates that:

“The president of the Republic, through the Council of Ministers, may decree a state of emergency. The article specifies that the a state of emergency may be invoked under social, political, economic, natural or ecological circumstances that seriously affect the nation’s security, institutions and citizens, and when the authority to meet such challenges become insufficient. In such a case, guarantees confirmed in this Constitution will be temporarily restricted or suspended, except those referring to the right to life, prohibition against torture, solitary confinement, forced disappearance, the right to self-defense and physical integrity, the right to a trial or the right to be judged by one’s peers and not to be sentenced to punishments exceeding thirty years.”

As can be easily checked, there is nothing in Article 337 against freedom of the press, contrary to what RSF states. The article in question even specifies that in no case, under no circumstance, shall the “right to life, the prohibition of torture, solitary confinement, forced disappearance, the right to self-defense, to physical integrity, to be judged by peers and to not be sentenced to penalties exceeding thirty years” be questioned. It’s worth pointing out that the state of emergency has never been used since Hugo Chavez’ rose to power in 1998.

Article 338 of the Venezuelan reform is also clear. Here it is in its entirety:

“A state of alert can be declared when certain or imminent possibilities exist that situations are going to occur capable of generating catastrophes, public calamities or other similar events, with the purpose of taking necessary preventative measures to protect the security of the nation or its citizen.

“A state of emergency can be declared when catastrophes, public calamities or other similar events occur that seriously put the security of the nation or its citizens in danger.

“A state of economic emergency can be declared when extraordinary economic circumstances occur that seriously affect the economic life of the nation.

“A state of domestic or exterior disturbance can be declared in the case of domestic or external conflict that puts the security of the nation, its citizens or institutions in danger.

“The state of alert, emergency, economic emergency and domestic or foreign disturbances will last while the causes that motivated it exist.”

What is also clear, in no case is any reference made to a possible attack against freedom of the press.

What is the reality in France? According to law no.55-385 of April 3, 1955, which was applied in France from November 2005 to February 2006 by Jacques Chirac’s government during the suburban uprising, “the declaration of the state of emergency gives powers to the prefect whose department finds itself totally or partially included in a district provided for in Article 2 to: 1. prohibit the circulation of people or vehicles in places and at times set by government order; 2. institute, by government order, protection or security zones where the presence of persons is regulated; 3. prohibit the presence in all or part of the department of any person who tries to obstruct the action of public powers in any way.”(Article 5) This law also gives the Minister of the Interior the power “To allocate residences in a territorial district or specific locality of everybody who resides in the zone”(Article 6), “To close theaters, drinking establishments, and any kind of meeting places in the specific zones,” “to order the searching of homes day and night”(Article 8), and above all “To authorize the same authorities to take all measures to assure the control of the press and publications of any type, as well as radio programs, movies, and theatrical productions” (Article 11).

Why has RSF never revolted against the April 3, 1955 law suppressing liberty, which makes serious inroads against freedom of the press in France and also against public and individual freedoms, and which authorizes “military jurisdiction to replace civil jurisdiction in the investigation of crimes, and related offenses,” even “after the lifting of the state of emergency” (Articles 12 and 13). Why doesn’t it ask for the repeal of emergency legislation that is contrary to the democratic spirit? Instead of crusading against a non-existent attack against freedom of the press on another continent, shouldn’t RSF perhaps concern itself with violations against that same freedom in the French territory when it has its headquarters?

Making a mockery of its prerogatives and shattering all pretense of neutrality and impartiality, RSF adopts a political position and becomes a spokesman of the opposition, criticizing the reform while revealing its true face: “What need did President Hugo Chávez have to undertake a constitutional reform, that he himself approved, running the risk of stirring up even more divisions and polarization among the citizens of his country?” Ménard describes the reform as “inappropriate” and claims that “the ratification of that reform could signify a dangerous turn for freedom of the press.” What legitimacy does the organization have to meddle in the internal matters of the Bolivarian nation and pass judgment on the reform? Perhaps the Venezuelan people aren’t sovereign?

---

A few years ago, I ran across one of these and naively bought it as a birthday present for a relative of mine who happens to be a journalist. He thanked me for the present, but admitted he felt uncomfortable accepting it because, as he said, Borders Without Reporters was well known among responsible journalists as a "CIA front".

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChicagoLoopDweller:
What ever happened with regards to the CIA conspiracy that was uncovered before the referendum?

---

The CIA memo said that in the weeks leading up to referendum, it was likely that the Yes side would win by a few percent, but that a well-funded disinformation campaign to interfere in Venezuela's democracy would swing the vote the other way by enough to make it close. In which case, if the Yes side had won, there would have been violence in the streets fomented by the CIA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChicagoLoopDweller:
What were the other wierd explanations?

---

The disinformation campaign ranged from shameless lies about confiscation of property and children to phony drafts of the constitutional reforms distributed. There were lies that Venezuelans who did not agree with or vote for the reforms would be excluded from Venezuela's socialist programs. The anti-Venezuelan independence propaganda was demonstrative of other CIA disinformation campaigns for political interference in other countries throughout the last century.

eta: Democracy is the right's most hated institution. "They [Chileans] can not be trusted with democracy" -- the Doctor to the Madman and CIA leading up to the coup against Allende's socialist government

If our governments were to even trust Canadians and Americans with a national referendum, say, on electoral reform to give us Mixed Member Proportional representation similar to what Venezuela already has, and the Venezuelans interfered similarly, then I think there would be some cries of foul and illegal interference heard far and wide.

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]