DN: A Debate on the Closing of RCTV

Chavez Shuts Down Venezuelan TV Station as Supporters, Opponents Rally: A Debate on the Closing of RCTV

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3

Thousands of people have taken to the streets in Venezuela in four days of protests and counter-protests over the closing of TV network Radio Caracas Television. President Hugo Chavez decided not to renew the station's TV license over its support for the coup that temporarily removed him from power five years ago. We host a debate on the issue.

---

In Venezuela, thousands of people have taken to the streets in four days of protests and counter-protests over the closing of TV network Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV. The Venezuelan government decided not to renew RCTV's television license earlier this year. Police, protesters and government supporters have clashed violently in Caracas since Sunday, and scores of people have been arrested.

President Hugo Chavez's decision to close RCTV - Venezuela's oldest private television network - has received international condemnation, including from the European Union, press freedom groups, Chile and the United States.

The Venezuelan government says it cancelled RCTV over its support for the coup that briefly overthrew Chavez five years ago. At the time, RCTV and other opposition TV channels openly supported the coup. In a national address on Monday, Chavez defended his decision to close RCTV, denouncing it as a "permanent attack on public morals."

He also called news network Globovision an enemy of the state, and criticized its coverage of the protests against RCTV's closure.

• Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan president: "What Globovision did last night was an open and clear indication that they would kill me. Well, people of Globovision, I am going to alert you in front of the country on the national chain of radio and television, I recommend that you take a tranquilizer, because if not I am going to do what is necessary."

On Monday, Venezuela's government announced it was suing Globovision for allegedly broadcasting material to incite a possible assassination of Chavez. It also accused US news network CNN of linking him to al-Qaeda. Globovision and CNN have both denied the claims.

RCTV's general manager Marcel Granier has described the closure as "abusive" and "arbitrary". The Venezuelan government refused to renew its license on the grounds that it conspired against Chavez during the 2002 coup, including broadcasting footage falsely blaming Chavez supporters for violence, applauding coup leaders as they overthrew the government and then refusing to report that Chavez had returned to power following mass protests.

In a moment we'll have a debate on this issue, but first let's turn to a documentary made by two filmmakers who were in Caracas during the 2002 coup. The film is called "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."

• "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" - excerpt of documentary produced by Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain.

That clip featured an interview with Andres Izarra, a news manager with RCTV during the 2002 coup. He later quit the station in protest over its coverage. Andres Izarra joins us now from a studio in Caracas. He later served as Venezuela's communications minister under President Chavez and is now president of TeleSUR. And joining us on the telephone from Connecticut is Francisco Rodríguez, an assistant professor of economics and Latin American studies at Wesleyan University He is a a former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly.

• Andres Izarra, former news manager at RCTV. He served as Venezuela's former communications minister under President Chavez. He is now president of TeleSUR, a multinational satellite network.
• Francisco Rodríguez, assistant professor of economics and Latin American studies at Wesleyan University, and former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly.

---

JUAN GONZALEZ: In Venezuela, thousands of people have taken to the streets in four days of protest and counter-protest over the closing of TV network Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV. The Venezuelan government decided not to renew RCTV’s television license earlier this year. Police, protesters and government supporters have clashed violently in Caracas since Sunday, and scores of people have been arrested.

President Hugo Chavez’s decision to close RCTV, Venezuela’s oldest private television network, has received international condemnation, including from the European Union, press freedom groups, Chile and the United States.

The Venezuelan government says it canceled RCTV over its support for the coup that briefly overthrew President Chavez five years ago. At the time, RCTV and other opposition TV channels openly supported the coup. In a national address on Monday, Chavez defended his decision to close RCTV, denouncing it as “a permanent attack on public morals.” He also called news network Globovision an enemy of the state and criticized its coverage of the protest against RCTV's closure.

PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ: [translated] What Globovision did last night was an open and clear indication that they would kill me. Well, people of Globovision, I’m going to alert you in front of the country on the national chain of radio and television: I recommend that you take a tranquilizer, because, if not, I am going to do what is necessary.

JUAN GONZALEZ: On Monday, Venezuela’s government announced it was suing Globovision for allegedly broadcasting material to incite a possible assassination of Chavez. It also accused US news network CNN of linking him to al-Qaeda. Globovision and CNN have both denied the claims.

AMY GOODMAN: RCTV’s general manager, Marcel Granier, has described the closure as “abusive” and “arbitrary.” The Venezuelan government refused to renew its license on the grounds it conspired against Chavez during the 2002 coup, including broadcasting footage falsely blaming Chavez supporters for violence, applauding coup leaders as they overthrew the government, and then refusing to report that Chavez had returned to power following mass protest.

In a moment, we'll have a debate on this issue. But first, let's turn to an excerpt of a documentary made by two filmmakers who were in Caracas during the 2002 coup. The film is called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

NARRATOR: One in four Venezuelans carry handguns, and soon some of the Chavez supporters began to shoot back in the direction the sniper fire seemed to be coming from.

ANDRES IZARRA: [translated] One of the channels had a camera opposite the palace. They captured images of people shooting from the bridge. It looks like they’re shooting at the opposition march below, but you can see they, themselves, are ducking. They are clearly being shot at, but the shots of them ducking were never shown. The Chavez supporters were blamed. The images were manipulated and shown over and over again to say that Chavez supporters had assassinated innocent marchers.

PRIVATE TV CHANNEL COVERAGE: [translated] Look at that Chavez supporter. Look at him empty his gun. That Chavez supporter has just fired on unarmed peaceful protesters below, peaceful protesters who are totally unarmed.

NARRATOR: What the TV stations didn't broadcast was this camera angle, which clearly shows that the streets below were empty. The opposition march had never taken that route. With this manipulation, the deaths could now be blamed on Chavez.

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of the documentary, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, by filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Briain. That clip featured an interview with Andres Izarra, a news manager with RCTV during the 2002 coup. He later quit the station in protest over its coverage. After break, he will join us in debate with a Wesleyan professor over the closing of RCTV, the Wesleyan Professor Francisco Rodriguez, professor of Latin American studies in Connecticut. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Joining us from Caracas, Venezuela, is Andres Izarra, who quit RCTV, later served as Venezuela's communications minister under President Chavez and is now president of TeleSUR, the multinational satellite network launched by Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia and Cuba. And on the phone with us from Connecticut, Francisco Rodriguez, an assistant professor of economics and Latin American studies at Wesleyan University, former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

Let’s begin with Andres Izarra in Venezuela. Why did President Chavez shut down RCTV?

ANDRES IZARRA: President Chavez hasn't shut down any TV station. The concession has expired after fifty-three years, and the government decided not to renew the concession, because it needed to develop a national public service television. There is no shutdown at all.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And could you talk a little bit about the time that you were news director at RCTV at the time of the coup and the reason for your initial resignation and your concerns about RCTV’s news coverage?

ANDRES IZARRA: RCTV, during the 2002 coup d’etat in Venezuela, was a factor aligned with the interests of the dictatorship that was installed in our country for forty-eight hours. It is no secret, not just with RCTV, but all the other private media, radio and television, were aligned in promoting the protests and the whole process that led to the incarceration of President Chavez during this brief period of time. And the censorship that was imposed on all of us journalists during those days in the effort of the private TV and radio stations to legitimize the dictatorship in Venezuela, it was a censorship that was imposed on us in an effort to try to legitimize this dictatorship. We could not broadcast any of the people's reaction to the decree and to the dictator Carmona. And we could not cover anything that was happening in Venezuela, because instead of spreading the news of what was going on, the broadcast stations were broadcasting telenovelas, soap operas and cartoons.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to bring in Francisco Rodriguez, assistant professor at Wesleyan University, former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly. Your response to RCTV's closing?

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ: Yes, well, I think that I am actually quite surprised that Mr. Izarra says that RCTV is not being closed down. It’s the nation's oldest private TV station. It’s been operating since the ’50s. It’s the nation’s most widely viewed TV station. And it’s very clear that the government is going against it because it doesn't follow the government line, it has a very much of a pro-opposition stance.

Now, the government, as Mr. Izarra said, has charged it with supporting the coup. Now, in a democracy, usually it is not sufficient for somebody to be accused of committing a crime in order for the government to be able to take action against them. In a democracy, when somebody is believed to have conspired against the government, they have the right to defend themselves in court. They’re taken to a court of law. And only after a court has said they are guilty is it that the executive power can actually take some measure against them. So, effectively, if Mr. Izarra or Mr. Chavez have proof that RCTV conspired against the government in the coup, well, why haven’t they taken it to court? No Venezuelan court has decided that RCTV has violated any law.

And it’s actually very striking that Mr. Izarra just said that all other private media also were not transmitting the story in a view -- during the April 2002 coup, were not transmitting the views of the Chavez supporters. Now, that’s very interesting, and I think that that, by and large, is true. Now, what’s interesting is that some of those media, which Mr. Izarra has just said, were doing the same thing as RCTV, have just had their concessions renewed. So, for example, Venevision has just had its concession renewed. Why, if there’s no difference between what Venevision did and what RCTV did, is RCTV's concession revoked and Venevision’s concession renewed? Well, the reason is that Venevision now has an editorial line which is very favorable to the government. Venezuelans joke at Venevision, calling it “Venezolana de Venevision,” which is a play on words that makes its name almost indistinguishable from that of the government TV station.

So, effectively, what the government is doing is that it’s using licenses and it’s using a set of other economic means, such as foreign exchange allegations, blacklisting of government opponents -- the government has published a list of 3.5 million people who signed the recall referendum against them, against the government, to intimidate them -- and it’s using all of these means to try to quash out dissent in Venezuela. I think that’s what’s happening. And basically, I think we’re looking at the breakdown of democracy in Venezuela.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Professor Rodriquez, when you mention about how democracy functions, my understanding is that in Venezuela there really is no -- and this predates the Chavez government -- that there is really no process by which a television company can appeal the revocation of their license, that basically it is an executive decision of the government whether you have the privilege of holding a license, very similar to -- at least here in the United States, there’s an FCC that fines stations quite often and can take away a license for failure to serve in the public interest, although clearly there’s a court procedure here in the United States, but that the Venezuelan legal system does not provide that kind of appeal process for television stations. Is that accurate?

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ: Sure, but there are a set of international agreements also, which have been signed by the Venezuelan government, which specify that these mechanisms, such as the renewal of licenses, such as the use of taxation or the allocation of foreign exchange, cannot be used in a way in which they are geared towards trying to change the opinion or the messages that are being transmitted by these TV stations. So they can't be used to interfere with the freedom of speech.

So what is effectively and obviously happening here in Venezuela and is transparent in the declarations of Mr. Izarra and all of the government supporters is that RCTV is being punished for its editorial line. And there, we get into an issue where there’s a violation of the freedom of speech and where effectively the government is using its force not to regulate the broadcasting system, but actually to make it have an opinion and voice opinions which are favorable to it. And that, I think, is where we see the breakdown of democracy occurring.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. Izarra, your response to the position of the professor that you’re, in essence, punishing one network, whereas other networks also supposedly participated or supported the coup attempt?

ANDRES IZARRA: Well, I cannot speak on behalf of Venevision and where their editorial line is. I can only speak about TeleSUR. And we have been covering all sides of the events during all these days. Even the head of now the opposition, which is Globovision, the head of Globovision was on our air just yesterday exposing what their views were. I don't know what Venevision is doing. I cannot speak on their behalf. But I can really say that this is a matter of sovereignty, and this is just an administrative procedure. In the past, we’ve seen in France, for example, the French government revoked the license for Berlusconi, when he was operating Tele 5, and gave it to another operator. Well, the same thing is happening here, just that in this case we’re not renewing a license.

There is no political -- how do you say that? -- punishment being imposed on RCTV because of their editorial line. In fact, 78% of the concessions in VHF in Venezuela are in private hands, most of them aligned with the opposition. 82% of the concessions in the UHF spectrum are also in private hands, also most of them aligned with the opposition. So what we have here, again, is just an administrative procedure that is being used with political purpose to advance another coup d’etat. There’s another coup d’etat effort on the way in Venezuela, just like we had in the past.

I must remind you, the sixty-four days of oil sabotage that happened in our country, where the oil elite stopped oil production in Venezuela, supported by this private media. I must remind you that RCTV broadcast during sixty-four days thousands and thousands of TV spots, not commercials, only political messages, to take out of the government a legitimate and democratically elected government. If you have such an irresponsible operator doing what RCTV has been doing in our country for over five years, that license would be revoked immediately. If you have a private media being involved in the coup d’etat, like you had it happening in Venezuela, you would see, for sure, that channel taken off the air in the United States and its owners being put in jail.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Andres Izarra. He’s in Caracas, Venezuela, our first live national broadcast, video and audio, directly from Caracas. I apologize a bit for the sound. It sounds like there’s a bit of a rainstorm there, but it doesn’t look like that, though it looks maybe a little overcast. He is the president of TeleSUR. We’re also joined by Professor Rodriguez from Wesleyan University.

Andres Izarra, just looking at thestar.com, the latest piece out of Reuters, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez calling opposition news channel Globovision an enemy of the state, saying he would do what’s needed to stop it from inciting violence only days after he shut another opposition broadcaster. It quotes Hugo Chavez saying that. Going on to say, “Tens of thousands of Venezuelans marched in Caracas in a fourth consecutive day of protests over Chavez’s closure of [the] RCTV [network].” State TV “showed hundreds of government supporters marching in downtown Caracas celebrating Chavez’s decision. ‘Enemies of the homeland, particularly those behind the scenes, I will give you a name: Globovision. Greetings, gentlemen of Globovision, you should watch where you are going,’ Chavez said in a broadcast all channels had to show.” He said, “‘I recommend you take a tranquillizer and get into gear, because if not, I am going to do what is necessary.’ He accused Globovision of trying to incite his assassination and of misreporting protests over the closure of RCTV that could whip up a situation similar to the coup attempt [against him] in 2002.” Andres Izarra, your response to that Reuters report.

ANDRES IZARRA: Well, we have seen Globovision inciting the death of the president. I would like to see what would happen if NBC or CBS would broadcast what Globovision shows here, not just openly calling the people to rebel. In this very small opposition protest led by different, especially middle class and upper class students from private universities in Caracas and in the east of Caracas, which is the wealthiest part of the city, I would like to see how the FCC response would be for a broadcaster like Globovision that is constantly promoting rebellion and destabilization and has been supporting all anti-democratic processes and pronouncements here in Venezuela. The latest thing we've had is a clear, open call for the assassination of the president during one of their most vitriolic anti-Chavez shows called Alo Ciudadano.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Professor Rodriguez, I’d like to ask you, looking at it from our perspective here in this country, if some networks here in this country, NBC or ABC, fomented the kind of public opposition that RCTV or Globovision have against the current administration, do you think that the government would be justified in acting against them?

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ: Well, I think it’s very important to talk about exactly what it is that they’re doing. And as I -- first of all, as I started out saying at the beginning, I think that there has to be a judicial review, there has to be presentation of the proof against these networks that shows that they have indeed fomented opposition.

Now, let's talk about, Mr. Izarra just mentioned, openly calling for the overthrow of the government, Globovision, during the Alo Ciudadano program. Let's see what they did. Globovision transmitted a set of images from the history of Venezuela and the world, basically which were -- it was indeed a review, after more than fifty years of transmitting, what RCTV -- all of the events that they had been present in. And one of the images -- and this was in a set of different historical images that they presented -- was an image of the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II. And according to Minister of Communications William Lara, a group of expert semioticians -- I’m not joking; this was as it was reported in the New York Times -- a group of expert semioticians working in the Ministry of Communications actually have identified that the transmission of the historical video of the assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II was indeed a call to carry out an assassination attempt against Mr. Chavez. Now, anybody who believes that in a profoundly Catholic country, such as Venezuela, you are going to actually incite people to go out and kill Mr. Chavez by presenting an image of an assassination attempt against the Pope is certainly clearly out of their mind.

So this is the type of evidence that the government presents against Globovision, against Radio Caracas, and at the same time, you know, you have a set of other cases, where in the government TV stations you also routinely have -- and the government-owned TV stations, are completely used to propagate pro-government messages, messages -- you turn on the government TV station and you see pro-Chavez slogans being chanted all of the time, not effectively respecting the difference between the fact that this TV station is property of the state and not of the government. But definitely the government feels that it has the right to do that. So, essentially, I think that -- you know, in answer to your question, I think that if a TV station were to actually call for the overthrow of the government and you can prove that in court, you would have a very strong case. It turns out that when the government has actually tried to prove these things in court, even the largely favorable supreme court, actually, ended up throwing out the government's case against military command [inaudible] for open rebellion. So the government has really had a hard time. And when one sees the type of proof that they’re presenting, one is not surprised.

AMY GOODMAN: Andres Izarra, your final response.

ANDRES IZARRA: Oh, yeah. He’s absolutely right. It is hard to -- in this country, oddest things had happened here. What was a clear coup d’etat -- everyone recognizes internationally, domestically, everyone knew what happened in 2002 -- our courts decided that it was not a coup. It was a power vacuum that was portrayed by military men who had good intensions and were protecting the president, never a coup d’etat happened in Venezuela. So Mr. Rodriguez is right. We have a very tough problem, very strong problem here with the courts, who have not even recognized that there had been a coup d’etat here in Venezuela.

But in terms of -- Mr. Rodriguez is an economist, so these economists have a very linear way of thinking, you know. If you show the images of Pope John Paul II when he was -- his assassination attempt -- and you put a music saying, “Everything has its end. People, go look for the end,” and in a context where you are reporting on all this vitriolic chants against the government and calls for to rebel against the government and denounce a dictatorship, that simple historic image gets a new context, and the message gets a very clear direction. You people, who are broadcasting, who are communications people, know very well how images can be manipulated and can be used to promote a sense and to promote a line of thought and feelings among the people.

AMY GOODMAN: Andres Izarra, we will have to leave it there. Andres Izarra speaking to us live from Caracas, Venezuela, manager at RCTV during the 2002 coup -- he quit at the time -- now president of TeleSUR, the multinational satellite network launched by Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia and Cuba. Francisco Rodriguez, joining us from Wesleyan, assistant professor of economics and Latin American studies at the Connecticut school, he is former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly.

Washington’s Quest for Allies

in its Battle Against Chavez’s Influence in the Americas and Beyond: The Case of Europe’s Progressive Disappearance from Latin America’s Map

The U.S., with limited success, is using its diplomatic channels to urge nations to which it has privileged access to take a firm stand against Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. In the meantime, the European Union (EU) is fast allowing its presence on the map of Latin America to fade. On the Chavez issue, the EU clamorously remains neutral, and in doing so, might be losing out on what could be important benefits emerging from a sharpening divide separating the U.S. from a progressive bloc of Latin America states.

Anti-American sentiments are on the rise in Latin America, which was demonstrated by the wave of unrest manifested during President Bush’s tour of the region in March. After six years of neglect as a result of its preoccupation with Iraq, the Bush administration’s interests in South America are only now being resurrected. The motive: the former military officer and now president of oil-rich Venezuela is providing Latin America’s discontent with U.S. unilateralism and its lack of respect for the region’s autonomy, a voice that threatens vital U.S. economic interests in the area. As of now, Chavez is an ebullient advocate for a Latin American regional economic integration rather than the Bush promoted trade pact with the region. Welcoming the leaders of the Southern Cone to Caracas in late April for the ALBA (Alternativa Boliviariana Para Las Americas) Summit, Chavez stressed his alternative for the Bush-sponsored Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). In pursuit of this goal, Chavez not only tried to check U.S. negotiations with Brazil, but motivated Bush to start talking about bio-diesel production in the Southern Cone for the U.S. market in order to increase his influence over Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva while decreasing U.S. oil dependence on countries like Venezuela. The commencing wave of withdraws by left-leaning governments from the World Bank and IMF (beginning with Venezuela and Ecuador) or intimations that such could occur may also be attributed to Chavez’s increasing influence in the region. It also could promote an enlargement of the list of his detractors. Mixed signals given that plans were in the works to nationalize banks and the country’s largest steel producer on May Day further outraged private stakeholders. While the Bush administration is trying to secure like-minded allies to discredit Chavez in order to secure its hemispheric economic interests, the EU seems to be practicing abstinence regarding the showdown now occurring in the Western Hemisphere, being no better than an observer to this process.

Focus on Internal Issues Rather Than Foreign Policy
Europe is distracted by its own internal problems, making it difficult for it to pay more than perfunctory attention to conflicts in Latin America. The European Union has to cope with serious internal issues, giving the highest priority to the managing the integration of member states coming from “new” Europe. Starting with a group of twelve nations, the Union now comprises 27 states. There exists the ongoing controversy over the adoption of new candidates, particularly Turkey, a country accused of unabashed human rights violations. The EU is also negotiating with Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia, Croatia, Ukraine, Moldavia, and Georgia about prospective membership. Moreover, there is the ongoing struggle to write the EU constitution. German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to finish it while her country still holds the EU presidency. The last trial attempt failed in 2005 when both the Netherlands and France rejected the proposed documents.

The Stakes are High
Europe imports about 7% of its total foreign oil purchases from Venezuela. While Venezuela is not heavily dependent on EU purchases, a deteriorating relationship with Chavez could have significant implications for the EU energy market if Chavez ever decides to restrain or cut off supply. From this perspective, the EU would be well advised to not needlessly offend the Venezuelan leader. At a May Day ceremony, Chavez announced that his country would be taking over majority control its last privately owned oil fields. This marked the final step towards the nationalization of the Venezuelan energy industry.

Energy is of particular concern for the European Union, as demonstrated at the last EU-Latin America summit in Vienna in May of last year, where energy policy was at the center of the discussion. British Prime Minister Tony Blair criticized the nationalization of the oil and gas industry in Bolivia and Venezuela by urging the two Latin American nations not to act irresponsibly. He argued: “What countries do in their energy policy when they are energy producers like Bolivia and Venezuela matters enormously to all of us. My only plea is that people exercise the power they have got in this regard responsibly for the whole of the international community.” Other European leaders at Vienna expressed fears that nationalization would destabilize global energy markets and push up prices. The Austrian Chancellor, Wolfgang Schuessel, said that nations had to answer the question whether they wanted open markets and increased foreign direct investment, adding that experience showed that “open market societies are better in their performance than closed, restricted structures.”

Foreign Direct Investment in Peril
According to the Venezuela Strategy Paper (2001-2006) issued by the European Union, “the EU is only a moderately important trading partner for Venezuela.” Approximately 8.3% of Venezuela’s total trade in 2000 was with the EU, compared to 46.1% with the United States. Venezuela accounts for 0.3 % percent of the total trade of the EU. The main product exported from Venezuela to the EU is, of course, energy, which represents 59.8% of its total exports to the EU.

Venezuela always has been a recipient of foreign direct investment from Europe (FDI). In 2004, EUR 702 million were allocated to the country. Complicating matters, a few days ago, Chavez announced that the government might take over Sidor, the country’s major steel producer owned by the Luxembourg-based Ternium SA, with heavy Argentine investment. His issue with Sidor was that it exported most of its output, obliging Venezuelan developers to import steel pipes from more distant sources. “If they do not accept right now a change in the process, then they are going to force me to nationalize the company just as I did with [the telephone company] CANTV.” As a consequence, Ternium’s U.S.-traded shares tumbled by nearly 3.9% on the New York stock exchange.

Furthermore, the Venezuelan president has threatened to nationalize the country’s banks if they do not contribute to his ‘socialist revolution of the 21st century,’ stating that “private banks have to give priority to financing the industrial sectors of Venezuela at low cost.” He continued, “if banks don’t agree with this it’s better that they go, that they turn over the banks to me, that we nationalize them and get all the banks to work for the development of the country and not to speculate and produce huge profits.” In particular, Spanish banks (Santander, BBVA and Banco Provincial) would be affected by such a move. Nevertheless, the serious consequences of taking retaliatory action against Chavez by the European business community should be viewed with hesitation when formulating the argument why Chavez should not be facing even harsher criticisms from the EU than what is now heard.

Seeking a Niche Opened by Chavez; EU Promotes Social Cooperation
Instead of more vociferously intervening into Caracas’ regional activities, the EU is seeking to strengthen its social cooperation with the entire Southern Cone. At a recent meeting of foreign ministers from Latin America and Europe in April in the Dominican Republic, a degree of cooperation was achieved. Discussions focused on Haiti, energy, the environment, climate change and strengthening multilateralism, particularly collective action on issues of human rights, the drug war, and the fight against poverty.

The External Relations Commissioner of the EU, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, proposed an aid package of over 2.6 billion euro for 2007-2013 for Latin American countries. At successive ministerial meetings with the Andean Community, Central America, Mexico and Mercosur, Ferrero-Waldner highlighted the EU’s long term commitment to the region. “I believe that it is fair to say that the European Union and Latin America have made significant progress in the last few years,” referring to the successful Vienna Summit of 2006 and the establishment of the EU-Latin America Parliamentary Assembly. She added that the EU wishes to pick up the pace in the coming years: “The new aid programmes reflect the weight of our commitment to the region. We are determined to keep moving forward.”

The commissioner also outlined the group’s priorities for the Southern Cone up to the year 2013. The top priority of EU aid programmes is to achieve social cohesion, in particular, the fight against poverty, social inequality and exclusion. This is to be followed by regional integration and economic cooperation. The EU is counting on the negotiation of an association agreement with Central America and the Andean Community, with the aim of setting up free trade areas. Other priorities include achieving mutual understanding between the EU and Latin America, support for human rights, and the creation of sustainable development, including the protection of forests, concern for biodiversity and good governance.

Moreover, a new Euro-Latin American parliamentary assembly (EUROLAT) was established in November 2006, with an inaugural session held at the European Parliament in Brussels. EUROLAT aims to attribute greater substance to political relations between Europe and Latin America by replacing the inter-parliamentary dialogue launched in 1974. “Our relations are not simply based on free trade, we aspire to an association for a common future based on shared values,” observed then EP President Josep Borrell at the inaugural session. The Joint Assembly brings together MPs from the European Parliament, as well as legislators from the Andean, Central American and Latin American parliaments, representatives of the national parliaments of Mexico and Chile and members of the MERCOSUR Parliamentary Commission. It has three permanent committees: one that deals with political affairs, security and human rights, another with economic, financial and commercial affairs, and one on social affairs, exchanges of people, the environment, education and culture. The trend towards further social, cultural, and economic integration between the two regions could spark an even faster pace in the coming year when Portugal will succeed Germany to the EU presidency in July. Portugal’s Prime Minister Jose Socrates highlighted what he called “a deeper dialogue between the EU and Latin America,” as a priority.

The popularity of Chavez among the Latin American public is a consequence of the daring nature of his social agenda and his firm condemnation of U.S. unilateralism. Instead of only standing shoulder to shoulder with the U.S., the EU deserves a modest amount of credit for also emphasizing social cooperation with the region, consequently gaining some appreciation as well as influence in the Southern Cone as an independent source of leverage rather than simply a matter of “me too.”

Beyond the EU Governments: Chavez Evokes only Mixed Feelings in Europe
Despite a certain amount of sympathy with Chavez’s social agenda, the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, expressed the notion of many Europeans. “We are a Europe against populist tendencies,” Barroso said at the EU-Latin American Summit in Vienna in May 2006. The Spanish newspaper El Pais came forth with a sprawling editorial that made its sclerotic point: “[Chavez] is mixing demagogy, populism and a scandalous lack of tact concerning everybody - countries, persons, and institutions.”

Furthermore, many are concerned about the economic sustainability of Chavez’s social agenda. On May Day, Chavez announced a 20% increase in the minimum wage and plans to decrease the weekly work hours from its present 44 to 36 hours. In response, Wolfgang Kunath denounced the myopia of Chavez’s policies in the German newspaper Stuttgarter Zeitung. “Nothing can stop his revolution, says Chavez. Correct! [referring to recent changes of the constitution and restriction of the media]—with one exception. If the oil price is falling he will find himself immediately in a very different position.” Kunath continued that Chavez asserts that even if the middle class and the rich benefit from free health clinics and regulated food markets, Venezuela still has the highest inflation rate in Latin America as prices increase and many subsidized goods are out of stock and only appear on the black market.

Another chronic Chavez critic, The Financial Times, points to the negative implications of Chavez’s policies for foreign investors, which could cause a “continued deterioration in Venezuela’s country risk that will have implications on the overall health of the economy and possibly on its sovereign ratings.”

Chavez and Civil Society
When Chavez visited the Vatican in May 2006, Pope Benedict XVI told him about his concerns over the treatment of the Roman Catholic Church in his country and insisted on the total independence of the Catholic media as well. The Venezuelan bishops’ conference has frequently criticized Chavez for tinkering with the constitution to give him more power. Chavez has in turn accused individual bishops of interfering in politics.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) argued that Chavez’s decision to close down RCTV, a television channel acerbically critical of the president, is potentially a “catastrophe for pluralism and social rights.” EU government officials have recently been present in Venezuela, requesting to talk to Chavez about the sensitive press issue as thousands were demonstrating against closing down RCTV. This could clearly be seen as a sign of Europe’s concern regarding Venezuela.

Labor experts in Burssels warned that Venezuela is guilty of “significant” trade union right violations. “This is of real concern to us,” said Tim Noonan of the International Trade Union Confederation. One recalls that some representatives of Venezuela’s heavily co-opted mainstream trade union movements were associated with the staging of the April 2002 attempted coup of Chavez.

Chavez and England
Not only in civil society, but also at the regime level, the discussion of Chavez is more lively in the EU than are other Latin American topics. Typically, it is about Chavez’s stylistic excesses. Since 9/11, the British government has been a close ally of the United States against the ‘War on Terror.’ Chavez recently called the Prime Minister Tony Blair an “imperialist pawn” who shares the same bed as President Bush. A recent BBC World Service poll suggested that nearly twice as many British citizens are hostile towards Venezuela than are positive. The London Assembly’s Conservative leader Bob Neill, said to the British newspaper The Mirror: “I am appalled that Londoners are paying to entertain this dictator [referring to a lunch hosted by London’s mayor Ken Livingstone]. I believe that this man should be shunned by every moderate regime in the world, not wined and dined like a legitimate world leader.”

Tony Blair has declared his concerns about Chavez’s close relationship with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, by saying that Venezuela “should abide by the rules of the international community,” referring to Chavez’s nationalization initiatives. Many say that the reason why Blair has never harshly criticized Chavez’s policies is because compared to the volumes of denouncements coming from the White House, many members of his Labour Party would oppose him. The fundamental values behind Chavez’s policies focused on the wellbeing of the working class, is exactly what Blair’s Labour Party should be about. Many Labour backbenchers don’t want to further delegitimize party ideals by taking a hostile stance against Chavez, just to maintain close ties with the United States. Ken Livingstone, who was the only government official Chavez requested to meet during his last visit to the UK, is one of them. He maintains that “it is the duty of all people who support progress, justice and democracy to stand with Venezuela,” as was noted in an interview with The Guardian in May 2006. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, Livingstone added that Chavez had been responsible for significant social reforms and called him “the best news out of Latin America in many years.” Dismissing concerns of human rights groups about Chavez’s treatment of his political opponents, Livingstone said: “He’s won 10 elections for his party in the last decade and he’s pushed through a whole programme of social reform. ‘Venezuela was like a lot of those old Latin American countries - a small elite of super-rich families who basically stole the national resources. He’s now driven a new economic order through, you’ve got for the first time healthcare for poor people, illiteracy has been eradicated. It is encouraging to see … a government committed to the democratic and social transformation of one of the most important countries in Latin America.”

Playing the Spanish Card
Spain, in recent years, has given high priority to Latin American issues, in particular Venezuela. However, the Zapatero government has been relatively shy on the Chavez issue compared to other EU members, particularly hard-line Czech Republic and Slovakia. Over the last couple of years, Spanish foreign policy mainly has fallen hostage to domestic political strife. “Fierce disputes over Basque terrorism, regional autonomy, and culpability for the March 2004 attacks have polarized national discourse.” This might be an explanation for the Spanish inertia towards Latin America, wrote Peter H. Smith, professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, in the German news magazine Der Spiegel. However, the probably mock threats of Chavez on May Day, that he could very well nationalize Venezuela’s major banks (some Spanish owned) might alter the relatively benevolent behavior of Zapatero towards the Venezuelan leader. Chavez’s recent comparison of the former rightwing Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar with Hilter had further pressured Zapatero to abandon his neutral position towards the Venezuelan president, even though the former Spanish leader is grossly unpopular in all of Europe, including Spain.

Chavez is the Master of His Own Destiny in Europe
Chavez is seen by some as Europe’s megaphone for the legions of the continent’s residents who are discontent with American unilateralism. Moreover, the majority of Europeans are upset that the protests of “Old Europe” against the invasion of Iraq have been relatively stifled, while the Kyoto Protocol (which all European countries have ratified) as well as several other UN Conventions and institutions (”Rights of the Child”, International Criminal Court, The Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty) have hardly been addressed by the Bush White House. Many Europeans hold to the belief that egoistical U.S. foreign policy is fueling the influence of radical groups, such as al-Qaeda, and therefore are contributing to destabilizing their hemisphere as well as much of the rest of the globe. Furthermore, as Gordon Hutchison has observed in the British newspaper The Morning Star, “people are inspired by a process that puts human need before profit - such as introducing free health care to millions, eradicating illiteracy and supporting international solidarity initiatives like Operation Miracle, a project with Venezuelan funding and Cuban medical expertise that has restored the eyesight of 400,000 people.”

However, despite the admiration of Chavez’s social agenda and the denunciation of U.S. unilateralism, his raw populist style and some of the strongman characteristics attributed to him remind many Europeans of negative experiences with totalitarian leaders in the past. The German Newspaper Stuttgarter Zeitung points to the fact that “Chavez is becoming more and more an autocratic monarch” because the Venezuelan parliament is without the representation of the opposition due to the latter’s boycott of the last elections. Yet, when it comes to indicting Chavez with hard felonies, in most of the cases the evidence is wanting, with his critics often confusing his always harmless bark with his rarely exhibited bite. That is why many think that although scores of the region’s leaders in the past abused the powers Chavez now holds, he should not be convicted before he commits the crime. The fact is that up to now, he has run one of Latin America’s more robust democracies.

Nevertheless, his frequent insults towards other head of states, such as the comparison of Bush and former Spanish Prime Minister Aznar to Hitler and the denunciation of British Prime Minister Tony Blair as ‘Imperialist Pawn,’ who shares the bed of Bush do not sit well with Europeans. In addition, the short shrift he provided to the rights of private property and his cooperation and friendship with controversial figures like Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are aspects that have cost Chavez huge chunks of support and credibility in Europe.

Yet there is the notion in Europe that when it comes to Hugo Chavez, there is more than meets the eye, and that he deserves the chance to end the country’s history of tiny elites exploiting Venezuela’s natural resources to the disadvantage of its poverty-ravaged population. For many, Chavez’s vision for Latin America’s future contains much more diamond than lead.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Staff Research

New Films on the Border, Mexico, and Oaxaca

Yesterday, I attended an event sponsored by Acción Zapatista (a UCSB student organization) that featured three new exciting documentaries. Jill Friedberg, who also worked on the Award Winning film This is What Democracy Looks Like, presented Granito de Arena, which tells the story of the dismantling of the Mexican public education system. This compelling film highlights the power of resistance by educators, families, and students, who demand access to free public education and a living wage. In 2006, a year after Friedberg completed this film, Oaxacan teachers entered a new chapter in their struggle. Her new film, a work in progress, called Un Poquito de Tanto Verdad, traces the story of the recent Oaxacan uprising. I was thrilled to see the brave Oaxacan women who took over Channel Nine powerfully represented in this film. I remember Jill from my time in Oaxaca–she was always at the frontlines, documenting the uprising as it happened. You can learn more about these films and how to order them, from Corrugated Films.

We were also treated by Monica Hernandez’s film, Rights on the Line, which deconstructs the image and reality of the Minutemen Project, in particular their racist and controversial involvement in apprehending immigrants who cross the Mexican/US border. I loved the footage of Minutemen at the Arizona border. The American Friends Service Commission trained ACLU legal observers to document the activities of the Minutemen and other vigilantes. The film and trailer are availble from the American Friends Service Commission.

Marcos: With Calderón, Anyone Is Within the Military Machine’s Sights

[From: detodos-paratodos.blogspot.com]

by: JESUS NARVAEZ ROBLES

Tepic, Nayarit, May 28, 2007.

Felipe Calderón Hinojosa’s government not only is preparing to unleash selective repression against social strugglers and popular movements, but anyone who “is in the military machine’s sights,” asserted Subcomandante Marcos here. Upon presenting “some reflections realized during the second stage of the Other Campaign in the country’s north,” Marcos warned that “taking the Mexican Army out of its barracks is easy, but returning it to the ambit to which it corresponds is not so simple, because it behaves as before an enemy, not before its fellow citizens.”

In a recap of “the situation of labor, of exploitation and repression” which reins in Mexico, Marcos warned: “The Calderón government’s dispositions and actions confirm the analysis that we have made since the middle of 2005: the country is on the path to a social explosion and in the face of that four alternatives present themselves: 1) Calderón’s, which is the use of indiscriminate force, the alternative of massive repression; 2) gradual control and demobilizing, in other words that of the forces that point towards 2012 for an orderly change and a change without rupture; 3) that of chaos and civil war; and, finally, 4) that of an organized alternative, anticapitalist and to the Left, by the organizations, groups, collectives, families and individuals of the Other Campaign.”

After pointing out that currently “olive green is in style and it is singing praises to an Army fulfilling the work of internal police, violating fundamental laws and internal regulations,” Marcos indicated that “a view with the minimum of criticism is enough to realize that the Mexican political system is dead, unstable and without a solid frame of reference.

“The national situation is a catastrophe; the economy has been abandoned to the ups and downs of the international market; social security is a pile of wreckage in the wind; public education is a poor imitation of the courses of personal and corporate excellence; cultural politics is a section many times assigned to a corner in the social pages; public health is a dirty, slovenly, inefficient commercial center, whose business debates between trademarks and generics. Nothing of what was the spinal column of the national state remains standing,” he said.

He added: “The Mexican political class thought that it was only trying to enter to relieve the PRI in the administration and sale of the horn of plenty called Mexico, and it didn’t turn out that way, that what tumbled together with the PRI hegemony was something else. What happened there above, in national politics, is only a pale reflection of what happened and happens at the basis of the nation State in Mexico. The Mexican political system’s former unwritten rules crumbled, among them that which was fundamental: that of presidential succession.

“That national tradition called cover up no longer exists, and these are times that run without even the minimum political oxygen (breathing room) that permitted Vicente Fox to survive initially as ruler. Felipe Calderón sees with desperation that he does not carry his own party along with him. His effective mandate ended when he abandoned the Congress of the Union like a criminal, after that accidental taking of power.

The media’s power was insufficient

“Being sustained in the mass media was not sufficient and, by what one sees, neither is filling the cities and streets with soldiers. Thus, the presidential highway has been initiated and the aspirants are practically defined: Marcelo Ebrard and Andrés Manuel López Obrador, for the PRD or for the new party they are forming; Enrique Peña Nieto and Beatriz Paredes, for the rubble called the PRI, besides Martha Sahagún, in ways of reappearing, for the PAN and a Francisco Ramírez Acuña who appears more vigilant of prison than of political office,” Marcos indicated.

He added that “the political class’ enthusiasm for that unsustainable farce of the struggle against drug trafficking, which we all know is no more than the Los Pinos cartel’s struggle to take possession of everything, hides two things: the criminalization of the social struggle which permits them to control the limits of power that they maintain, and the media attention about the bloody acts of that war lost from its beginning, which permits the politicians to measure the impact that the heavy hand has in the polls.”

--------------------------------------

Translation: Mary Ann Tenuto-Sánchez

MEDIA-LATIN AMERICA: Easy to See the Speck in the Other's Eye

by Diana Cariboni*
MONTEVIDEO
May 30

People have been collectively tearing their hair out all over Latin America because of the Venezuelan government's decision not to renew the broadcasting licence of that country's most popular television station, RCTV.

Three former Panamanian presidents -- Mireya Moscoso, Guillermo Endara and Ernesto Pérez-Balladares -- are planning to lobby the Organisation of American States (OAS) to get its general assembly to discuss the case in its meeting next weekend.

And Peruvian President Alan García said, with respect to the decision not to renew the concession for RCTV, which has been on the air since 1956: "In Peru, something like this would never happen."

Something like what? he might well be asked. Many in Venezuela argue that RCTV (Radio Caracas Televisión) dug its own grave with its vociferous opposition to the government of leftist President Hugo Chávez, which went as far as backing the April 2002 coup that briefly toppled the president.

In neighbouring Colombia, which has been in the grip of civil war for nearly half a century, journalist Juan Gossaín with the RCN Radio station said in an interview with President Álvaro Uribe: "Your remarks on respect for freedom of the press lead me to suppose, for example, that you would not strip RCTV of its broadcasting licence."

To which the president responded: "I would not do that to anybody. Or rather, let them exercise journalism even without a licence; they can say whatever they want; they can operate wherever they want."

But the rightwing Uribe cannot shut down opposition TV stations for the simple reason that there aren't any, by contrast with Venezuela, where most privately-owned media outlets are openly opposed to the government.

Earlier, however, in October 2004, the Uribe administration closed the public Instituto de Radio y Televisión (Inravisión), which broadcast on three stations. Its programming included educational and cultural content, a daily interview programme on social movements, and documentaries that were often awkward for the government.

The president made the announcement about Inravisión on a Monday, and the following Thursday "the police came in and evicted the employees that same day," Milciades Vizcaíno, a sociologist by training who worked for nearly 27 years in educational programming, which was eliminated with that measure, told IPS.

The Colombian government argued that Inravisión was "inefficient."

"But the underlying problem was the strength of the union (of Inravisión employees)," said Vizcaíno, author of "University and the Media: From the Welfare State to the Market", which was published in April.

The book analyzes a process that was the mirror reflection of what is occurring now in Venezuela, where the privately-owned RCTV's broadcast frequency was assigned to a newly created public station.

Inravisión was replaced by Radio Televisión de Colombia (RTVC), which "outsources" activities by means of concessions and contracts, thus preventing the creation of an employees' union and cutting operating costs by 72 percent. The transmitters are operated by another company, Telecom.

During an October parliamentary debate led by Senator Gustavo Petro (leader of the main opposition party, the leftwing Democratic Pole) on the ties between the far-right paramilitary militias and politicians in the northern provinces of Sucre and Córdoba, the Canal Institucional (Institutional Channel), which is now run by RTVC and frequently broadcasts parliamentary hearings and debates, inexplicably went off the air in both provinces.

When faced with complaints, RTVC referred the issue to Telecom. But "no one there could explain why it happened," Hernán Onatra, the senator's press officer, told IPS.

"Not only the public TV station, but also cable stations briefly stopped broadcasting the Canal Institucional in some parts of Bogotá and in big cities like Cúcuta (in the northeast), without any explanation. We know that from reports from viewers themselves, during the debate or the day after," added Onatra.

In Honduras, meanwhile, President Manuel Zelaya ordered all TV and radio stations to broadcast 10 daily one-hour programmes during prime time, starting Monday, to counteract what he called "misinformation" on his administration provided by the press.

Honduran law stipulates that nationally broadcast messages (known as "cadena nacional") can only be used to call elections or in case of natural disasters or emergencies.

Zelaya's decision was reminiscent of the frequent use of national broadcasts in the 1970s, when the military held power, and has drawn fire from journalists' associations, the media, and even the president of parliament, Roberto Micheletti.

Political analyst Juan Ramón Martínez told IPS that the decision "is an attack on freedom of expression" and that "not even the military were as abusive as what the current government is announcing."

Edgardo Escoto, the government beat reporter for the opposition radio station Circuito Radial Voces, commented to IPS that he has been censored by presidential spokespersons. "They refuse to talk to me; they hide the president's itinerary from me," he said.

In Nicaragua, the last media outlet to lose its broadcasting licence for apparently political reasons was the La Poderosa radio station in 2002, during the administration of Enrique Bolaños, when the station's equipment was seized without any legal proceedings.

La Poderosa was an outspoken critic of the government, and aligned with former president Arnoldo Alemán, who has been convicted of corruption.

Under the government of Alemán (1997-2001), newspapers that were critical of the government, like La Prensa and El Nuevo Diario, reported that they suffered harassment by tax authorities and a boycott by the government, which cancelled all official advertising, after publishing articles on corruption among public officials.

RCTV is not the only media outlet that has stopped operating in Venezuela as the result of a government measure. During the April 2002 coup in which Chávez was removed from power for two days, the public station Canal 8 was shut down.

And in 2003, Caracas Mayor Alfredo Peña, an outspoken Chávez opponent, also closed down the community station Catia TV for several days.

That is why the government and its supporters argue that only the opposition has closed down media outlets in Venezuela. Former information minister Andrés Izarra, who is president of the Venezuela-based international TV network Telesur, pointed out to IPS that in the case of RCTV, the station "was not closed down; what happened was that its concession was not renewed."

With respect to the question of freedom of speech, Chávez supporters also note that during the April 2002 coup, private stations like RCTV refused to provide coverage of the Apr. 13 popular uprising that swept the president back to power with the support of loyal army troops, airing instead reruns, cartoons and old Hollywood films.

Furthermore, RCTV and other stations only aired anti-Chávez propaganda and coverage of anti-government marches during a two-month business and oil industry shutdown in 2002-2003 aimed at bringing down the president.

But Ciro García, president of the chamber of broadcasters, remarked to IPS that the decision against RCTV "has placed in a difficult situation more than 150 private radio stations that are awaiting the renewal of their licences."

Another incident that the opposition in Venezuela complain about and invoke to accuse Chávez of undermining freedom of speech was a two-day closure and 13,900 dollar fine imposed on the opposition-aligned El Impulso paper in the west-central city of Barquisimeto in October 2005, for tax evasion.

In addition, RCTV was fined on numerous occasions, some of which involved its failure to cooperate with the tax laws. The 24-hour news station Globovisión has also been fined, and some of its satellite equipment was compounded two years ago after an inspection discovered irregularities. And neither of the stations received official advertising.

But "if we look at the diversity of the media, there is much more freedom of expression in Venezuela than in Chile, for example," Felipe Portales, who runs the Freedom of Expression Programme at the public University of Chile's Institute of Communication and Image, told IPS.

Although no arbitrary measures against the media have been reported in Chile in recent years, freedom is restricted by the concentration of ownership in a few hands, according to Portales and the director of the Fucatel Media Observatory, Manuela Gumucio.

"With the exception of Cuba, Chile is the country that has the least freedom of expression in Latin America, in terms of media plurality," with "a situation that is worse than what we experienced before the end of the dictatorship" of General Augusto Pinochet in 1990, said Portales.

The coverage of the RCTV case is one illustration of that, she said. "The Chilean media have only shown one version, the anti-Chávez side. We don't have the necessary elements to form an opinion on it," she argued.

Both Portales and Gumucio also blame the lack of diversity on the unequal distribution of official advertising.

And in Cuba, like in Colombia -- although for different reasons -- there are no opposition stations that could be closed down.

Private ownership of the media in Cuba came to an end in the 1960s, after President Fidel Castro took power in the 1959 revolution. The media are entirely controlled by the governing Communist Party.

Dissidents, who are labelled "mercenaries on the payroll of the empire" (the United States) by the socialist government, have no access to the media. A group of journalists not in line with the government or openly opposed to it were handed stiff prison sentences in 2003 on charges of transmitting or providing information to "enemy" media outlets.

The only exception are the Catholic magazines Palabra Nueva and Vitral, founded in 1994 in the western province of Pinar del Río, whose editorial team fell into crisis early this year, however, after the arrival of the new bishop, Jorge Enrique Serpa.

Vitral became known for its critical view of conditions in Cuba. But Serpa decided that the publication should avoid being "aggressive" and should be less anti-establishment.

Censorship in Mexico, meanwhile, which was common during much of the time that the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) was in power from 1929 to 2000, began to ease in the mid-1990s.

But the Diario Noticias newspaper in the southern state of Oaxaca, which has been published for 31 years and is openly critical of the widely criticised state Governor Ulises Ruiz, has been the target of attacks since 2005, including assaults on its journalists and attempts to evict the staff from the paper's offices.

And Radio Monitor, which has operated since1975, was one of the few that confronted the years of censorship under the PRI. Now its owner, José Gutiérrez Vivo, says the governing National Action Party (PAN) is punishing the station for criticising the government by reducing the amount of official advertising it receives and denying it interviews and information.

In Uruguay, the only party that ever revoked a broadcasting licence was the centre-right National Party, which has now called on the governing leftist Broad Front to issue a statement condemning the Venezuelan government's decision in the RCTV case.

In its refusal to do so, the Broad Front has noted that the government of former president Luis Alberto Lacalle (1990-1995) of the National Party was the only one to take a similar measure in the history of Uruguay, and "without waiting for the licence to expire," said Broad Front Senator Eleuterio Fernández Huidobro.

In 1994, Lacalle stripped the CX 44 Radio Panamericana station of its licence after it urged the public to take part in a demonstration, which was the target of a harsh crackdown, against the extradition to Spain of three citizens from that country accused of belonging to the Basque separatist group ETA.

* With additional reporting by Constanza Vieira (Colombia), Daniela Estrada (Chile), Patricia Grogg (Cuba), Thelma Mejía (Honduras), Diego Cevallos (Mexico), José Adán Silva (Nicaragua), Humberto Márquez (Venezuela) and Darío Montero (Uruguay). (END/2007)

REFLECTIONS OF PRESIDENT FIDEL CASTRO: The G-8 meeting

FOR those who are not informed –and I am one of them – G-8 refers to the group of most developed countries, including Russia. The anticipated meeting which begins in 6 days has awakened great expectations due to the profound political and economic crisis threatening the world.

Let's read the news services.

The German news agency DPA announces that the German minister of Transportation and Urbanism, Wolfgang Tiefensee, declared "that the European Union countries have agreed on a common strategy."

"The European ministers of Urbanism meeting in the eastern city of Leipzig in an informal council under the motto of 'Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion’, will employ a common strategy for the protection of the environment and the halting of climatic change."

"For example," Tiefensee warned, "in the south of Europe the summer temperatures are expected to increase by up to six degrees, while on the coasts we can expect strong winter storms.

"The drought threatening Spain and the lack of water in Poland are two more examples of the challenges facing the European Union, the German added at the end of the council."

Meanwhile, AFP reports that "the German minister of the environment, Sigmar Gabriel, judged it to be ‘very difficult’ that in the next G-8 summit any success could be achieved in the matter of climatic warming due to United States opposition."

"Germany will be the host country to the summit which will be held on June 6 to 8 in Heiligendamm with the eight most highly industrialized countries on the planet.

"Even though there are many in the United States who would like to see another kind of policy on climatic warming, ‘unfortunately, Washington prevents’ such a position to materialize, according to the German Social-Democratic minister.

"The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, will put forth a ‘strong signal’ about the need to act urgently on this matter; the United States administration multiplies its opposition signals."

Reuters, the English agency, reports: "The United States has refused the German proposal to see that the Group of Eight agrees to tougher restrictions for carbon emissions that are producing global warming, according to the draft of the communiqué which will be presented at the meeting.

"The United States still has serious and fundamental concerns about this declaratory draft, to which Reuters had access.

"Treatment of climatic change goes completely counter to our position and crosses many ‘red lines’ in terms of which we simply cannot be in agreement, explained the American negotiators.

"This document is called FINAL, but we were never in agreement with any of the climatic language present in the text," they added.

"Germany would like an agreement to contain the increase of temperatures, in order to cut back global emissions by 50 percent lower than 1990 levels for the year 2050 and to increase energy efficiency by 20 percent for 2020.

"Washington rejects all those objectives."

While Blair declares that he would persuade his friend George, the only thing certain is that he has added another submarine to the three that are now being built in Britain; with this, the expenses for sophisticated armaments increase by another 2.5 billion dollars. Perhaps someone with one of those new computer programs developed by Bill Gates could calculate the resources being used for war expenses at the cost of education, healthcare and culture for humanity.

George must say what he really thinks at the G-8 meeting, including the subject of the dangers threatening peace and food for human beings. Someone should ask him and he should not try to escape with the advice of his friend Blair.

Fidel Castro Ruz

May 29, 2007.

6:45 p.m.

Attorney General summons Globovisión CEO, anchorman

The Attorney General Office has subpoenaed Alberto Federico Ravell, CEO of private news TV channel Globovisión, and Leopoldo Castillo, host of talk show "Aló, Ciudadano" with regard to the events denounced by Minister of Communication and Information William Lara involving the station.

Based on a press release from the Attorney General Office, Ravell and Castillo should appear the morning of June 6 and June 7, respectively, to talk about the images that show an attack on Pope John Paul II in May 1981, concomitantly with the song "This is not the end," by singer Rubén Blades.

The shots were aired during TV program "Aló Ciudadano" where they held an interview with Empresas 1BC CEO Marcel Granier.

Destabilization plan underway, affirms Chávez

Venezuelan students support government measures

CARACAS, May 29.—Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez affirmed this Tuesday that underlying opposition protests over the RCTV case there is a process of destabilization to propitiate violence, and called on the popular sectors to be alert to this, during a speech on radio and television, AFP reports.

“This is an alert to the hills, the barrios and the towns to defend our Revolution from this new fascist attack,” he urged.

The president said that certain television and radio stations and dailies “have given themselves the task of distorting the facts. We cannot accept, the state cannot accept that, under its very nose, they are calling for a flouting of the authorities and, worse, killing the president in order to generate chaos,” he emphasized.

Meanwhile, students from the Bolivarian University of Venezuela (UBV), as well as the various programs that have provided access to education for more than two million people, marched to Miraflores Palace in support of the government measure not to renew RCTV’s broadcasting license and, at the same time, to condemn the vandalizing actions of opposition groups.

The ABN news agency noted that students from the Armed Forces Experimental University (UNEFA) and the Rómulo Gallegos Experimental University (UNERG), the José Lorenzo Pérez University College, and those in the Robinson, Ribas and Sucre programs all took part in the march.

Free Speech and the Corporate Media

If a news station supports an anti-democratic coup against a democratically elected president, does that station have the right to broadcast ultra-right propaganda over public airwaves? If the government shuts that station down for its democratic violations, does that constitute an attack on freedom of speech? Do the people of a country have the right to decide what they allow broadcasted in their airspace? Or do the corporations have that right?

These are some of the central questions generated by Venezuela’s recent shutdown of “RCTV”, a right-wing television channel that supported the coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002. The station reported several lies during the coup, actively encouraged citizens to riot against the government, and then failed to report Chavez’s return to power three days later, instead deciding to broadcast cartoons.

Now, the Venezuelan government has declined to renew RCTV’s broadcast license, and in it’s place, has created a new progressive public television channel. RCTV, obviously facing a big dip in their profits (since they can no longer broadcast in Venezuela), has used their remaining corporate media friends and contacts to incite several protests all across the country, a few of which have turned violent. At the same time, pro-socialist and progressive forces have staged several mass rallies in support of the government’s decision to rid their country of the right-wing propaganda machine.

So who is the greater threat to democracy? A television station with a large audience, vast amounts of wealth, and a proven willingness to lie to it’s viewers and incite them to violence and large-scale anti-democratic actions like, say, a coup? Or a democratically elected government supported by a majority of the population that decides to revoke the news station’s license to broadcast lies over public airwaves?

And isn’t there something hypocritical about a corporation screaming about the violation of its democratic right to free speech, when it has a well documented history of grossly anti-democratic behavior?

In fact, RCTV’s actions, had they taken place in practically any major industrialized democracy around the world, would quite likely have resulted in a much quicker license revocation. The FCC has certainly barred media stations from broadcasting for actions far less significant than treason in the US.

So does this constitute a violation of free speech? Quite simply, no. The ultra-right media capitalists at RCTV still have the right to spread lies, incite people to violence, and support coups. The people of Venezuela have simply decided that RCTV can no longer use their airwaves to do so. They’ll now have to stand on soapboxes out in the streets like everyone else.

I write all of this not to say I completely agree with the particular course of action the Venezuelan government has taken. For starters, a media corporation with as much capital, and with as many friends in the worldwide corporate media (and particularly the US corporate media) should have no problem spinning the Venezuelan’s governments actions as “authoritarian” and anti-democratic. In fact, RCTV’s corporate media friends both in Venezuela (i.e., Globovision) and around the world (e.g., FOX News, CNN, Bloomberg Corporation, etc.) have already started a concerted and coordinated media saturation campaign against the Venezuelan government attempting to convince people that it is an “authoritarian” and “un-democratic” regime.

Yet even if RCTV weren’t part of a very powerful media conglomerate with even more powerful friends, I probably still wouldn’t have supported a license revocation. In my opinion, censorship is never the answer. It gives that which is censored a legitimacy that it doesn’t deserve. I would have instead advocated for a different tactic: lure away the station’s top talent with higher salaries and newer, better shows and launch a concerted campaign to generate much larger audiences, thereby eating into RCTV’s advertising revenue and viewing audience. Furthermore, I would have also advocated doubling or tripling taxes on the corporate media.

Hugo Chavez versus RCTV

Venezuela's oldest private TV network played a major role in a failed 2002 coup.

By Bart Jones, BART JONES spent eight years in Venezuela, mainly as a foreign correspondent for the Associated Press, and is the author of the forthcoming book "Hugo! The Hugo Chavez Story, From Mud Hut to Perpetual

May 30, 2007

VENEZUELAN President Hugo Chavez's refusal to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television might seem to justify fears that Chavez is crushing free speech and eliminating any voices critical of him.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect Journalists and members of the European Parliament, the U.S. Senate and even Chile's Congress have denounced the closure of RCTV, Venezuela's oldest private television network. Chavez's detractors got more ammunition Tuesday when the president included another opposition network, Globovision, among the "enemies of the homeland."

But the case of RCTV — like most things involving Chavez — has been caught up in a web of misinformation. While one side of the story is getting headlines around the world, the other is barely heard.

The demise of RCTV is indeed a sad event in some ways for Venezuelans. Founded in 1953, it was an institution in the country, having produced the long-running political satire program "Radio Rochela" and the blisteringly realistic nighttime soap opera "Por Estas Calles." It was RCTV that broadcast the first live-from-satellite images in Venezuela when it showed Neil Armstrong walking on the moon in 1969.

But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office. Controlled by members of the country's fabulously wealthy oligarchy including RCTV chief Marcel Granier, it saw Chavez and his "Bolivarian Revolution" on behalf of Venezuela's majority poor as a threat.

RCTV's most infamous effort to topple Chavez came during the April 11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators spewed nonstop vitriolic attacks against him — while permitting no response from the government.

Then RCTV ran nonstop ads encouraging people to attend a march on April 11 aimed at toppling Chavez and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV and Globovision ran manipulated video blaming Chavez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries.

After military rebels overthrew Chavez and he disappeared from public view for two days, RCTV's biased coverage edged fully into sedition. Thousands of Chavez supporters took to the streets to demand his return, but none of that appeared on RCTV or other television stations. RCTV News Director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he received an order from superiors at the station: "Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters…. The idea was to create a climate of transition and to start to promote the dawn of a new country." While the streets of Caracas burned with rage, RCTV ran cartoons, soap operas and old movies such as "Pretty Woman." On April 13, 2002, Granier and other media moguls met in the Miraflores palace to pledge support to the country's coup-installed dictator, Pedro Carmona, who had eliminated the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the Constitution.

Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States? The U.S. government probably would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup attempt — and thrown its owners in jail. Chavez's government allowed it to continue operating for five years, and then declined to renew its 20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on cable or via satellite dish.

Granier and others should not be seen as free-speech martyrs. Radio, TV and newspapers remain uncensored, unfettered and unthreatened by the government. Most Venezuelan media are still controlled by the old oligarchy and are staunchly anti-Chavez.

If Granier had not decided to try to oust the country's president, Venezuelans might still be able to look forward to more broadcasts of "Radio Rochela."

No Bosses, No Servants

Argentina’s Worker Run Enterprises

by John Elrick / May 30th, 2007

It has been nearly five and a half years since a national uprising in Argentina exploded onto the streets of Buenos Aires in response to the economic crisis prompted by failed neo-liberal policies and IMF development plans. The economy’s collapse plunged Argentines in to poverty, unemployment and insecurity, and highlighted the harsh realities and dire failings of global capitalism. While Argentines rioted against the government corruption, misery and systematic inequality that plagued their country, movements of resistance were born. Worker recuperated factories, organizations of unemployed, and popular neighborhood assemblies sprang up in an effort to oppose the injustice of capitalism.

The recuperated factory movement continues to be a source of inspiration. In a trend that The Economist magazine described as a “testament to the erosion of property rights,” worker self-management has risen to the forefront as a means to resist the instability of capitalism. Indeed, throughout Argentina workers have struggled to take control of production, safeguard jobs, and operate without bosses. In the process of challenging the capitalist mode of production, many recuperated enterprises have attempted to transform a culture of competition, instability and fear in to one of solidarity, equality and cooperation. This summer, I visited several recuperated enterprises and talked with cooperative workers about the experiences they have had taking back their livelihoods.

Una Empresa Nacional

The Bauen Hotel has become an important symbol of the recuperated factory movement in the city of Buenos Aires. After the previous owners fired workers and shut down, around 40 employees decided to take it back and, with the help of other worker cooperatives and social activists, occupied the hotel in 2003. Since then the workers have struggled to get the hotel up and running while operating it democratically and under principles of fairness and equality. “That’s the idea,” said Jorge, a Bauen employee, “to keep it as democratic as possible and free of exploitation.” Despite the hotel workers’ resourcefulness, they continue to operate in opposition to the state. The hotel has fought for legality while drawing strength and support from social and political groups. “While we may not have legality,” Federico from the hotel explained, “we have community legitimacy.”

Bauen’s present is especially striking upon consideration of its past. Opened in 1978 — during the height of the brutal military dictatorship responsible for the implementation of neo-liberal policies, violent state repression, torture, and the disappearance of at least 30,000 Argentine citizens deemed “subversive” by the regime — the hotel was considered a symbol of the ruling elite. Later, the hotel served as the prime gathering point for the movers and shakers in international business and the corrupt politicians who did their bidding. “[Ex-President] Menem and all the other scum hung out here,” said Jorge about the hotelŐs roots. Indeed, gazing at the commanding view offered by one of the top floor suites, one can imagine the owners of capital and political power looking down at the city like lords over their kingdom. But now the hotel belongs to its workers and instead of exploitation and inequality the hotel represents a more egalitarian and just social vision.

“After the economic collapse in 2001,” described Federico, “tourists started flooding in due to the decreasing value of the peso. We saw that we could survive were others couldn’t.” The Bauen workers were able to, somewhat ironically, use the detrimental economic effects of neo-liberal policies to defend their livelihoods as workers and resist the system itself. “No one can say that we aren’t revolutionary,” he said, “when we charge some yuppie 2000 pesos for a room — enough to pay a worker’s monthly salary.” Since taking the business over in response to mass unemployment and instability, Bauen has been able to hire over a hundred new workers. “Yeah, I like working here,” a worker named Lucio said, “You have the ability to learn new things.” Rather than the suspicion and individualism that pervades most capitalist workplaces, knowledge sharing and skills training are encouraged at the hotel and viewed as being in all of the workers’ collective interest.

An important aspect of the hotel is the space it provides for worker organizations, various social and political groups, and cultural activities. Solidarity permeates throughout Bauen and it has become a meeting place and organizational center for different worker and community groups. The city’s subway workers used the hotel as a strike headquarters, eventually winning concessions in their struggle for increased wages and shorter hours. The hotel lobby itself displays Bauen’s links of support with other cooperatives. A worker run shoe cooperative displays sneakers in the front window and the hotel’s cafe sports sparkling floor tile from the Zanon ceramics factory — whose workers stay at Bauen without charge when they make the trek to Buenos Aires from Neuquen. In addition to occupying and running the hotel, the workers at Bauen support the production of working class culture and powerful murals of class struggle line the walls of the hotel lobby. On the weekends, musical performances and film screenings take stage. There are also radio programs and theatrical productions put on at the hotel on a regular basis.

Impresa Chilavert

“The only politics I have is work,” said Fermin, a worker at the recuperated Chilavert printing press in the Buenos Aires neighborhood of Pompeya. “I don’t think it’s right that the boss gets fat while workers suffer.” The Chilavert factory was occupied in 2002 after the previous owner fired employees, defaulted on back pay that he had promised workers, and — upon claiming bankruptcy and squandering the workerŐs pension funds — attempted to illegally sell off printing machines. After putting up with the lies, unpaid wages and liquidation of their livelihood, the 8 remaining employees, with support from the community and other worker cooperatives, claimed their ownership rights as workers and took over the plant. “I spent most of the occupation in the kitchen,” chuckled Fermin before describing how the occupying workers stood down a police backed eviction attempt. “I called the news and told them that if the police came in it would be a genocide.” Now the plant employs 15 workers paid roughly equal depending on family needs and all decisions are made democratically.

Like Bauen, solidarity and cooperation are fundamental to Chilavert as an entity. In addition to the numerous printing jobs they take on in order to survive in the market, they also print pamphlets, journals and books detailing political events and the movement’s struggle. A striking example of how recuperated factories are transcending capitalist mentality is the cultural space at Chilavert used by community members and workers. Overlooking the shop floor, the space contains paintings, books, art supplies, musical instruments and a stage, all of which facilitate another kind of production at Chilavert — one that seems as hopeful as the prints and texts pumped out below. In the office space at the front of the shop, volunteers from the public university are building a library to document the movement’s history. The factory is a burgeoning center of cultural and political activity, surviving in the market against odds and championing worker self management and community solidarity as an alternative to the insecurity and crisis of capitalist organization.

Fermin has worked at the factory for decades and has been subjected to all sorts of indignities throughout the years. Being lied to be the old owner was especially trying. “He would travel all over the world and then tell us he was broke,” he remembered while standing in the factory’s kitchen. “Once I walked in on him in here with a big pile of money. He kicked me out.” When the previous owner went bankrupt he claimed to have spent his employees’ pension funds. Now, Fermin receives only a fraction of what he put towards his retirement throughout the years. But along with financial necessity, Fermin works to “keep the apprenticeship chain” unbroken and pass on the knowledge that is so vital to the continued existence of the Chilavert worker’s cooperative. Fermin’s story reflects the struggles and successes of the recuperated factory movement in Argentina, as well as the hope and possibility that they represent. Ultimately, the words of Natalia, a volunteer at Chilavert, ring true. “Being a worker in a recovered factory,” she said, “is a political position itself.”

**********

While fighting to exist in the hostile environment of the market, some individual enterprises have succumbed to old hierarchical structures of organization and undemocratic decision making processes. The lack of capital, precarious legal standing, state hostility, and difficulties creating a sustainable alternative market, have put tremendous pressure on worker controlled enterprises and the ideals of horizontalism and equality. While the limitations and obstacles that the factories face in building a movement offering an alternative can’t be ignored, neither can the sense of possibility and hope that is offered by their survival.

The Bauen Hotel and Chilavert printing press are strong examples of how recuperated businesses in Argentina have struggled to survive within the market while maintaining and strengthening networks of support and community solidarity that resist worker exploitation and offer a possible solution. Over five years after the economic disaster that threw the country into depression and despair, their success at surviving in direct opposition to capitalist reason and transcending a culture of division and competition is both remarkable and hopeful.

Links
www.recuperadasdoc.com.ar
www.guiarecuperadas.com.ar
www.bauenhotel.com.ar
www.obrerosdezanon.org