|
June 12, 2002
Dave Marsh
Shelley
Stewart, Radio and the Birmingham Civil Rights Movement
Chris Floyd
Murder, Inc.
June 11, 2002
Omar Barghouti
On Dance, Identity and War
Robert Fisk
The Bush
Afghan Gang:
Murderers, Gangsters, Stooges
Minerva Wright
The Donkeys of the Holy Land
David Krieger
Stopping
a Nuclear War
in South Asia
June 10, 2002
Jeffrey St. Clair
Executioner's Last Songs
June 8/9, 2002
Gavin Keeney
Mademoiselle
M.
Or Getting Screwed in Paris
Susan Davis
Sleepless
in the Suburbs
Curing Insomnia: a new use for The Nation?
George Sunderland
"Send
in the Weekly
Standard": The Screaming Pundits Assault Corps
June 7, 2002
Michael Colby
Bush to the Nation:
You're All Cops Now
Tanweer Akram
Howard
Zinn's "Terrorism
and War": a review
David Krieger
New Security Challenges
Sam Bahour
The Palestinian
Intifada:
A Very American Struggle
Tom Turnipseed
A Crisis of Confidence
in US Leadership
June 6, 2002
Michael Colby
White House
vs. EPA:
Political Hot Air and
Global Warming
Ron Jacobs
The Indo-Pakistan Conflict:
It's Just a Shot Away
Francis Boyle
Take Sharon
to The Hague:
Prosecute Israeli War Crimes
at Jenin
CounterPunch Bulletin
60 Minutes and President Chavez's
Censored F-Word
Mark Weisbrot
Spying
and Lying:
The FBI's Shameful Past
June 5, 2002
Robert Fisk
Berlusconi the Censor
Danielle Brian
Nuclear
Plants and Terrorism
Ardeshir Cowasjee
For What Do We Fight?
George Monbiot
Kashmir
on the Brink
Michael Neumann
What is Antisemitism?
June 4, 2002
Dave Marsh
Bono the Useful Idiot
William Evan / Francis
Boyle
Kashmir:
Invoking Intl. Law to Avoid Nuclear War
Cockburn / St. Clair
The Future Wellstone Deserves
June 3, 2002
Ramdas / Makhijani
India,
Pakistan and Nukes:
A Road Map to Peace
Fran Shor
Meanwhile, Back in Afghanistan
Neve Gordon
The Caterpillar
Effect
June 2, 2002
Fidel Castro
From FDR to Mister "W.":
Cuba, the US and Democracy
Arundhati Roy
Under the
Nuclear Shadow
Bernard Weiner
Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies
June 1, 2002
Norman Madarasz
The
Strange Math of Roberto Carlos: Brazil v. Turkey
Gavin Keeney
Bush and Mies van der Rohe:
Architecture and Ideology
Jeff Halper
Sharon's
Post-Incursion Plan:
Incarceration or Transfer?
Walt Brasch
Crumpling the Constitution
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published March 15, 2002
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The Memphis Blues Again:
Six Decades of Memphis Music Photographs
Photos by Ernest Withers
Text by Daniel Wolff
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
June 12,
2002
Venezuela: Five
Facts about April 11th
by Roldan Tomasz Suárez
I would like to point out a series of facts about
the current situation in Venezuela that are just as valid for
times to come. They are pillars on which we must base our political
opinions and actions, as well as shields to protect ourselves
from an avalanche of lies, deceit and manipulation, with which
the media bombards us on a daily basis. Here are five facts and
I will attempt to explain each one as clearly and directly as
I can.
First Fact:
There was a coup d'etat on April 11th.
To convince ourselves that this is true,
we do not need to know the opinions of those directly involved
in the events. Opinion polls aren't necessary. We don't have
to listen to transcripts of parliamentary hearings or blindly
trust the word of so and so. The only thing we have to do is
to join three simple facts recognized as such by all parties
implicated.
a) The President was deprived of his
freedom by a group of military officers, who demanded his resignation.
b) His resignation never occurred but
there was an attempt to make the country believe the contrary.
c) The same group of military officers
decided to choose a new President.
Each of these three facts constitutes
a blatantly illegal act violating basic principles of democracy.
Let us see why.
In a democratic system, no military officer
has under no circumstance even the slightest faculty to deprive
the President of the Republic of his freedom. Listen up: under
no circumstance. Even in the case of a President acting against
the laws, there are legal procedures to detain and bring the
Head of State to trial, which involve the response of competent
organs, such as the National Assembly, the Attorney General's
Office and the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ). Obviously,
none of these procedures could envisions or permit a group of
Generals to place the President under arrest, whenever they deem
it convenient.
On the other hand, we could speculate
a lot about whether Chavez Frias considered the possibility of
resigning, or that he was on the verge of resigning, or told
somebody or other that he had resigned. We can ask whether he
drew up a document of resignation, or not, or what was the basis
on which General Lucas Rincon Romero announced the President's
resignation. Etc. etc. etc. But nothing will change the fact
that Chavez Frias did not resign. It does not matter what announcements
he or his spokespersons may have made or to whom he made them.
It does not matter if he had promised to resign or not or under
what circumstances. Such discussions are nothing more than a
smokescreen to cover up the simple and clear fact that Chavez
Frias' resignation was never formalized according to procedure
stipulated in the Constitution and therefore, such resignation
never materialized. To be sure, if Chavez Frias had indeed signed
a document of resignation, that document would not have been
guarantee enough, since in those circumstances (with the President
under arrest and incommunicado) there was always the doubt that
he had been forced to sign under duress, in which case the document
would have no legal value at all.
Finally, no democratic system in the
world envisions the possibility of a group of Generals (even
in the case of an authentic power vacuum) appointing as President
the person they believe most suitable. If there had been a vacuum
of power, it is to be assumed that the National Assembly _the
only representative institution of popular will, apart from the
Presidency_ would have taken control over the situation.
So, the only and inevitable conclusion
that follows these three simple facts is that there was a coup
d'etat in Venezuela on April 11. The power vacuum thesis is simply
absurd. Those who defend it could only do so out of ignorance
or to cover up their own participation in the coup.
Second Fact:
we can be absolutely certain that at least three groups took
part in the coup: a sector of the Armed Force (FAN), a sector
of the Federation of the Chambers of Commerce & Industry
(Fedecamaras) and a sector of the Catholic Church.
To prove that this is true we do not
need to know who exactly the coupsters were and what role each
person played in the coup. It's enough to know that these three
sectors publicly validated the President's supposed resignation
and signed an act that dismantled the country's democratic institutionality
and installed Pedro Carmona Estanga as President. None of these
acts could have been undertaken in good faith and with a clean
conscience. The three sectors knew that Chavez Frias had not
resigned, and yet they opted to lie to the country. All three
knew that Carmona Estanga's government would be unconstitutional
and yet, they supported its installation.
Apart from these three groups (of which
we have absolute certainty, I repeat, CERTAINTY of their participation
in the coup), it's worth mentioning others, whose behavior arouses
our suspicion. For example, the despicable performance of mainstream
print & broadcast media during those April days is irrefutable
proof that media bosses were, to say the least, biased in favor
of the coupsters, if they weren't actively participating in the
coup themselves. There is absolutely no excuse for the hermetic
silence imposed by the media during April 13th. They claim that
there were no guarantees to protect their reporters' security
that day. Hadn't they, a day earlier, boasted about the courage
of their reporters, who dared film the famous Llaguno Bridge
images? Furthermore, there was no need to bring their reporters
onto the streets on April 13th: It would have sufficed to transmit
images captured by international news agencies. It would have
been enough NOT to lie to the country trying to convince it that
absolutely nothing was happening.
Finally, the performance of the main
opposition parties leaves no doubt that these sectors were also
favorably disposed towards the coup d'etat. To support this idea,
it's sufficient to remember how on April 12th, a few minutes
after the coup, all Venezuelan political dinosaurs (who many
people had thought dead or retired) suddenly reappeared. Those
"venerable leaders" of Accion Democratica (AD) and
Christian Socialist (COPEI), erstwhile champions of democracy,
enthusiastically threw themselves into the task of literally
kicking out and spitting on Chavist State Governors and Mayors,
who had been democratically-elected by the people. They were
busy placing themselves in office and the machinery of dishing
out positions had once again started to roll. Like a kind of
macabre symbol, Carlos Andres Perez (CAP) announced his speedy
return to Venezuela.
We dispose of further proof that incriminates
opposition parties. It concerns their performance within the
framework of National Assembly (AN) hearings. The opposition,
instead of seriously clarifying the strings that moved the coup
attempt, has spent all its efforts to show that there was no
coup d'etat in Venezuela _a thesis that, as we saw, holds no
weight. It is difficult to imagine that behind this there is
a different motive than to cover up the truth about their own
possible participation in the coup.
Third Fact:
The purpose of the coup d'etat was to guarantee the return to
power of political and economic groups that bled the country
during the more than forty years of AD-COPEI governments.
Many people insist that the coup leaders'
intentions were good, and that the only thing they wanted was
to establish an authentic democracy in our country. Of course,
anything can be said about intentions, which are invisible. Someone
could propose, for example, that Pinochet, deep down inside,
in his most hidden intentions, was always a great democrat. It's
just that he could not carry through his intentions because of
the circumstances he had to confront. Certainly, in theory that
would not be absolutely impossible. But would it be sane to believe
it, especially in light of the actions the Pinochet dictatorship
undertook?
Let us ask, then, what were the coupsters'
actions on April 11th? What intentions do these actions reveal
to us?
Once again, we appeal to three simple
facts, whose veracity has not been placed in doubt by any of
the parties.
a) Carmona Estanga dissolved all the
public powers of the Republic. In the twinkling of an eye, this
great democrat dismantled the country's whole democratic institutionality.
Not satisfied by that, he decided to eliminate the existing Constitution,
attributing himself with supra-constitutional powers, declaring
himself the supreme and absolute authority throughout national
territory.
b) Under the auspices of the Carmona
Estanga government, as we have mentioned above, Chavist State
Governors and Mayors, who had reached office in popular elections,
were stripped of their positions, many in an aggressive manner.
c) State security forces under Carmona
Estanga's command, initiated a witch-hunt for politicians and
public officials linked to the Chavez Frias' government. Raids
and arrests that failed to comply with legal procedures followed
and were enforced by persons lacking authority to do so. Charges
and allegations were many times absurd, as for example, accusing
the Interior & Justice (MIJ) Minister of illegal possession
of weapons.
Now I ask: Are dissolving all public
powers, eliminating the Constitution, dismissing democratically-elected
State Governors and Mayors, and imprisoning political adversaries
acts of a democratic government or, at least, those of one whose
intentions are democratic?
Evidently, then, the coupsters' objective
has very little to do with democracy. Its immediate object was
very clear: to root out any vestige of Chavism in the country.
That implied eliminating the Fifth Republic's institutionality,
including the 1999 Bolivarian Constitution and it also implied
dismissing all Chavez Frias' supporters from power and even removing
the adjective "Bolivarian" from the country's official
title. In other words, the coupsters wanted to recede several
years in time. They were searching for a Venezuela that existed
before 1999, trying to liquidate in one swift blow all the changes
that Venezuela had experienced in the last three years.
Now, then, why did Fedecamaras, a group
of military officers, a sector of the Church, media bosses, and
the traditional political parties want to turn the clock back
in that manner? It seems a stupid question in view of the obvious
answer. We are talking about groups that had benefited for fifty
years from a dramatically unjust distribution of wealth, systematic
alienation of public goods, and terrible exploitation of the
most needy in favor of tiny privileged groups. Do we have to
provide more reasons as to why these groups wanted to move back
in time at whatever the cost, even at the risk of losing their
mask as defenders of democracy?
Fourth Fact:
The dictatorship that was being installed in Venezuela was going
to be long-term.
Carmona Estanga announced that democratic
elections would take a year to be organized. One could wonder
why it is necessary to wait such a long time to carry out elections.
In fact, under pressure from international organizations, Carmona
Estanga changed his mind and reduced the period to a couple of
months, which indicates that from the beginning it was feasible
to have organized new elections within weeks. Once again, the
question is: why did they want to let time pass before going
to the polls?
It's possible to imagine, with a good
dose of certainty that, even in the case of Carmona Estanga's
coup having succeeded, a large sector of society would have maintained
sympathy towards Chavez Frias and the Bolivarian Revolution for
some time. It's possible to imagine that elections organized
too early and with the participation of candidates identified
as "Chavists" could have endangered the coupsters'
objective of rooting out Chavism in Venezuela. That is why it
was necessary to let time pass before calling new elections,
time to allow for the elimination of Chavism as a legitimate
political alternative. Many instruments were at hand to accomplish
the task. Let us remember that, already on April 11th, an intense
media campaign got underway aimed at discrediting Chavez Frias
as an "assassin" who had ordered the massacre of defenseless
citizens in cold blood. The smear campaign probably would have
been accompanied by a series of trials to "show" that
Chavist leaders had contacts with the Colombian guerrillas and
narco-traffickers and furthermore, brought in arms from Cuba
and were organizing armed groups to eliminate democracy in Venezuela.
All of this was going to end possibly with the political disqualification
of social leaders who had supported Chavez Frias and the banning
of Chavism as an illegal, armed, subversive and terrorist movement.
It would clear the way for elections in which Chavism would not
only be completely discredited but also perhaps legally banned
from participation.
Would a year have been enough to achieve
the objective? Personally I very much doubt it. I believe that
the coupsters would have needed far more time to undo the deep
commitment that a large sector of the population had acquired
with the Bolivarian project. Already on April 12th, we saw how
many people were willing to risk their lives for the President's
return. We are talking about a sector that acquired a minimum
of immunity to media manipulation and a strong dosage of distrust
towards Chavez Frias' adversaries. These are considerable obstacles
for the brainwashing process needed to execute the uprooting
of Chavism.
The coupsters would probably have seen
the need to prolong for more than a year the waiting period for
new elections. In the meantime, an autocratic system of government
would be consolidating itself. Facing the impossibility of a
rapid return to the long desired Fourth Republic, it would be
necessary to increase levels of abuse and repression. Venezuela
would be on the road towards a dictatorship of unpredictable
length.
Fifth Fact:
Under the present circumstances the alternative to Chavez Frias
is the abyss.
I hope the reader can see clearly from
what has been shown above that the problem facing Venezuela right
now will not be solved by simply opening a dialogue between the
government and the opposition. Forces opposed to Chavez Frias
are not interested in a democratic dialogue or discussing public
policies in a rational manner. If they had really been interested
in dialoging, they would have made use a long time ago of democracy's
most appropriate scenarios for dialogue, namely Parliament and
the media. Instead, they used these spaces to scream out that
in Venezuela there are no scenarios for dialogue. Furthermore,
if they really had been interested in dialogue they would have
been very happy with Chavez Frias famous national broadcasts
since they would have seen that the government was attempting
to justify its actions to Venezuelan society, thereby exposing
itself to criticism and political debate. The insistence on more
dialogue, repetition of the spin that Chavez Frias does not dialogue,
accusations about the government's authoritarian character, are
all part of a strategy in which a series of distorted democratic
notions are used to destroy the opponent. Forces that enacted
the coup in Venezuela are not interested in democracy. They are
interested in getting rid of Chavez Frias by any means.
If that is the case, we must bear in
mind that given the way things are going in Venezuela now, we
only have two options on which to bet. One of them is the Constitutional
permanence of Chavez Frias as Head of State and, in general,
respect for the rules of the game, which Venezuelan approved
in 1999. The other option is not even a quick return to the former
social economic and political order of the Fourth Republic or
the instalment of a new and different democratic institutionality.
Based on everything argued above, we can see no other option
but a prolonged right-wing dictatorship by those who lost their
economic and political privileges with the arrival of Hugo Chavez
Frias to the Presidency. This is the only real alternative that
we have today vis-a-vis the Chavez Frias government. This is
the alternative for which, like it or not, conscious or not,
people rushed to participate in demonstrations organized by Fedecamaras,
Confederation of Trade Unions (CTV), Primero Justicia (PJ) and
Queremos Elegir. That is why I dare to say the alternative to
Chavez Frias at the moment is the abyss.
How to beat the media?
Despite the fact that the facts we have
just enumerated are simple and evident, it would seem that a
large part of the population, especially the part that supposedly
enjoys the highest cultural and educational levels, remains completely
blind to the evidence. When we hear a typical middle class anti-Chavist
talking, we get the impression that we are listening to a series
of loose fragments, poorly repeated from radio and TV talk shows.
There are a number of empty words that are being constantly repeated
in the discourse: authoritarian, meritocracy, steamrolling, dollar-glutton,
handpicked, governance, politization, disunity etc. etc. etc.
Criticism towards the government becomes an infinite repetition
of a rosary of expressions that nobody knows the meaning of any
more but which silences thought very effectively.
It means, in a few words, that the media
is leading us Venezuelans to the abyss. For that reason, there
is no political action more urgent at the moment than countering
the power of dominant media discourse over public opinion. I
think there are two major lines of action. The first, in my opinion,
is the easiest: the creation of alternative sources of information.
It's a great opportunity for community television and radios,
which have started to proliferate throughout Venezuela. It's
necessary that these alternative media avoid limiting their range
of interest to specific local community problems. What's missing
is a communications network where speeches and news blacked-out
or twisted by the mainstream media can circulate, along with
affairs of national interest. In that way, it would be possible
to accomplish an informative coverage, at least, comparable with
that of mainstream giants. It could be possible to unleash voices
that up to now have not had the opportunity to express themselves.
A first mechanism to further the articulation of a community
network of this type would be the State TV channel: Venezolana
de Television (VTV). Let us imagine, for example, a weekly slot
on VTV dedicated to community stations, a space where ideas,
opinions, projects could be exchanged and where material from
some stations could be offered to the rest for transmission.
The other major line of action should
aim at vaccinating the population against media manipulation.
In a few words, it would revolve around a large scale educational
project, which could use the alternative media as a vehicle and
whose purpose would be to allow citizens to learn how to unmask
the varied mechanisms of manipulation and deceit used by the
dominant media. This task, more intense and demanding than the
first, would require working out how to achieve such goal in
a society that has suffered for decades a process of deep cultural
and educational devastation. To be sure, our mission could not
consist simply in offering an alternative "rosary"
of resonant words and phrases (this time Chavists) that are nothing
more than slogans. What is needed is the creation of a genuine
political consciousness, a passionately inquisitive spirit questioning
the existing social order we live in. How is it possible to promote
that spirit with the urgency and speed demanded by current political
circumstances? I do not know how to answer that question. The
only thing I know is that national universities should be doing
far more in this respect.
Translated by Patrick O'Donoghue and
Anna Sedello
Roldan Tomasz Suárez is a professor at Universidad de Los Andes in
Mérida, Venezuela. He can be reached at: roldansu@ula.ve
Today's
Features
Dave Marsh
Shelley
Stewart, Radio and the Birmingham Civil Rights Movement
Chris Floyd
Murder, Inc.
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|