Tweet
VENEZUELA IS NOT UKRAINE
Published on Tuesday, March 4, 2014 by The Guardian
Venezuela's struggle is widely misrepresented in western media. This
is a classic conflict between right and left, rich and poor
by Mark Weisbrot
(Photo: Chris Arsenault/ @AJEChris/ Twitter)The current protests in
Venezuela are reminiscent of another historical moment when street
protests were used by right-wing politicians as part of an attempt
to overthrow the elected government. From December of 2002 through
February 2003, there was strike of mostly white-collar workers at
the national oil industry, along with some business owners. The US
media made it look like most of the country was on strike against
the government, when, in fact, it was less than one percent of the
labor force.
The spread of cell phone videos and social media in the past decade
has made it more difficult to misrepresent things that can be easily
captured on camera. But Venezuela is still grossly distorted in the
major media. The New York Times had to run a correction last weekfor
an article that began with a statement about "The only television
station that regularly broadcast voices critical of the government ..."
As it turns out, all of the private TV stations"regularly broadcast
voices critical of the government". And private media has more than
90%of the TV-viewing audience in Venezuela. A study by the Carter
Center of the presidential election campaign period last April showed a
57 to 34% advantage in TV coverage for President Maduro over challenger
Henrique Capriles in the April election, but that advantage is greatly
reduced or eliminated when audience shares are taken into account.
Although there are abuses of power and problems with the rule of law
in Venezuela - as there are throughout the hemisphere - it is far
from the authoritarian state that most consumers of western media
are led to believe. Opposition leaders currently aim to topple the
democratically elected government - their stated goal - by portraying
it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful
protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often
includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence.
The latest official numbers have eight confirmed deaths of opposition
protesters, but no evidence that these were a result of efforts by
the government to crush dissent. At least two pro-government people
have also been killed, and two people on motorcycles were killed
(one beheaded) by wires allegedly set up by protesters. Eleven of
the 55 people currently detained for alleged crimes during protests
are security officers.
Of course violence from either side is deplorable, and detained
protesters - including their leader, Leopoldo Lopez - should be
released on bail unless there is legal and justifiable cause for
pre-trial detention. But it is difficult to argue from the evidence
that the government is trying to suppress peaceful protest.
>From 1999-2003, the Venezuelan opposition had a strategy of "military
takeover", according to Teodoro Petkoff (pdf), a leading opposition
journalist who edits the daily Tal Cual. This included the military
coup of April 2002 and the oil and business owners strike from
December 2002 - February 2003, which crippled the economy. Although
the opposition eventually opted for an electoral route to power, it
was not the kind of process that one sees in most democracies, where
opposition parties accept the legitimacy of the elected government
and seek to co-operate on at least some common goals.
One of the most important forces that has encouraged this extreme
polarization has been the US government. It is true that other left
governments that have implemented progressive economic changes have
also been politically polarized: Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina
for example. And there have been violent right-wing destabilization
efforts in Bolivia and Ecuador. But Washington has been more committed
to "regime change" in Venezuela than anywhere else in South America -
not surprisingly, given that it is sitting on the largest oil reserves
in the world. And that has always given opposition politicians a
strong incentive to not work within the democratic system.
Venezuela is not Ukraine, where opposition leaders could be seen
publicly collaborating with US officials in their efforts to topple
the government, and pay no obvious price for it. Of course, US support
has helped Venezuela's opposition with funding: one can find about
$90m in US funding to Venezuela since 2000, just looking through US
government documentsavailable on the web, including $5m in the current
federal budget (pdf). Pressure for opposition unity and tactical and
strategic advice also helps: Washington has decades of experience
overthrowing governments, and this is a specialized knowledge that you
can't learn in graduate school. Even more important is its enormous
influence on international media and therefore public opinion.
When John Kerry reversed his position in April and recognized the
Venezuelan election results, that spelled the end of the opposition's
campaign for non-recognition. But the opposition leadership's closeness
to the US government is also a liability in a country that was the
first to lead South America's "second independence" that began with the
election of Hugo Chavez in 1998. In a country like Ukraine, political
leaders could always point to Russia (and more so now) as a threat to
national independence; attempts by Venezuelan opposition leaders to
portray Cuba as a threat to Venezuelan sovereignty are laughable. It
is only theUnited States that threatens Venezuela's independence,
as Washington fights to regain control over a region that it has lost.
Eleven years since the oil strike, the dividing lines in 2002 have
not changed all that much. There is the obvious class divide, and
there is still noticeable difference in skin color between opposition
(whiter) and pro-government crowds - not surprising in a country and
region where income and race are often highly correlated.
In the leadership, one side is part of a regional anti-imperialist
alliance; the other has Washington as an ally. And yes, there is a big
difference between the two leaderships in their respect for hard-won
electoral democracy, as the current struggle illustrates. For Latin
America, it is a classic divide between left and right.
Opposition leader Henrique Capriles tried to bridge this divide with
a makeover, morphing from his prior right-wing incarnation into
Venezuela's Lula in his presidential campaigns, praising Chavez's
social programs and promising to expand them. But he has gone back
and forth on respect for elections and democracy, and - outflanked
by the extreme right (Leopoldo Lopez and Marķa Corina Machado),
last week refused offers of dialogue by the president. At the end of
the day, they are all far too rich, elitist, and right wing (think
of Mitt Romney and his contempt for the 47%) for a country that has
repeatedly voted for candidates running on a platform of socialism.
Back in 2003, because it did not control the oil industry, the
government had not yet delivered much on its promises. A decade later,
poverty and unemployment have been reduced by more than half, extreme
poverty by more than 70%, and millions have pensions that they did
not have before. Most Venezuelans are not about to throw all this
away because they have had a year and a half of high inflation and
increasing shortages. In 2012, according to the World Bank, poverty
fell by 20% - the largest decline in the Americas. The recent problems
have not gone on long enough for most people to give up on a government
that has raised their living standards more than any other government
in decades.
(c) 2014 The Guardian
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research (CEPR), in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just
Foreign Policy. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security:
The Phony Crisis. E-mail Mark: [email protected]
Published on Tuesday, March 4, 2014 by The Guardian
Venezuela's struggle is widely misrepresented in western media. This
is a classic conflict between right and left, rich and poor
by Mark Weisbrot
(Photo: Chris Arsenault/ @AJEChris/ Twitter)The current protests in
Venezuela are reminiscent of another historical moment when street
protests were used by right-wing politicians as part of an attempt
to overthrow the elected government. From December of 2002 through
February 2003, there was strike of mostly white-collar workers at
the national oil industry, along with some business owners. The US
media made it look like most of the country was on strike against
the government, when, in fact, it was less than one percent of the
labor force.
The spread of cell phone videos and social media in the past decade
has made it more difficult to misrepresent things that can be easily
captured on camera. But Venezuela is still grossly distorted in the
major media. The New York Times had to run a correction last weekfor
an article that began with a statement about "The only television
station that regularly broadcast voices critical of the government ..."
As it turns out, all of the private TV stations"regularly broadcast
voices critical of the government". And private media has more than
90%of the TV-viewing audience in Venezuela. A study by the Carter
Center of the presidential election campaign period last April showed a
57 to 34% advantage in TV coverage for President Maduro over challenger
Henrique Capriles in the April election, but that advantage is greatly
reduced or eliminated when audience shares are taken into account.
Although there are abuses of power and problems with the rule of law
in Venezuela - as there are throughout the hemisphere - it is far
from the authoritarian state that most consumers of western media
are led to believe. Opposition leaders currently aim to topple the
democratically elected government - their stated goal - by portraying
it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful
protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often
includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence.
The latest official numbers have eight confirmed deaths of opposition
protesters, but no evidence that these were a result of efforts by
the government to crush dissent. At least two pro-government people
have also been killed, and two people on motorcycles were killed
(one beheaded) by wires allegedly set up by protesters. Eleven of
the 55 people currently detained for alleged crimes during protests
are security officers.
Of course violence from either side is deplorable, and detained
protesters - including their leader, Leopoldo Lopez - should be
released on bail unless there is legal and justifiable cause for
pre-trial detention. But it is difficult to argue from the evidence
that the government is trying to suppress peaceful protest.
>From 1999-2003, the Venezuelan opposition had a strategy of "military
takeover", according to Teodoro Petkoff (pdf), a leading opposition
journalist who edits the daily Tal Cual. This included the military
coup of April 2002 and the oil and business owners strike from
December 2002 - February 2003, which crippled the economy. Although
the opposition eventually opted for an electoral route to power, it
was not the kind of process that one sees in most democracies, where
opposition parties accept the legitimacy of the elected government
and seek to co-operate on at least some common goals.
One of the most important forces that has encouraged this extreme
polarization has been the US government. It is true that other left
governments that have implemented progressive economic changes have
also been politically polarized: Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina
for example. And there have been violent right-wing destabilization
efforts in Bolivia and Ecuador. But Washington has been more committed
to "regime change" in Venezuela than anywhere else in South America -
not surprisingly, given that it is sitting on the largest oil reserves
in the world. And that has always given opposition politicians a
strong incentive to not work within the democratic system.
Venezuela is not Ukraine, where opposition leaders could be seen
publicly collaborating with US officials in their efforts to topple
the government, and pay no obvious price for it. Of course, US support
has helped Venezuela's opposition with funding: one can find about
$90m in US funding to Venezuela since 2000, just looking through US
government documentsavailable on the web, including $5m in the current
federal budget (pdf). Pressure for opposition unity and tactical and
strategic advice also helps: Washington has decades of experience
overthrowing governments, and this is a specialized knowledge that you
can't learn in graduate school. Even more important is its enormous
influence on international media and therefore public opinion.
When John Kerry reversed his position in April and recognized the
Venezuelan election results, that spelled the end of the opposition's
campaign for non-recognition. But the opposition leadership's closeness
to the US government is also a liability in a country that was the
first to lead South America's "second independence" that began with the
election of Hugo Chavez in 1998. In a country like Ukraine, political
leaders could always point to Russia (and more so now) as a threat to
national independence; attempts by Venezuelan opposition leaders to
portray Cuba as a threat to Venezuelan sovereignty are laughable. It
is only theUnited States that threatens Venezuela's independence,
as Washington fights to regain control over a region that it has lost.
Eleven years since the oil strike, the dividing lines in 2002 have
not changed all that much. There is the obvious class divide, and
there is still noticeable difference in skin color between opposition
(whiter) and pro-government crowds - not surprising in a country and
region where income and race are often highly correlated.
In the leadership, one side is part of a regional anti-imperialist
alliance; the other has Washington as an ally. And yes, there is a big
difference between the two leaderships in their respect for hard-won
electoral democracy, as the current struggle illustrates. For Latin
America, it is a classic divide between left and right.
Opposition leader Henrique Capriles tried to bridge this divide with
a makeover, morphing from his prior right-wing incarnation into
Venezuela's Lula in his presidential campaigns, praising Chavez's
social programs and promising to expand them. But he has gone back
and forth on respect for elections and democracy, and - outflanked
by the extreme right (Leopoldo Lopez and Marķa Corina Machado),
last week refused offers of dialogue by the president. At the end of
the day, they are all far too rich, elitist, and right wing (think
of Mitt Romney and his contempt for the 47%) for a country that has
repeatedly voted for candidates running on a platform of socialism.
Back in 2003, because it did not control the oil industry, the
government had not yet delivered much on its promises. A decade later,
poverty and unemployment have been reduced by more than half, extreme
poverty by more than 70%, and millions have pensions that they did
not have before. Most Venezuelans are not about to throw all this
away because they have had a year and a half of high inflation and
increasing shortages. In 2012, according to the World Bank, poverty
fell by 20% - the largest decline in the Americas. The recent problems
have not gone on long enough for most people to give up on a government
that has raised their living standards more than any other government
in decades.
(c) 2014 The Guardian
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research (CEPR), in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just
Foreign Policy. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security:
The Phony Crisis. E-mail Mark: [email protected]