Press Freedom - Taking A
Glance At A Newspaper Stand
In support of their claim that Maduro is a 'tyrant'
who does not allow free elections, corporate media consistently point
to a lack of press freedom. When British academic Alan MacLeod of
Glasgow Media Group reviewed 166 Western media
articles evaluating the state of press freedom between 1998-2014, he
found that all depicted Venezuelan
media as 'caged', or unfree. Last week, Canadian political analyst
Joe Emersberger commented in The Canary:
'The idea that Venezuela has a "caged" media
has to be one of the most unforgivable pieces of Western propaganda
about the country. And a simple analysis shows just how ignorant that
allegation is. Indeed, just a few days ago, one of Venezuela's most
widely read newspapers, El Universal, published an op-ed
enthusiastically applauding the efforts of the US-backed opposition
to bring about President Nicolás Maduro's ouster by recognizing
opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the country's new president. The
op-ed said Guaidó was managing his US-backed strategy
"perfectly". And it joyously stated that the US and its
allies had Maduro surrounded, and almost ready to be ousted.'
In 2016, Emersberger wrote of earlier protests:
'In fact the protests and the leading opposition
leaders' take on the protests are being extensively covered on the
largest private networks: Venevision, Televen, Globovision. If people
abroad sampled Venezuela's TV media directly, as opposed to judging
it by what is said about it by the international media and some big
NGOs, they'd be shocked to find the opposition constantly denouncing
the government and even making very thinly veiled appeals to the
military to oust Maduro.'
The Venezuela Analysis website tweeted:
'A cursory glance at any newspaper stand in Caracas
will reveal that vast majority of Vzlan papers are anti-govt.
Opposition also has massive social media presence – just search
Twitter for "Venezuela" w/ Spanish filter. Intl journalists
been lying re lack of media freedom for yrs'
Independent journalist Abby Martin did exactly as
suggested and visited a Venezuelan newspaper stand. She offered this summary:
'So, out of the seven papers, four are
anti-government, two are pro-government, and one is neutral, can go
either way. So, it looks like the press is not as
controlled as we think.'
This is the kind of research even corporate
journalists should be able to conduct for themselves.
Economic Warfare –
Blocking Recovery
Just as they blamed Saddam Hussein for
the devastating impact of US-UK sanctions on Iraq (1990-2003),
corporate media are united in laying the blame for Venezuela's
economic and humanitarian crisis at Maduro's door. In fact, Venezuela
has long been subject to severe US sanctions. In 2017, political
analyst Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
(CEPR) commented:
'At the end of August, the Trump administration
imposed harsh sanctions on Venezuela that prevent the country from borrowing
or selling assets in the US financial system. The new embargo will
exacerbate shortages of food, medicine, and other essential goods,
while severely limiting the policy options available to pull the
country out of a deep depression.'
Trump's order 'makes a sustained recovery nearly
impossible without outside help—or a new government that is approved
by the Trump administration'.
This week, Alexander Campbell, also of CEPR, reported:
'Last week, the US formally adopted sanctions on
Venezuelan national oil company PDVSA, as well as on CITGO, its
US-based distribution arm, as part of its press for regime change in
Caracas. National Security Advisor John Bolton estimated the actions
would affect some $7 billion in assets and would block $11 billion in
revenue to the Venezuelan government over the next year.'
Campbell summarised Venezuelan economist Francisco
Rodríguez's 2018 analysis of the impact of
sanctions:
'Rodríguez's basic story: the oil industry is critical
to the Venezuelan government; underinvestment and the rapid decline
in oil prices caused a significant drop in revenue; then, as oil
prices began increasing, Trump imposed sanctions making any
international financial transaction extremely difficult and
potentially "toxic." Rodríguez explains... how Venezuelan
and Colombian oil production both declined at the same rate, until
the Trump financial embargo was implemented in August 2017. Then,
Venezuela's oil production collapsed...'
The US media watch website, FAIR, placed all of this in
context:
'Trump ramped up the Obama administration's sanctions,
an action that caused Venezuelan oil production to plummet (FAIR.org,
12/17/18) and the economy to nosedive. Furthermore, US economic
warfare against the country has cut Venezuela off from global capital
markets—with the Trump administration threatening bankers with 30
years in prison if they negotiate with Caracas a standard
restructuring of its debt (AlterNet, 11/13/17). The UN Human Rights
Council formally condemned the US, noting that the sanctions target
"the poor and most vulnerable classes," called on all
member states to break them, and even began discussing reparations
the US should pay to Venezuela.'
Last month, Alfred de Zayas, the first UN rapporteur
to visit Venezuela for 21 years, told the Independent that
US sanctions are illegal and could amount to 'crimes against
humanity' under international law:
'Former special rapporteur Alfred de Zayas, who
finished his term at the UN in March, has criticized the US for
engaging in "economic warfare" against Venezuela which he
said is hurting the economy and killing Venezuelans.'
The Independent continued:
"Sanctions kill," he told The Independent,
adding that they fall most heavily on the poorest people in society,
demonstrably cause death through food and medicine shortages, lead to
violations of human rights and are aimed at coercing economic change
in a "sister democracy".
'On his fact-finding mission to the country in late
2017, he found internal overdependence on oil, poor governance and
corruption had hit the Venezuelan economy hard, but said
"economic warfare" practised by the US, EU and Canada are
significant factors in the economic crisis.'
And:
'Despite being the first UN official to visit and
report from Venezuela in 21 years, Mr de Zayas said his research into
the causes of the country's economic crisis has so far largely been
ignored by the UN and the media, and caused little debate within the
Human Rights Council.'
Our ProQuest UK national newspaper database search for
the last 30 days for articles mentioning:
'de Zayas' and 'Venezuela' = 1 hit
That is, one mention in the entire UK press, the
Independent article cited above.
An idea of the extent of Western economic warfare
against Venezuela can be gained from this thread of examples sent by tweeter Francisco
Nunes.
In 2015, a minimum wage comparison across Latin
America by Mexico's Financialred.com.mx found:
'Costa Rica has the second highest minimum wage in
Central America and third in Latin America, US$516 monthly. Venezuela
tops the list at US$885 and Panama US$667.
'The average monthly minimum wage across Latin America
is US$354.'
The study reported:
'The lowest in purchasing power is Colombia, where the
minimum salary covers only 49.57% of the Canasta Basica; in other
words Colombians need more than 2 minimum wages to cover their basic
needs. Colombia's minimum wage is COP644.350 Colombian Pesos, while
the cost of the Canasta Basica is COP1,300,000.
'A similar situation is lived in Paraguay, Peru and
Ecuador.'
Deep poverty is a problem across the region, but these
crises never make the news. Even worse disasters are raging
elsewhere, of course.
Since March 2015, a 'coalition' of Sunni Arab states
led by Saudi Arabia, and supported by the US, Britain and France, has
been dropping bombs on neighbouring Yemen. In 2016, the independent
journalist Felicity Arbuthnot reported that in one year, 330,000
homes, 648 mosques, 630 schools and institutes and 250 health
facilities had been destroyed or damaged. In December 2016, it was
reported that more than 10,000 people had died and three million had
been displaced in the conflict. According to Patrick Cockburn in the
Independent, the death toll now likely exceeds 60,000.
In August 2016, Oxfam reported that in excess of
21 million people in Yemen, out of a total population of around 27
million, needed humanitarian aid, more than in any other country. In
December 2016, a new study by UNICEF, the UN children's agency, reported
that at least one child was dying every 10 minutes in Yemen.
As far as we are aware, nobody in the UK parliament or
press has called for the overthrow of the Saudi regime, nor indeed of
the UK government, for creating poverty and suffering that far
exceeds anything seen in Venezuela.
Indeed, in October 2016, Labour shadow foreign
secretary, Emily Thornberry, placed a motion before the House of
Commons that merely sought 'to bring about a cessation of hostilities
and provide humanitarian relief in Yemen' and 'to suspend [UK
government] support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition forces in
Yemen' pending an investigation of human rights violations. More than
100 Labour MPs – almost half the Labour Party – failed to support the motion. As a result,
it was defeated by 283 votes to 193.
Similar indifference greeted the UN's finding, in 1999, that the US-UK
sanctions regime in Iraq had caused the deaths of 500,000 children
under five. Senior UN diplomats who set up and ran the sanctions
programme - and who later resigned in protest, describing it as
'genocidal' - were almost completely ignored by the UK press. One
such senior diplomat, Hans von Sponeck, wrote a superb,
forensic book detailing US-UK
responsibility for this mass death, 'A Different Kind of War - The UN
Sanctions Regime in Iraq' (Berghahn Books, 2006). The book has been
mentioned once in the entire UK press and never been reviewed.
US Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein made the point:
'The same blowhard politicians talking about
"bringing democracy" to Venezuela have aided & abetted
the Saudi dictators executing dissidents, murdering journalists &
starving millions of kids in Yemen. They don't give a damn about
democracy or poor people's lives. It's about OIL.'
As Adam Johnson notes wryly, it is as if US
liberals 'keep a real-time report card on these Official Bad Regimes,
and if these regimes—due to an ill-defined rubric of
un-democraticness and human rights—fall below a score of say,
"60," they become illegitimate and unworthy of defense as
such'.
Of course, no 'real-time reports' are kept on 'us' and
'our' allies. The result is propaganda, not journalism.
Oil - 'We Could Have Had
Anything We Wanted'
If Maduro is not in fact a tyrant, if
Venezuela does in fact have a
comparatively free press and fair elections; if the US-UK corporate
press is not in fact concerned
about the fairness of elections, press freedom, poverty and mass
death, even when caused by their own governments – then what is their
problem with the Maduro government?
A vague gesture in the direction of Truth was made by
Channel 4's Alex Thomson, who asked on January 27:
'Curious how much Venezuela suddenly matters to the EU
when the recent notorious election in Bangladesh didn't register like
this...nor the Catalan question... nor the host of murderous
dictators it supports across the Gulf. Why Caracas guys?'
As we replied, the reason is hardly in doubt. We
linked to a WikiLeaked US document:
'US GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT...
VENEZUELA...
'OUR FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS IN VENEZUELA ARE:
'THAT VENEZUELA CONTINUE TO SUPPLY A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF OUR
PETROLEUM IMPORTS AND CONTINUE TO FOLLOW A MODERATE AND RESPONSIBLE
OIL PRICE POSITION IN OPEC'
RT's Going Underground tweeted a list of the
'Largest proven oil reserves in the world':
'1. Venezuela
'2. Saudi Arabia
'4. Iran
'5. Iraq
'9. Libya
'The US is pursuing regime change/executed regime change against 4 of
these countries in 16 years'
On Twitter, redfish provided some detail on quantities of
oil, showing that Venezuela is top of the list.
In an interview with Sky News, Peter Watt, lecturer in
Hispanic Studies at the University of Sheffield, noted that '90 per cent of
Venezuela's oil exports are destined for the United States, it's
about 700,000 barrels of oil every day'.
Marco Rubio, the US Senator for Florida, tweeted:
'Biggest buyers of Venezuelan oil are @ValeroEnergy
& @Chevron. Refining heavy crude from #Venezuela supports great
jobs in Gulf Coast.
'For the sake of these U.S. workers I hope they will
begin working with administration of President Guaido & cut off
illegitimate Maduro regime.'
A few days later, apparently with complete
unawareness, Rubio tweeted again:
'Blessed the man who sets his security in the LORD,
who turns not to the arrogant or to those who stray after falsehood.
'Psalms 40:5'
In 2011, before becoming President, Donald Trump lamented the outcome of the
US 'intervention' in oil-rich Libya:
'The fact is, what we should've done is, we should
have asked the rebels when they came to us. We should've said, "We'll help
you, but we want 50% of the oil." They would have absolutely
said, "Okay!", one hundred per cent. In fact, they would
have said, "How about 75%?"... Isn't it sad, we could have
had anything
we wanted. We could've had 50% of those oil fields. You
know, in the old days when you had a war, it's "To the victor
belong the spoils." So, we could have had some something
special.'
Who cared that the oil belonged to Libya? Anyone who
doubts that this same 'compassion' informs US concern for the people
of Venezuela now, should reflect on the naming of Elliott Abrams as
America's special envoy for Venezuela. Abrams has a simply
appalling record of brutalising Latin
America and other regions as part of the Ronald Reagan and George W.
Bush administrations. In 2002, the Observer reported of the coup that
temporarily overthrew Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez that 'the
crucial figure around the coup was Abrams' and that he 'gave a nod'
to the plotters.
US national security adviser, John Bolton, has urged the Venezuelan
military to overthrow the democratically elected government:
'We also today call on the Venezuelan military and
security forces to accept the peaceful, democratic and constitutional
transfer of power.'
'It'll make a big difference to the United States
economically, if we could have American oil companies really invest
in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.'
'Venezuela's government-in-waiting will allow foreign
private oil companies a greater stake in joint ventures with its
state-owned oil giant, Juan Guaido's envoy to the US has said.'
Conclusion – What We Are
Supposed To Think
'Maduro given ultimatum by European leaders'
'An ultimatum? By what right?'
Our question was retweeted 369 times and liked 649
times.
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya also
received 'ultimatums' from the self-designated 'Rulers of the World',
who then went on to destroy both countries. Lessons learned by
corporate journalists on 'our' right to act as moral arbiters? None.
Consider, for example, the moment on February 4, when
Channel 4's Jon Snow gave Labour MP Chris
Williamson a piece of his mind:
'Look, Mr. Williamson, you and Mr. Corbyn are in a
very nasty corner now. You've got a country that is in terrible, terrible condition,
and that is down to the people who ran it and the people you
supported. Isn't it time you changed sides and got behind what is
happening now?'
As noted above, many countries are in 'terrible,
terrible condition', often thanks to Western
'intervention', without journalists being the least bit concerned.
And notice a key point: Snow was asking Williamson to get
behind Trump's policy in
Venezuela. Yes, that Trump - the monster
that 'mainstream' media have endlessly depicted as an out and out
fascist. Snow's comment was a perfect example of a journalist being
swept up by the mindless conformity of a propaganda blitz –
everyone always, always has to
get behind 'what is happening now' when power is targeting Serbia,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela. To do anything less is
irresponsible, shameful, is siding with 'the Bad Guy'.
And what do the people of Venezuela - the people who
have suffered so much under US-backed, right-wing tyrannies in the
past - actually want? The Canary reports that 'the vast
majority of Venezuelan people oppose military intervention and US
sanctions':
'The poll, conducted by Hinterlaces in early January
2019, found that "86 percent of Venezuelans would disagree with
international military intervention". More than eight out of ten
Venezuelans also oppose US sanctions on the country.'
Corporate politicians and journalists are playing a
very familiar game. We, the public, are supposed to think:
- Yes, there's lots of oil, but maybe they
really do know
that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Maybe they
genuinely are worried
that he might use them or give them to terrorists. Bush looks totally
convinced, Blair seems honest and sincere.
In fact, Saddam Hussein did not have
any WMD – it was fake news. In 2007, economist Alan Greenspan, former
Chairman of the US Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, wrote
in his memoir:
'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to
acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'
(Leader, 'Power, not oil, Mr Greenspan,' Sunday Times, 16 September
2007)
We are supposed to think:
- Yes, there's lots of oil, but maybe they are worried
that Gaddafi is going to commit a terrible massacre in Benghazi.
Obama seems deeply concerned, so does Cameron.
In fact, Gaddafi was not planning
a massacre – the claim was a fraud. In 2011, Real News
interviewed Kevin G. Hall, the national economics correspondent for
McClatchy Newspapers, who had studied the WikiLeaked material on
Libya. Hall said:
'As a matter of fact, we went through 251,000 [leaked]
documents... Of those, a full 10 percent of them, a full 10 percent
of those documents, reference in some way, shape, or form oil.'
('WikiLeaks reveals US wanted to keep Russia out of Libyan oil,' The
Real News, 11 May 2011)
Hall concluded: 'It is all about oil.'
We are supposed to think:
- Yes, there's lots of oil, but maybe they
really are worried
that Venezuelans are suffering terribly, maybe they really do believe
they would be better off under a new leader. Trump seems deranged,
but maybe he has a heart after all.
Time and again, we are asked to give the benefit of
the doubt to famously cynical, greed-driven Western political leaders
and parties. We can't believe they can be simply lying to us, making
it up – week after week, month after month – so that they and their
powerful corporate allies can get their hands on oil. Time and again,
too many of us defer to authority and whole countries are destroyed.
The final pages of human history before climate
collapse may show that the climate-denying Trump regime trashed one
more country in its determination to control and burn yet more oil,
thereby guaranteeing its own
destruction and the destruction of the entire human race, and most of
life on earth. With all this the work of a groping, orange-haired,
reality-denying reality TV billionaire selling himself as a 'man of
the people'.
A tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing, indeed.
DE
|
