has citgo registered as foreign agent with doj as they are lobbying for chavez?

These commercials have been running up here in New England for about two years. In January of 2006, my state of New Hampshire was looking into buying Venezuelan oil through a Venezuelan program that provided deep discounts and also oil donations set aside for low-income households. I believe many other Northeast states were already participating, and if I recall correctly, Governor Lynch was forced to back off from this plan because of the political outcry. This Venezulan program was launched soon after Chavez's UN speech blasting Bush as the devil, and was clearly part of a broader propaganda effort supporting Venezuala's petro-socialism by making the point around the world that the rich United States doesn't take care of its own people, and it is left to poorer countries like Venezuela to assist US poor.

Interesting post Sameer. I still see Hugo Chavez as a problematic personality in South America and am pleased that his constituents told him "no" in his efforts to be president for life. One of the reasons I favor a competely different tack in US-Cuba relations is to help put some distance between Cuba and Hugo Chavez -- who is engaged in the same kind of propaganda efforts there that he is in the ad you highlight.

I respect different views on this -- but Chavez's game is political in my view, not philanthropic towards America's financially disadvantaged.

Steve Clemons

Official Washington should get down on it knees to thank Chavez for being a reliable oil supplier. Until Chavez took office, social conditions had been deteriorating for two decades and were reaching a boiling point that would likely have created widespread unrest and threatened the oil supply.

With the introduction of social programs funded by increased oil prices and an increased share of oil profits, Chavez has stabilized the country, though class divisions remain stark. Nonetheless Venezuelan oligarchs and Big Oil are still resentful, though there interests would have been hurt far more by unrest than they have been by Chavez. Their short term greed knows no limits, even if they must know in their hearts that it can't last.

In America Big Oil has taken the role of Scrooge, forcing Bob Cratchit to ask for another lump of coal, or in this case, some reasonably priced heating oil. But it only becomes a problem when somebody, like Dickens or Chavez, embarrasses them by publicizing it. Otherwise, making billions ripping off the poor is just business as usual.

Chaves is all poitiical in this matter. He's smart and understands, just as Steve posted, how to develop and maintain his power in office.

Also, Patrick Kennedy is still a congressman I believe.

The ads feature former Congressman Joe Kennedy (D-Mass) not current Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D-Rhode Island).

If nothing else, at least Chavez has an extremely acute sense of smell.

Steve Clemons said: "I respect different views on this -- but Chavez's game is political in my view, not philanthropic towards America's financially disadvantaged."

Who cares if his game is political rather than philanthropic, Mr. Clemons?

You sound as if you resent the contribution Chavez' Venezuela is making to low income Americans because of what he represents to YOU. Let’s ask some of the beneficiaries of Chavez’ political largess what they think of your opinion, shall we?

Steve Clemons said: "I still see Hugo Chavez as a problematic personality in South America and am pleased that his constituents told him "no" in his efforts to be president for life."

(asked sarcastically)
You mean Venezuelans only voted on that one issue, Mr. Clemons? Oh... No...? They actually voted on an Omnibus bill that was Changing Almost Everything and they got spooked by a concerted media propagandization effort into not voting in favor of the changes for a whole slew of reasons?!?

So cut the crap about Chavez trying “to be president for life”.

Chavez wanted the right to campaign for President of Venezuela as many times as his constituents would have him. Incidentally, that's the same arrangement we have in Canada. Our Prime Ministers have no Best Before dates. As long as we're willing to elect them to power, they may assume it. Do you consider the Canadian government a dictatorship or a junta, Mr. Clemons?

Your distortion of what Chavez intended is absurd. I have to think it intentional. Surely a man as infected by in Wahingtonitis as you are, Mr. Clemons, knew you were distorting his intentions and ambitions?

I'm disappointed you felt the need to propagandize this issue rather than deal honestly with the very real dilemma that Chavez represents to the American Controlling Class.

He's not like them.

I hope Sameer Lalwani posts more on this topic. It's an important one. It's worth remembering South America has already gone through the deliberate gutting of their publicly-held infrastructure and the intentional abandonment of great swaths of their citizenry by their colonizing political and business leadership under the ravenous gaze of the World Bank, et al, while the United States' financial Armageddon is just beginning.

You could learn something from the sure-footed movement to the left south of you of which Chavez is an inspirational part.

Jump!

Fear is so last year.

Chavez's quest to be "President for Life" is another fantasy spun by the foreign policy mob and its megaphone in the corporate media. In fact, Chavez can be recalled by a vote of the people at any time during the second half of any term.

Americans should be green with envy at the thought of Venezuelans being able to recall a president without having to rely on corrupt Congressmen to fulfill their constitutional duty to impeach. It's part of the reason polls indicate that Venezuelans rate their democracy among the world's best.

The US is to create pluralism in Latin America? Do you know anything of the hist. of US imperialism? Pluralism my ass: the US only a few years ago was directly involved in an attempt to overthrow Chavez by force. What the US wants, and until recently has had, are client states. The problem isn't in Latin America, it's in the US and with people who write columns like yours, which are merely soft defenses of US aggression.

Wasn't Chavez also offering all expense paid eye operations to Americans that couldn't afford them? Seems to me I read something along those lines a coupla years back.

Somehow, I kinda doubt if someone who has recieved the gift of improved vision cares whether or not Chavez' motives are political or not.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/1323

Venezuela to Provide Discounted Heating Oil and Free Eye Operations to U.S. Poor

August 28th 2005, by Bernardo Delgado -
Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas, Venezuela, August 28, 2005 —Venezuela’s Chavez said to visiting Rev. Jesse Jackson today that he would like Jackson to help with finding a way to provide discounted heating oil and free eye operations to poor communities in the U.S. Pointing out that Venezuela provides 1.5 million barrels of oil per day to the U.S., Chavez said, “we would like to provide a part of this 1.5 million barrels of oil to poor communities.”

Chavez made these comments during his weekly television program Aló Presidente today, which Jackson briefly attended to speak to Chavez and the audience. Jackson is on a three-day visit to Venezuela, during which he will meet with local religious leaders, Afro-Venezuelan groups, the president of the state oil company PDVSA, President Hugo Chavez, and visit poor-neighborhoods to see Venezuela's social programs at work.

Chavez had first mentioned the plan to supply discounted oil to poor communities in the U.S. last week, while in Cuba, but did not provide any details beyond that. Today he specified that it was heating oil that the Venezuelan government was looking into because this seemed the most feasible and most necessary approach. Given the high price of oil this year, heating oil is expected to reach very high levels this winter, which will be unaffordable for many poor families in the U.S.

“There is a lot of poverty in the U.S. and don’t believe that everything reflects the American Way of Life. Many people die of cold in the winter. Many die of heat in the summer,” said Chavez in explaining why Venezuela was interested in providing discounted heating oil to the U.S. poor. “We could have an impact on seven to eight million persons,” he added.

Chavez said that he was interested in talking to Jackson about this plan, so that his organization and other U.S.-based groups might help with it. Chavez mentioned the groups TransAfrica Forum, Global Exchange, and Global Women’s Strike that could also help implement the plan.

Part of the plan was for the U.S.-based and Venezuelan state-owned oil company Citgo to provide heating oil directly to poor households. Chavez said this would not present a loss to Venezuela because the idea would be to offer the oil at a lower rate because intermediaries would not be involved. Up to 30% to 40% of the cost could be saved said Chavez. Citgo licenses 14,000 gas station franchises and 8 refineries in the U.S.

Venezuela’s ambassador to the U.S. Bernardo Alvarez, had told Chavez that the embassy has already received over 140 requests about the plan, even though it has not been formally announced yet.

Free Eye Operations

Chavez spent a large part of his Sunday talk show discussing new healthcare plans for Venezuela. Part of this discussion also involved the provision of free eye operations to people in all of the American continents, north and south. The operations Cuba would provide the bulk of the operations, with Venezuela providing the transportation.

Chavez said that of the six million operations that Cuba and Venezuela would want to organize over the next ten years, there would be slots for 150,000 U.S.-Americans per year. Each country will receive a quota. Chavez gave some examples, explaining that there would be 100,000 for Brazilians, 60,000 for Colombians, 12,000 for Panamanians, 30,000 for Ecuadorians, 20,000 for Bolivians, and 20,000 for inhabitants of the Caribbean. Chavez said that those interested in the eye operations should turn to the Venezuelan embassies in their respective countries.

The plan to provide free eye operations is part of the “Mission Miracle,” which is one of the many new social programs that Chavez government has instituted in the past two years in Venezuela. By the end of December, 150,000 Venezuelans will have received eye operations. These operations involved operations for cataracts, myopia, pigmentary retinosis, and many others.

I have worries about Chavez as well, not because of his politics but because of his flamboyant personality and showmanship. But I think the source of the irritation with the free oil program is that his propaganda message is essentially correct: we Americans *don't* take care of our people, and its annoying when foreigners take the trouble to vividly demonstrate this fact. Our laissez faire, free market mania and obsession with private property and private capital have resulted in a grotesquely unequal social order over whose direction we are capable of exerting only limited democratic control. At the same time we give our citizens extraordinary assistance in going abroad to swindle and dispossess others, and subject these others to thralldom under American creditors.

'SOFT' ENABLER OF THE RULING CLASS.....TWN?

Wonder if Steve means to imply that Pedro Carmona's game would be less political and more philanthropic toward the financially disadvantaged? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1927678.stm

Hmmm.......

Another backstory:

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"
http://www.chavezthefilm.com/index_ex.htm

The documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" chronicles the short-lived April 2002 coup of democratically elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (he was elected in 1998 by a landslide) by Venezuela's equivalent of Republicans -- right-wingers pissed off over the fact that Chavez was democratically elected and that his policies favor the common Venezuelan, not the overprivileged elite, and that Chavez doesn't kiss U.S. ass.

Chavez's cardinal sin, in the eyes of his right-wing opponents, is the redistribution of the nation's oil wealth to help improve the lives of the 80 percent of Venezuelans who live in poverty.

In sickening scenes, we see rich right-wing Venezuelans, most of whom appear to be of aristocratic Spanish (i.e., white) blood, actually claim before the camera that Venezuela's poor (who are mostly non-white) haven't struggled enough, like they have, and therefore they, the whiter, richer Venezuelans, should control the nation's government and wealth, and we see them in secret meetings in which they advise each other to watch their servants, who might be spies for Chavez, and to keep guns in their homes in case they have to shoot poorer Venezuelans if the poorer Venezuelans should revolt and come after them.

The right-wing coup leaders -- who probably were, as Chavez's supporters claim in the film's footage, supported by the Central Intelligence Agency -- immediately install an unelected right-wing president of their own, rich oil executive Pedro Carmona; abolish Venezuela's constitution; and dissolve the nation's elected legislative body. You know, what the Republicans would do in the United States if they could get away with it. (Wait a minute -- they did get away with installing a president whom the people did not elect, and they've at least shit and pissed all over the U.S. Constitution. And Republican-orchestrated redistricting in order to favor the Republican Party is a serious subversion of the democratic legislative process.)

The people of Venezuela -- the majority of whom voted for Chavez and who support him -- rise up against the newly forcibly installed, unelected right-wing government. They prevail and Chavez is restored to his rightful power within a couple of days. The anti-democratic right-wing coup leaders -- who are fucking traitors and criminals -- don't get what they deserve, which is at least life in prison for the loss of life that they caused in their unlawful subversion of democracy -- their treason -- but the fact that Chavez does not take revenge upon them demonstrates that he is not the tyrant that the right-wingers accuse him of being.

The Bush regime denied any involvement in the failed right-wing coup of Venezuela's democratically elected government, but the United States' oily fingerprints are all over it, and the Bush regime clearly gave at least its moral support, if not also practical support, to the coup. (There are clips of former CIA Director George Tenet and former Bush spokesweasel Ari Fleischer -- whose lying tongue I'd still like to rip from his throat and shove up his ass -- at least tacitly praising the coup.)

It's no coinky-dink that Venezuela is the world's fourth- or fifth-largest oil producer (depending upon your source), producing 14 percent of the oil consumed by the United States.

And, I might add, what happened to traitor and criminal Pedro Carmona? He is now living in Miami, Florida, where all Latinos who try, unsuccessfully, to sell out their own people to the United States seem to end up. No, the Bush regime had nothing to do with the attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government that refused to kiss U.S. ass, especially where oil is concerned, I'm sure.

The film's title is a reference to the fact that the coup probably could not have taken place without the aid and abetment of Venezuela's private television networks -- owned by oil companies -- that broadcast anti-Chavez content and propaganda. (Chavez, allegedly an evil dictator, allowed the networks an unprecedented amount of free speech, and had at his disposal only the state-owned television network, which the coup members disabled during the coup.)

The plutocratically owned TV networks' blatant lies to the Venezuelan people about the events before, during and after the failed coup, which the filmmakers expose -- such as the blatant lie that Chavez resigned, when he never resigned but was forcibly carted off to and detained at an island -- are chilling. And they remind us Americans of the dangers of the plutocratically owned media in the United States, which increasingly serve the interests of their wealthy owners and others of the ruling class at the expense of the American people. (For a study of this -- specifically, the American corporately controlled media's failure to responsibly cover the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, see the excellent documentary "Control Room," which I have seen and will review here shortly.)

The makers of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," who are Irish, had set out to make a documentary film about Chavez and had no idea that the coup would take place. The documentarians gained surprisingly free access to film the coup as it unfolded, and the dramatic story unfolds better than could any Hollywood script.
http://blogs.salon.com/0001517/2004/06/13.html
* * *

Can someone explain to me why Lalwani characterizes Kim Jong Il as "megalomanic"???

Which country did he invade lately?

Why is Chavez a problematic personality? Has he threatened to wipe America off the map?

Or are we afraid that he will encourage other LAmer countries to be independent of the US and the US multinational exploitation?

Sounds like it to me. Very good book to read on this subject...

"World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability" by Amy Chua.

The answer to your question, b, is 'North Korea.' Unless you think the Kim family's rule is somehow legitimate...

Steve has a point that Chavez is offering heating oil at a discount to low income families here for Machiavellian reasons. But as has been pointed out, who cares? As long as the actions that he takes have positive consequences, his motives don't interest me in the least.

@arthurdecco- Your point about the WB and US elites basically raping the Third World for its resources is spot on.

But to compare the electoral system of Venezuela with that of Canada is ludicrous. One of the byproducts of US intervention in South America has been the fostering of chaos within the political realm. There is a long and well documented history of rigged elections when governments have even bothered to pretend to have one. Venezuela is one of the countries where that has taken place, and recently.

Just because Chavez has a left wing philosophy does not mean that he is any less power hungry or any less prone to using such tactics to satisfy that hunger than the typically right wing leaders who have in the past. Whether he actually has or will is open to debate as I am not an election monitor. But the possibility still stands and the longer he is in power, the better chance that he will do anything to hold power.

Furthermore, a Prime Minister and a President are not comparable positions, electorally speaking. A PM can be forced into elections by a vote of no confidence by Parliament and even forced out of office by his own party without an election being held should he try to grab too much control for himself.

The best legislators can do to a President is not pass the bills he sends them. Should an independent executive desire more control over functions he is not entitled to legally, the legislature has almost no recourse to stop him. Especially if the President has control over or is allied with the country's military.

The current hovering Constitutional crises down here in the States ought to tell you that.

The answer to your question, b, is North Korea. Unless you somehow think the Kim family's rule there is legitimate...

Steve has a point about Chavez's intentions w/r/t the heating oil. But as has been pointed out, who cares? If what he does has positive consequences, his Machiavellian reasons don't interest me in the least.

@arthurdecco- You are absolutely right about the World Bank and US elites raping Third World countries for their resources. But to compare the political system of Canada with that of Venezuela is ludicrous.

First off, a Prime Minister and a President are not comparable positions. A PM needs the confidence of both Parliament as a whole and his party in order to operate. If he oversteps his authority, he can be thrown out of office by a number of different means.

An independent executive can more or less operate without legislative authority, especially if he controls or is allied with the military. There is no built in enforcement mechanism should the legislature desire him gone and/or the judiciary order it to happen. See Pakistan, see the standoffs between Congress and the White House in the US.

Furthermore, the electoral history of many South American countries, including Venezuela, is suspect; As are some of Chavez's actions since he came to power. I don't know if he has been involved in vote rigging, but I wouldn't be surprised if he has or did in the future as his time in office lengthens. The longer a person is in power, the better the chance he will do anything to hold on to it. Including ignoring/rigging a recall vote.

The fact is, term limits for Presidents are a good thing even if Russia proves they aren't always effective. I'm sure Chavez isn't the only Venezuelan capable of advancing socially equitable economic policies in that country.

"There is a long and well documented history of rigged elections when governments have even bothered to pretend to have one. Venezuela is one of the countries where that has taken place, and recently."
-----------------------

ej--You need to educate yourself on Venezuelan election auditing procedures. Electronic voting machines produce paper ballots, which are used to audit the electronic results IN PUBLIC sessions immediately upon close of each election. Up to 50% of the paper ballots are selected at random for the audit. A randomly chosen indiviual reads the result for each ballot out loud to people representing the political parties, the press, etc., and the numbers are tallied in public. No tally is submitted to election central unless all paper ballots match the corresponding record on the machine. Since local tallies were done in public, any discrepancy with the numbers used at election central becomes immediately public.

These procedure make rigged elections a virtual impossibility. Again, Americans should be green with envy at the Venezuela system of protecting the sanctity of the vote.

The elderly couple in my home town last year that received fuel assistance through this program I'm sure appreciated the help. Prices weren't as high as this year, but enough to hurt. Baldacci was there for the presentation, and though some conservatives in town were none too pleased, citing the politics of the offer, you suppose these folks should have said "no thanks, we're too American to take your handouts...?" What does it say when these folks gladly accepted any help they could get?

My wife a couple of years ago transcribing medical notes for a mid-coast Maine hospital teared up with one case. An elderly woman found mid-winter in her home with frostbitten feet. No family and no assistance. Extentuating circumstances probably exist in this case, but people do suffer when it gets cold in Maine. Fuck the politics of it. Chaves' propaganda gains are a more salient issue than someone staying warm?

I'm disappointed that you weren't able to find the will to address my concerns regarding your bewildering ignorance of Hugo Chavez' history and avowed intentions, Mr. Clemons.

JohnH said: "...Chavez can be recalled by a vote of the people at any time during the second half of any term."

I didn't know that, JohnH.

ej said: "@arthurdecco...to compare the political system of Canada with that of Venezuela is ludicrous."

I didn't compare the political systems of Canada and Venezuela, ej. I know very little about the political system in Venezuela other than what I've read - which appears to back up JohnH's point that its a much more democratic system of governance than the criminal charade Americans suffer under. I pointed out the fact that Chavez wanted to remove the restrictions on him running for President as many times as he wants. I used the Canadian system of not date stamping our leaders as an illustration of why the lifting of the two-term limit for President of Venezuela is not a threat to democracy, and to ridicule Mr. Clemons' unspoken assertion that the intent of the change in law was to make Chavez "president for life" - or, in other words, a dictator.

@easy e, Thanx. Nice post. Filled with FACTS.

"I respect different views on this -- but Chavez's game is political in my view, not philanthropic towards America's financially disadvantaged."

So what you're saying is that policy undertaken by a political entity is political in nature. This is shocking because...? Honestly, it's kind of naive to expect a government - ANY government - does anything anywhere for anything other than political advantage.

Call me radical, but perhaps the conservative blowhards whose knickers are in such a twist over Kennedy's willingness to keep American's warm with nasty dirty Venezuelan oil should make the "political decision" to provide heating assistance themselves! Tell you what, they can even call themselves honorary "points of light" or "Compassionate conservatives" if that makes them happy. Frankly, it's a sad commentary on our country that the Venezuelan government is more willing to care for our poor as a propaganda stunt than is the American government because it is the right thing to do.

For those that take broader view than AEI propagada

Progressive Change in Venezuela and Latin America
By Mark Weisbrot

December 7, 2007, TheNation.com

En español
See article on original website
Printer-friendly version

"He had faults, like other men; but it was for his virtues that he was hated and successfully calumniated."
-- Bertrand Russell, on the American revolutionary Thomas Paine

The defeat of the Venezuelan government's proposed constitutional reforms last Sunday will probably not change very much in Venezuela. Most of what was in the reforms can be enacted through the legislature. This is especially true for the progressive reforms: social security pensions for informal sector workers, free university education, the prohibition of discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. The negative elements, such as expanding the government's powers in a state of emergency, probably wouldn't have changed much if they had passed. The Chavez government has never declared a state of emergency, and did not invoke any special powers even when most democratic governments in the world would have done so, e.g. during the oil strike of 2002-2003, which crippled the economy and almost toppled the government for the second time in a year; or after the April 2002 military coup. (It is also worth noting that even if they had passed, the amendments wouldn't have given the Venezuelan government the authority to commit the worst infringements on civil liberties that the Bush administration has made in its "war on terror.")

Chavez's proposal to scrap term limits was defeated, but he has more than five years to try again if he wants. But even if this is his last term, the changes underway in Venezuela will not likely be reversed when he steps down.

Most importantly, the character of the political battles in Venezuela has not changed. The popular presentation of this contest as between pro-Chavez and anti-Chavez forces is misleading. It is a struggle of left versus right, with the two sides divided and polarized along the lines of class, democracy, national sovereignty, and race.

For these reasons, in the past eight years there has been very little progressive or even liberal political opposition to the Chavez government in Venezuela – just as there were no progressive or liberal organizations in the United States that supported President George W. Bush for re-election in 2004. Venezuela is politically polarized – much more so than the United States.

The referendum shifted these political dividing lines only very slightly, and very likely temporarily. Some within the pro-government coalition opposed the reforms; and it appears that the amendments failed mainly because a great many of Chavez's supporters didn't vote. But there is no indication that these people have shifted to the opposition camp, and polls show that Chavez and the government remain highly popular. And the opposition to the government is still a right-wing opposition, despite the addition of a mostly-well-off student movement that is more ideologically mixed – including the student opposition leader Stalin Gonzalez, who recently defended his namesake in the Wall Street Journal.

With regard to democracy, there has always been a clear difference between the two sides. Chavez's immediate acceptance of a razor-thin margin of defeat – 50.7 percent against – before all the votes were even counted should cut through all the media hype about a "strongman" and a "dictator." Chavez congratulated his opponents on their victory. As in previous elections, he had publicly committed to accepting the results before the vote, and had called on the opposition to do the same.

On the other side, the opposition tried several oil and business strikes, and a military coup in April 2002, to win what they could not gain at the ballot box. The first act of the short-lived coup government was to abolish the constitution and dissolve the Supreme Court and the elected National Assembly. The coup was reversed due to massive pro-democracy street demonstrations, but eight months later the opposition once again tried to topple the government with a devastating, management-led oil shutdown. Unlike in the United States, where we have three sets of labor laws that would have put the leaders of such a strike in jail, the Chavez government allowed the strike to run its course, with the economy crippled in the process.

Only after all extra-legal means failed to dislodge the government did the Venezuelan opposition resort to the ballot box, exercising their constitutional right to a recall referendum on the presidency in August 2004. They lost by a margin of 59-41, and promptly refused to accept the result. Although vote-rigging was nearly impossible under the dual electronic-plus-paper-ballot voting system and the result was certified by the Carter Center [1] and the OAS, the opposition – which has its own media and invents its own reality – to this day holds to conspiracy theories [2] that the referendum was stolen by a fantastic electronic fraud. In December 2005, seeing that it would lose congressional elections, the opposition boycotted, despite the OAS and European Union observers' condemnation of the boycott.

The opposition did finally accept their defeat in the December 2006 presidential elections, which Chavez won with 63 percent of the vote and the highest turnout ever. And now that they have finally won at the ballot box, there is a possibility of an opposition that is more willing to play by the democratic rules of the game emerging. The student movement seems to have more elements that favor democratic means of challenging the government, and may have played a role in convincing others in the opposition to vote in the referendum. But they have not transformed the opposition into a democratic movement.

With regard to class, polls sponsored by the opposition and the government show that poor and working people are overwhelmingly pro-Chavez, and the upper classes against him. There are obvious reasons for this class divide: the Chavez government has provided health care to the vast majority of poor Venezuelans, subsidized food, and increased access to education. Real (inflation-adjusted) social spending per person has increased by 314 percent over the eight years of the Chavez administration. The proportion of households in poverty has dropped by 38 percent – and this is measuring only cash income, not other benefits such as health care and education.[3] Interestingly, the upper classes have also done pretty well, but appear to oppose Chavez for mostly ideological reasons, including his commitment to "21st century socialism." The Chavez administration has also provided the poor with more of a voice in government than they have ever had previously.

On the questions of national sovereignty and empire, the lines are also clearly divided in Venezuela. Leading opposition groups, including some who were involved in the coup, have received U.S. funding and other support. Washington's involvement in the coup is well-documented and much deeper [4] than the vast understatements and euphemisms used by the major US and international media describe the US role. The Washington Post reported this week that the Bush Administration has been funding unnamed student groups, presumably opposition.

The Bush Administration has remained committed to this day to regime change in Venezuela, through destabilization and de-legitimation, although there are differences within the State Department. Its tacit support for the completely unjustified opposition boycott of the December 2005 congressional elections is a good example of this strategy: giving up about 30 percent of the Venezuelan congress just for the propaganda advantage of having the media report on "a congress completely dominated by Chavez." While the media focuses on Chavez' rhetoric, such as his notorious UN speech in which he referred to President Bush as the devil, his confrontation with Washington has been inevitable and not of his choosing.

Latin American racism, especially outside of that directed against indigenous groups, is different than in the United States because "race" is less well-defined; but institutional racism is no less prevalent, as the noticeable difference in skin color between the white elite and the poorer classes throughout the region makes very clear. In Venezuela, this difference of complexion is also quite visible between the anti-Chavez and pro-Chavez demonstrations. Perhaps more importantly, those who are aware of and against racism – including indigenous and anti-racist groups – are overwhelmingly pro-Chavez, partly because of his government's actions on behalf of indigenous rights, including land reform and land titling, and constitutional rights.[5] Needless to say, the opposition to Chavez – who is proud of his African and indigenous heritage – also contains overtly racist elements.

Indigenous supporters outside Venezuela include President Evo Morales of Bolivia, a close friend and ally of Chavez. Other progressive Latin American presidents also have close relationships with Chavez and see him as a very important ally: Nestor Kirchner of Argentina, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and although the international media is always trying to deny it, President Lula da Silva of Brazil. Lula heads a divided government, but he has consistently defended Chavez.[6] All of these leaders understand the historic nature of what is happening in Latin America – the majority of a region once known as ''the United States' backyard" now has governments that are more independent of the United States than Europe is. Chavez has played a huge role in this process, most importantly through the Venezuelan government's billions of dollars of lending and grants to governments – made without policy conditions. Until a few years ago, Washington's main avenue of influence in Latin America was through control over credit, which was exercised through a creditors' cartel headed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The collapse of this cartel in recent years is the most important change in the international financial system in more than three decades, and one that has drastically reduced U.S. influence. Venezuela's provision of an alternative source of credit has helped other democratic governments to try and deliver on their electoral promises without the threat of economic strangulation from abroad that, just a few years ago, may have doomed them to a short life. It is thus helping to promote democracy in the region.

What about the charges that Venezuela under Chavez has been moving toward "an authoritarian state'? The denial of a broadcast license renewal to a TV station that participated in a military coup and several other attempts to topple the government, and that would not get a license in any other democratic country, is hardly inappropriate [7]; it was also defended by other democratic presidents in the region, including those of Brazil, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Venezuela's media is still dominated by the opposition, and remains the most anti-government media in the hemisphere. Then there is the controversial "enabling law," which gives Chavez fairly broad temporary authority to make certain legislation by executive order, subject to revocation by the congress or referendum. But as the US State Department's top official for Latin America, Thomas Shannon, commented when the Venezuelan congress passed the law in January, "It's something valid under the constitution. As with any tool of democracy, it depends how it is used." And Chavez has hardly used the enabling legislation at all – only to extract more concessions from foreign oil companies.

One can go through the list, but the point is that one does not have to agree with every decision of the Venezuelan government to see that there is little or nothing to back up the absurd image of "authoritarian rule" that the Chavez-haters have created. Unfortunately they have gotten help from politicized groups such as "Reporters Without Borders," which receives funding from the "National Endowment for Democracy" (which has funded groups involved in the overthrow of elected governments, including Venezuela [2002] and Haiti [2004]); the Committee to Protect Journalists, which is funded by big media owners; and other organizations who are generally more autonomous but whose independence seems to weaken under pressure with regard to Venezuela. Bottom line: no reputable human rights organization has claimed, nor would they, that civil liberties or human rights have deteriorated under the Chavez government – or that it compares unfavorably on these issues with the region.

A historic transformation in underway in Latin America. After more than a quarter century of neoliberal economic reform, and the worst long-term economic growth failure in more than a century, a revolt at the ballot box has elected leaders who are looking for democratic alternatives that will restore economic growth and development, and reduce poverty and inequality.[8] The U.S. government is opposing these efforts; a key element of its overall strategy is to demonize Chavez and de-legitimize the democratic government of Venezuela. The U.S. and international media have enthusiastically embraced this agenda, with journalism that makes Judy Miller's worst articles in the run-up to the Iraq war look fair and balanced by comparison.

A more truthful and accurate reporting and analysis of these events is sorely need.

Notes

[1] See "Observing the Venezuela Presidential Recall Referendum," The Carter Center, February 2005.
[2] See Mark Weisbrot, David Rosnick, and Todd Tucker, "Black Swans, Conspiracy Theories, and the Quixotic Search for Fraud: A Look at Hausmann and Rigobon's Analysis of Venezuela's Referendum Vote", September 2004.
[3] See Mark Weisbrot and Luis Sandoval, "The Venezuelan Economy in the Chavez Years".(Poverty figures here updated for first half 2007.)
[4] See Mark Weisbrot, "Venezuela's Election Provides Opportunity for Washington to Change its Course".
[5] See e.g.: Michael Fox, "Indigenous March in Support of Chavez in Venezuela" , 11 June, 2006.
[6] See Gosman, Eleonara, “Lula: “Nadie Hará que Discute con Chávez, es mi Amigo”, Clarín, July 7, 2007; and Mark Weisbrot, “President Bush’s Trip to Latin America is All About Denial”, Center for Economic and Policy Research, March, 2007
[7] See Robert McChesney and Mark Weisbrot, "Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction" "Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction"; Mark Weisbrot, "Eyes Wide Shut: The Media Looks at Venezuela".
[8] See Mark Weisbrot, "Latin America: The End of an Era", International Journal of Health Services, Volume 37, Number 3 / 2007.

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

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000), and has written numerous research papers on economic policy. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.

S Brennan, excellent post.

This topic deserves much further coverage. U.S. progressive movement has much to learn from transformation occuring in rest of Western Hemisphere. Character of political battles waged against AEI and their ilk will be key.

When one cuts through the media curtain that conceals the true nature of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians, one finds a monster.

Why should it be suprising that when one cuts through the media curtain that conceals the true nature of Chavez' democracy, one will find a rose?

Not surprising......the monster is the same in both cases. European-based colonialism/imperialism are at the root of Venezuelan and Israeli anti-democracy policies. For that matter, U.S. policy as well.

Venezuela's white-blooded Spanish elite rule their indigenous and mixed-blood masses. Likewise, Israel's white-blooded Ashkenazi's rule their own indigenous Palestinians (including Sephardic Jews).

We know AEI will continue to resist penetration of this curtain. How about TWN/New America Foundation???.....

POA - not surprising......the monster is the same in both cases. European-based colonialism/imperialism are at the root of Venezuelan and Israeli anti-democracy policies. For that matter, U.S. policy as well.

Venezuela's white-blooded Spanish elite rule their indigenous and mixed-blood masses. Likewise, Israel's white-blooded Ashkenazi's rule their own indigenous Palestinians (including Sephardic Jews).

We know AEI will continue to resist penetration of this curtain. How about TWN/New America Foundation???.....