Venezuela and RCTV

So what is happening in Venezuela? A private TV station did not have their broadcasting license renewed by the Chavez government and all of a sudden democracy, freedom of speech and press are all under assault. We have heard this story before about Chavez, but this case needs to be given a closer examination before we pass judgment on it. The major media outlets in the U.S. and Europe have been doing a pitiful job in covering this event. Any semblance of objectivism was long ago disregarded as ‘irrelevant’ when it comes to discussing Chavez. Nevertheless the facts are there for all to see, it simply takes a small amount of effort to uncover them.

Lets begin with a brief overview. RCTV (Radio Caracas TV) did not have their broadcasting license renewed on the 27th of May by the government. This was not an unexpected or rash act; Chavez had made it perfectly clear he did not intend to renew the license for many months. It its place a public TV station Tvez would be set up allowing literally thousands of independent producers access and a platform in which to broadcast to the country. RCTV would not lose its cable or satellite licenses, nor would it be subject to any penalties or criminal charges.

Chavez decided to shut the station down because of its role in the 2002 coup the temporarily ousted him from power. Indeed RCTV is an opposition-aligned company but there is a difference between supporting the opposition in a democratic country and supporting a military coup to overthrow a democracy. RCTV, along with the other privately owned media companies, launched a propaganda effort backing the coup and timed to coincide with it. RCTV failed to report on the mass popular demonstrations that brought Chavez back to his elected office, failed to report that Chavez was back in power after the coup failed, and later portrayed Chavez supporters as killing peaceful anti-chavistas, which was in fact later disproved. RCTV actually went as far as supporting the military coup before it became apparent that the people of Venezuela would not stand for it.

Chavez has sited all this as the reason for not renewing the license. It is worth noting that Chavez has waited 5 years until the current license expired before acting, in complete accordance with Venezuelan law. He refrained from punishing not only RCTV but also other supporters and even members of the military that were complicit in the coup once he was swept back into power.

Can we imagine this happening in the U.S.? If a leading general overthrew the president for a few days and NBC was completely backing the military in this, could we expect that the president would just let NBC be after he regained power? The answer is no. I would expect some sort of treason trials to be initiated or perhaps something to a lesser degree. In Venezuela this did not happen although Chavez clearly had the power and mandate to do such a thing.

So where does that leave us. The Chavez government has acted accordingly in regards to Venezuelan law by removing a private company from public broadcasting frequency for actively supporting an attempt to overthrow the democratic government and establish a military dictatorship. It has left the company free to have its programming on cable and satellite channels.

There has been a lot of coverage of the protests in Caracas against the move by Chavez, but what often is not mentioned is that the pro Chavez rallies taking place at the same time are many times the size of those protesting against. Once again popular support is on the side of the government. Perhaps that is what is the most threatening to the U.S. and Europe is that there is an elected leader actually doing the bidding of the vast majority of the population in his country and not the other way around. In this context in is not surprising to see these countries denounce the move as an attack on democracy and freedom. For example lets look at Condoleezza Rice’s recent statements.

"Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience are not a thorn in the side of government... Disagreeing with your government is not unpatriotic and most certainly should not be a crime in any country, especially a democracy."


She also described the move as “undemocratic.” Never mind the fact that Venezuela has NOT charged RCTV with any crimes, and that RCTV supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government. Rice seems like she is a character straight out of 1984, Newspeak and Doublethink come out of her a bit to easily for comfort.

We only have to think of one simple example to see how hypocritical this all this, although we have many to choose from. Just imagine if tonight on the news NBC or CBS or ABC (take your pick) said we all should support Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace and help him overthrown the government. That’s it, nothing more need to be said, that station would be finished instantly. It’s as simple as that people.

Wolfowitz Isn't A Lone Soldier

Does it seem a bit ironic to anyone that Paul Wolfowitz resigned as president of the World Bank earlier among charges of corruption? I mean this is the man who upon taking up his position at the bank declared an anti-corruption campaign. Does it really surprise anybody though? Just look at where Wolfowitz came from before heading to the World Bank, the Bush Administration. Granted just being a member of the Administration doesn’t automatically qualify a person as corrupt, incompetent, or dishonest, but it certainly doesn’t help your case either.

Corruption is nothing new when it comes to politics and indeed one would be naïve to think otherwise. The pomposity of this Administration lies in its hypocrisy. The example of Wolfowitz is just one example, but there are plenty more. Of course there is the recent example of Luis Posada Carriles, one of the most notorious terrorists in the Western Hemisphere over the past 25 years, walking freely in the U.S. Another example is the infamous No Child Left Behind policy,

“President Bush's No Child Left Behind law requires public schools to lower the number of dropouts. Failure to do so results in unfavorable actions being taken against local schools, school districts, and individual teachers.

In his latest budget, President Bush cut the federal money for dropout programs to ZERO. The requirement stays in place. The punishments stay in place. The money to help schools reach the goal and avoid the punishments no longer exists.”1

Do I even dare get in the nuclear proliferation debate? Yeah, I have to. This Administration loves to pretend it is against it with a lot of tough talk to Iran and North Korea, yet at the same time the Administration has pulled out of or weakened every major international arms agreement. Meanwhile they tell Iran that they cannot have the technology while India, Pakistan, Israel (all U.S. allies and not signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) as well as Russia and China surround them with thermonuclear weapons.

So the policies are obviously hypocritical to a large extent. Now lets move on to the people. Randall Tobias, former AIDS Czar, got busted patronizing the services of an escort service. Or course he was only using it for the ‘massages’ and I could really care less what he does in his free time, except that the program he was in charge of wouldn’t give aid organizations that help prostitutes and made much of the aid available only if they went to abstinence programs. What a jackass. I believe the appropriate word in Buenos Aires is boludo.

Since we are on this topic we might as well bring up Ted Haggard. While not a member of the Bush Administration, he was a staunch supporter and powerful evangelical preacher who spoke with Bush or his advisers on a weekly basis. I say was because it came to light that Mr. Haggard also used the services of an escort service, this time a male one, as well as dabbled in methamphetamines on the side. This coming from some one who preached against homosexuality and drug use.

The list goes on and on, but I think the point is made. It has gotten so bad that when I heard about Wolfowitz’s problems at the World Bank my response was, “Yeah, that sounds about right”. Being surprised or shocked at how low these people can sink is no longer even an option, it is just taken for granted.

Not all terrorists are created equal

The U.S. is often accused of double standards and hypocrisy in its foreign policy, human rights, and pro-democracy hubris when it comes to pursuing its own interests. This can easily be seen when one of the justifications for the Iraq war was to bring to democracy to the people of Iraq, while at the same time the U.S. enjoys rather cozy and lucrative relations with China. The fact that China has horrible human rights record and an authoritarian government doesn’t seem to matter when it boils down to the ‘important’ issue: trade. The China case is just one of a number of hypocritical stances taken by the U.S. and for that simple reason it doesn’t even stand out that much.

One recent case though seems to me to go head and shoulders above a lot of this hypocrisy, the situation surrounding Luis Posada Carriles. Some of you have heard of him before, others have not so I will give a little background information. Carriles is an anti-Castro Cuban militant that was once employed by the CIA. He has been tied to numerous bombings and terrorist plots over the years, most often funded by the CIA (this was apparently before the U.S. considered terrorism a bad thing, how the tables have turned). The most notorious crime he is connected with though is the 1976 bombing of Cuban plane that resulted in the death of all 73 people on board.

Sounds bad right? Well unfortunately it gets worse. He was jailed in Venezuela and was undergoing trial for the bombing when he escaped in 1985. After trying his hand in a few more plots over the years he ended up being jailed in Panama in 2000 for plotting an assassination attempt, but he received a Pardon and left the country 4 years later. He made his way into the U.S. at some point after that and was rightly detained by U.S. authorities.

But not on terrorism charges, rather on charges about lying to immigration officials upon his entry into the country. Both Cuba and Venezuela demanded that he be extradited to them to continue facing trial for his alleged crimes or that he be tried for them in the U.S. as is laid out in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, a UN international agreement.

Pretty straightforward, right? Well the U.S. has refused to hand over Carriles or try him on terrorism charges, preferring to simply pursue the immigration charges in blatant disregard for international law. The fact that international law is being ignored is of course nothing new to the U.S. but the fact that a world recognized terrorist is the beneficiary of it should something rather disturbing to all U.S. citizens.

And to top it all of the judge in Carriles’ immigration case dismissed yesterday leaving Carriles a free man within the U.S.

At this point the question has to be: why? Granted the U.S. certainly doesn’t like or approve of the governments in Cuba or Venezuela so I can at least understand the reluctance to hand Carriles into their custody. But why let a known terrorist walk free in U.S., I mean at least give him trail here. Perhaps I am being cynical, but the only other reason I can think of is that in for about a year, from Jan 30 1976 to Jan 20 1977 George H. W. Bush served as Director of the CIA. If Carriles was brought to trail on terrorism charges he would inevitably bring to light many details of that agencies policies and secrets, probably putting George senior in a bad light. The fact that his son is in the White House and this administration has repeatedly rejected bringing Carriles to justice is just a bit too much for me.

It brings me to the conclusion that the U.S. hypocrisy only continues to spread. Terrorist are evil and bad when they come from the Mid East, but when they come from Cuba and are anti-communist not only do they escape punishment, they get a welcome into our country. Don’t think the rest of the world isn’t paying attention. They certainly are. This Orwellian double-speak can only go on for so long before it catches up with us.