review

The following analysis of a February 25, 2005 Reuters article is meant to demonstrate the extreme prejudice against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and its president, Hugo Chávez Frias. The Reuters article, which is quoted here in italics and found here, serves as an excellent example of the corporate media attacks on President Chávez and the democratic government created by his administration. Reuters billed this piece as an "International News Article."

I ask, is it "News" or is it "Opinion"?

Defying US, Venezuela's Chávez Embraces Socialism

Fri Feb 25, 2005 02:59 PM ET
By Pascal Fletcher

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez on Friday embraced socialism as his ideology of choice in a political statement that sharpened his antagonism against the United States.

Chávez, a firebrand nationalist (would Reuters call George W. Bush a "firebrand nationalist" or a "patriot"?) who has governed the world's No. 5 oil exporter for six years, has persistently declined to define the precise ideology of his self-styled "revolution."

(Note: The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is "styled" after the governing principles of 19th Century Simón Bolívar who liberated Venezuela from the rule of Spain --- The republic is not "styled" after President Chávez as in "self-styled." The term "revolution" involves "revolving" from one condition to another, whereas the corporate media have fostered the notion that "revolution" has something to do with blood on the streets and mob rule.)

But, addressing an international meeting on poverty in Caracas, he said Western-style capitalism was incapable of solving global economic and social problems.

(Note: We ask Mr. Fletcher --- when and where has "Western-styled capitalism" solved global economic and social problems?)

"So, if not capitalism, then what? I have no doubt, it's socialism," said Chávez, who also rebuffed US criticism of his left-wing rule in Venezuela and denounced President Bush as the "great destabilizer of the world."

(Note: Of course, all Fletcher needs to do is to use the term "socialism" to elicit negative images of the Chávez administration due to decades of media-conditioning of the US population.

Chávez "rebuffed US criticism"? The nerve! Would not the leader of any nation "rebuff" criticism of his country's government by a foreign country? Does Fletcher think President Chávez should thank the US it's critical media barrage against him and Venezuela? Should he thank the US government for funding a coup against him in 2002? With the world in upheaval as a result of President Bush's unprovoked war on Iraq, a destabilized Middle East and world economic stability threatened by Bush's US economic decline, can Mr. Fletcher rationally argue with Chávez's statement?)

Since coming to power, he has irritated Washington by developing alliances with China, Russia and Iran and flaunting a close personal friendship with Cuba's Communist President Fidel Castro, a longtime foe of the United States.

(Note: Does not any sovereign nation have the sovereign right to have close relationships with any other sovereign nation of their choice? Is this statement not crafted to rouse the ire of the US population to whom President Castro has been maligned for decades?)

Chávez's public support for socialism recalled Castro's defining announcement in the early 1960s that his 1959 Cuban Revolution was "socialist."

(Note: So President Chávez should be upbraided for his support of socialism because Fidel Castro, President of Cuba described his government as socialist 45 years ago?)

Chávez said he had up to now avoided labeling his political program in Venezuela as "socialist."

But he added his personal experience in power, which included surviving a brief coup in 2002, had convinced him that socialism was the answer. But what kind?

(Note: When a brilliant leader thinks innovatively, creating a new form of government, is he expected to label that form of government during its formation and before it is realized? "His personal experience in power..." --- Would it not be just as accurate to say, "His term as an elected president?")

Chávez, who won a referendum in August ratifying his rule until early 2007, said previous experiences of socialism in the world --- an apparent reference to the former Soviet Union --- might not be the example to follow."

(Note: It may sound absurd to complain about Fletcher's choice of words here, i.e. "His rule." But do we ever here about "Bush's rule"? Doesn't "His rule" makes Chávez sound more like a monarch than a president? Could Fletcher as easily have referred to "His presidency"?

Regarding Chávez' reference to the Soviet Union, would Fletcher prefer that President Chávez follow the example of the Soviet Union?)

Fletcher, quoting Chávez:

"... 'We have to invent the socialism of the 21st century,' he added."

(Note: Is there something wrong with thinking creatively --- inventively --- to respond to the problem of the poverty of 80% of the Venezuelan people that resulted from 40 years of US-backed, corrupt regimes in Venezuela before Chávez was elected in 1998?)

Venezuela's 1999 constitution promoted by Chávez enshrines a multi-party political system and he has denied he is a communist. But he has intensified state intervention in the economy, encouraged the formation of cooperatives and is pursuing land reforms critics say threaten private property.

(Note: Rhetorical question --- Doesn't the United States government "intensify state intervention" in the economy of the United State on a daily basis in myriad ways and at multiple levels? Some may choose to call the land reforms which are written into the Venezuelan constitution, "communism". Others may choose to call it the attempt to problem-solve four decades of control by wealthy landowners who crushed domestic agriculture by buying up and in some cases, illegally annexing large tracts of land, forcing the Venezuelan people dependent on foreign food imports, primarily from the United States.)

Chávez resumed his aggressive stance just a day after his vice president, Jose Vicente Rangel, called for talks with the United States and said Caracas was ready to help fight terrorism and drug-trafficking and keep oil flowing to the United States.

(Note: Is Fletcher complaining that Vice President Rangel called for talks with the US and offered to help fight terrorism and drug trafficking and to "keep oil flowing to the United States"? Where's the beef?

Chávez has taken an "aggressive stance"? Who is the aggressor in this case? Chávez's "stance" is not "aggressive" at all. It is rather a sovereign nation owning the right to have trade relations with other nations of their choice. One must ask, "Who is the aggressor?" --- when it was the United States who funded the 2002 coup attempt through US institutions like the National Endowment for Democracy and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. One must ask, "Who is the aggressor?" --- when the US continues to foment hatred through the corporate media and instigate insurrection in Venezuela. One must ask "Who is the aggressor?" --- when the US gives safe refuge to a former Venezuelan president who publicly calls for the assassination of the duly-elected president of a foreign country. One must ask, "Who is the aggressor?" --- when it is the US who funds the Uribe regime in Bogota with more foreign aid than to any country in the world, save Israel, for Plan Colombia, designed to overthrow the democratic republic of Venezuela.)

But Rangel had also echoed Chávez's anti-US criticisms, and US diplomats here complain their requests for meetings with government ministers are turned down.

(Note: President Chávez has made numerous attempts to meet with the Bush administration and been turned down. Earlier in the article, Fletcher stated that Venezuela's Vice President "called for talks with the US and offered to help fight terrorism and drug trafficking.")

Who is Destabilizing?

While Venezuela remains a key oil supplier to the US, Chávez has this year stepped up a war of words with the United States. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called him a "destabilizing influence" in Latin America."

(Note: "Who is Destabilizing?" A very good question. What evidence did Condoleezza Rice provide for her claim that President Chávez is a "destabilizing force?" None at all. It was simply a parroted phrase that has received wide publication in corporate news agencies like Reuters. But we would agree that Chávez is a "destabilizing force" --- i.e. destabilizing to the decades of US programs of interference, death squads, economic control and oppression of Latin American countries. He is certainly "destabilizing" for Plan Colombia --- the US program directed at overthrowing the democratic government of Venezuela!)

A former paratroop officer, Chávez was first elected in a 1998 election, six years after leading a botched coup bid.

(Note: Who are these "opponents"? Are they the same people who attempted to violently overthrow the Venezuelan government in 2002? Are these the same people who shut down the PDVSA, Venezuela's oil industry for three months in December, 2002 in an attempt to bring the Chávez administration to its knees? Is the reader expected to give credibility to such a statement?)

In what Caracas calls "impertinent" meddling, US officials are also opposing Venezuela's purchase of Russian helicopters and automatic rifles for its armed forces.

"The only destabilizer here is George W. Bush, he's the big destabilizer in the world, he's the threat," Chávez said. He has condemned the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(Note: Hugo Chávez's condemnation of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq stands alongside the condemnation of these wars by many world leaders. Who can argue that the Bush "war on terrorism" has not created more terrorists than it has killed and captured --- as promised by George Walker Bush just after the September 11, 2001 attacks? Who can argue with Chávez's statement that Bush is not "the threat" to global instability? Whoever it may be, I would pay to watch the debate.)

Chávez also repeated charges that the increased US criticism was preparing the ground for an attack against Venezuela and included a plan to assassinate him. US officials have rejected this as "ridiculous."

(Note: Credible evidence exists that the CIA has been involved in two previous assassination attempts and the coup attempt on President Chávez. But you won't read about it in the New York Times. Based upon the current US invasion and occupation of oil-rich Iraq, and the invasion of "Caspian-oil-pipeline-Afghanistan," is it realistic to be concerned about the possibility of a US invasion and occupation of oil-rich Venezuela? Particularly when one considers the angry, aggressive, Washington rhetoric against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, one would be naive' to ignore the possibility. In the US it is called "in the interest of national security." Of course the US rejected this charge as "ridiculous." Did Fletcher expect them to admit to it?)

Conclusion: The private media in Venezuela are owned and controlled by a handful of very wealthy people who oppose Chávez and who fully supported the violent overthrow of the Venezuelan government in 2002. The corporate media in the US have been fiercely critical of the Chávez administration from the very beginning of his term as president. It is important for us to recognize extreme bias against the Bolivarian government in both media coalitions and their choice of inflammatory terms and outright defamation when considering the "news" reports of the corporate media.

Also in this section:
Cool Internet sites
Reuters coverage of Venezuela
Hunter S. Thompson's farewell