Now Playing: Distortions at the New York Times-What else is new?
Topic: Venezuela Politics
In an article in the New York Times on Many 20 contending that the President, Hugo Chávez, of Venezuela, is dividing rather than uniting Latin America, Juan Forero continues the misleading--and often inaccurate--view of Venezuela that has come to be the standard for the American media. The first thing that one should look at in his article is: Who are these people that are saying that Chávez is dividing rather than uniting Latin America? He quotes one Latin American president and another running in a heated race in Peru. His other quotes come from an American academic, an American semi-academic, a former member of the right wing Fox government in Mexico now teaching in the U.S. and Paul A. Trivelli, the U.S. Ambassador to Nicaragua, and one who has been criticized by NICARAGUANS for his interference in the internal affairs of that nation. Among other things that Mr.Forero should be questioned about is why is a U.S. Ambassador of another country one of his prime sources? Forero fails to include the denials of Obrador in Mexico about his “association” with Chávez and Ollanta Humula, who is running against García and who has stated that he will not follow Chávez’s economic model. Here, as elsewhere, Forero fails to use professional standards of objective and reliable journalism: one would hope such basic standards will be applied in the future to replace the polemics we are faced with in Mr. Forero’s present article.
What is also standard is that Forero leaves out major points and wildly speculates in other parts. He contends, for instance, that Presidential candidate in Mexico, Obrador, has lost support because the “mere association with Mr. Chávez has helped reverse the leads...[of Obrador].” There is no association, mere or otherwise, between Obrador and Chávez. They have never met, talked on the phone or corresponded in any way as Obrador has said on numerous occasions, and it is incumbent upon Forero to state this fact. There has been a scandalous attack on Obrador using two different, and unrelated, incidents in trying to “associate” Obrador with Chávez, but those who follow Latin American politics at all know that this claim of supposed linkage is nonsensical, yet Forero leaves the impression that there is, indeed, an association.
Mr. Forero also speculates that the reason Alan Chávez, one of Peru’s candidate for president, seems to be leading in the polls is because Ollenta Humala, his opponent, is associated with Chávez, and will follow the Chávez model of economic development. But while the author quotes Chávez on Humala, he never mentions that Humala has said, many times, that he will not follow any model. Humala’s position has been, and is, that following other people’s model is what has led to the current problems in Peru. Objectivity demands that this denial by Humula be mentioned along with Chávez’s remarks, as well as the statement by Obrador that he is not associated in any way with Chávez. Forero might have also pointed out that García defeated, for second place, an extreme right wing candidate, and those persons who voted for the extreme right are probably more compatible with García than Ollanta. He might also have mentioned, in relying so heavily on polls for the supposed adverse influence of Chávez, that García led Toledo in the polls prior to the election when Toledo won against him in the last presidential election. And if Obrador and Humula win, will Forero say it was because of the influence of Chávez?
It is also the case that Alan García was the first one to start the name calling. He referred to Chávez as shameless and a brat. Chávez replied and the current government of Toledo, whose public opinion ratings have been as low as 7%, brought charges of Venezuela’s interference in the Peruvian elections before the Organization of the American States (OAS), where the claim was denied by that organization. García, it must be remembered, is running for president, and his claims must be judged in that context , not as an objective or neutral view. It is incumbent upon Mr. Forero to make this clear, but he does not do so.
It is true that Chávez has started the process to withdraw Venezuela from the Andean community of Nations (CAN), composed of Columbia,Ecuador,Peru and Venezuela. But it is not true that he has said take it or leave it. He offered to remain in CAN if Columbia and Peru withdrew from the Trade treaty with the U.S. If Those nations want to trade with the U.S. ,then,it is not in Venezuela’s interest to maintain trade within CAN. This does not mean, however, that Venezuela will not trade with those nations. In fact, both Uribe, the president of Columbia, and Chávez have pointed out that trade will continue at a very high level. If Columbia and Peru want to trade with the U.S. they will do so, but certainly Venezuela has not only the right, but the obligation, to decide if remaining in a trade association that is already dead in the region, as Chávez sees it, to withdraw. It is also the case that Chávez has pointed out that he is looking to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur), made up of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, with Venezuela as a provisional member,as the most viable way to integrate Latin America. Forero fails to even mention this organization as the focus for Chávez’s primary allies,not CAN. And certainly Lula of Brazil might have a mild criticism of Chávez, it does not threaten the integration of Latin America in any way. In fact, proposals for the pipeline connecting Venezuela, Brazil and Uruguay are going forward now,and other measures (Telesur),the joint Television station,are realities.
Forero also brings up the often heard canard that Chávez trades with the U.S. But his analysis stops short of actually shedding light on exactly why this is different for Venezuela than it is for Columbia
and El Salvador. Uribe of Columbia says that if you have oil, you do not need a trade agreement with the U.S., and Saca, the president of El Salvador says the same thing. But more must be added to understand the situation. Since he does have oil, Chávez has a means for defending himself against the U.S. by selling oil to them. This is a very important point; he cannot be forced to accept provisions detrimental to his own citizens, as the Central American nations have had to do. And this is a broader point in Chávez’s entire approach to free trade agreements with the U.S.: Latin America must first integrate and then deal with the U.S. from a position of strength. It is a view that some current Latin America presidents might not agree with, but it is the dynamics of what is happening throughout the region. Anyone who ignores what Chávez actually says rather than reporting only part, or distorting his views, will increasingly lose credibility and fail to convey the reality of both the anger and the politics of the region.
In actuality, Chávez has been very patient and conciliatory toward the hostility of the U.S. in light of the demonizing and provocations directed toward him. He has not reduced the flow of petroleum to the U.S., he has not required that petroleum be purchased in Euros (Although he might do so in the future) or closed down his Citgo stations, all that are within his right to do so. He has also offered sound advice to the U.S. that a attack on Iran will drive the price of petroleum to over a $100.00 a barrel.
One sided and misleading articles such as Forero’s are the trade mark of a person with a message, not an appraisal of the situation in Venezuela or Latin America. It is likely that the wave of the future will continue to be toward the demand by citizens of these countries that the corruption, elitism, subservience to the U.S. and racism of past politicians will be replaced by those who involve the citizens in their government , and where the benefits go to the citizens, not the super rich. Chávez is not the cause of these movements, but he may well be a harbinger of what is to come.
V. Jerone Stephens is a retired professor of political science. He has spent the last two months in Venezuela, riding the local buses and visiting all of the major cities and regions to determine the actuality, rather than propaganda, of Venezuelan politics and society.