US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: Politics
U.S. Criticism of Chávez Unfounded
22 Dec 2004
The recent round of Venezuela-bashing from the U.S. State Department and Washington- based foreign-policy organizations is symptomatic of a broader problem. And it's not Venezuela's problem; it's ours.
U.S. Criticism of Chávez Unfounded

"Exaggerations created an astoundingly
false impression of Venezuela"*

by Mark Weisbrot

Last week, Venezuela decided, after a vote of its General Assembly and the approval of the executive, to add 12 new justices to its 20-member Supreme Court. Human Rights Watch denounced the move as a ''severe blow to judicial independence.''

That is a gross exaggeration. Imagine, if you can, that a group of military officers in the United States overthrew our president, dissolved Congress and the Supreme Court and abolished the Constitution.

Now imagine that democracy is restored, but the Supreme Court rules that the officers who kidnapped the president and overthrew the government cannot be tried for any crime. That is what happened in Venezuela.


Our Congress would certainly use its constitutional powers to impeach that Supreme Court. So it should not be surprising that Venezuela's General Assembly, where pro-government parties hold a slight majority, would do the same thing by legally ''packing'' the court with new judges.

I favor an independent judiciary. But Venezuela -- like much of Latin America -- has never had such a thing, and to pretend that it did - and is now losing it -- is misleading.

Such exaggerations have created an astoundingly false impression of Venezuela among Americans. Most Americans think that the country is a quasi-dictatorship ''ruled'' by the ''authoritarian'' Hugo Chávez.


Freedom of speech, the press, assembly and other political freedoms prevail.

In fact, these compare favorably to the United States, where journalists are being thrown in jail for refusing to reveal their sources, and broadcast stations are fined for violating decency standards. Venezuela's mass media are possibly the most virulently (and often dishonestly) anti-government media in the world.

Most of the media are explicitly part of the opposition and supported the April 2002 coup.

[HR - The 'hate press' in Venezuela - Url.:]


Yet in six years of the Chávez presidency, the press has not been censored. Despite the outcry about the recently passed Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, which included some valid criticisms, it is doubtful that any censorship will occur under the present administration.

No reputable human-rights organization would claim that Venezuela under Chávez is less democratic than under previous governments or compares unfavorably in terms of human rights or democratic freedoms to the rest of Latin America.

On the positive side, even Chávez's opponents concede that millions of poor Venezuelans now have access to health care, education, literacy programs, land titles and credit for the first time as a result of the government's social programs.

Sadly, the biggest threats to Venezuela's democracy still come from Washington, which has funded and allied itself with the anti-democratic leaders of Venezuela's opposition, including supporters of the failed coup.


The National Endowment for Democracy*, which is funded by our Congress, too, has funneled millions of dollars to opposition groups. And recently released documents from the CIA show that the Bush administration had detailed advanced knowledge of the coup but lied about what happened.

The White House tried to convince the press and other countries that it was not a coup at all but rather a legitimate seizure of power by ''pro-democracy'' forces.


After failing to overthrow the government by means of a military coup and an economically devastating oil strike, the opposition turned to a recall referendum in August.

It lost overwhelmingly. Although the results were certified by the Carter Center and the Organization of American States, most opposition leaders -- still controlling most of the Venezuelan media -- have refused to accept the results.

And Washington seems intent on regime change, currently imposing several types of economic sanctions on Venezuela, despite the fact that it is a democracy and poses no security threat to anyone.

So expect to hear a lot of criticism of Venezuela in the next few years -- much of it exaggerated, dishonest and false.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research <>; in Washington, DC.

Published on Monday, December 20, 2004 by the Miami Herald

* CIA & National Endowment for Democracy -

* - the best news agency in Venezuela and it's funding:

* Fwd. by:

Editor : Henk Ruyssenaars
The Netherlands
FPF (at)

FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information. - Url.:

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.