Hugo Chavez closes Critical TV station

Former Member

from the beeb

This could go wrong. Chavez has enacted some sweeping reforms of nationalising key industry, which have proved popular especially amongst the poor. However this latest development is worrying, and I hope we don't see more of a move towards Maoism.

This could be very very good for the poor of Venezuela, or it could go horribly wrong.

Former Member

This move surprises you?

Former Member

In some ways yes, and in some ways no.

Chavez was elected, and there was coup to oust him. He does have popular support in Venezuala, and one of the things with getting info through technologies such as the internet, is that the poorest in Venezuala don't have access to it, so we only know so much about popular feeling.

On the other hand there is precident for this, and there are reports that he has been courting the support of Maoists in other countries.

Former Member

From yesterday's Guardian letters page

Dear Sir,

We believe that the decision of the Venezuelan government not to renew the broadcasting licence of RCTV when it expires on May 27 (Chávez silences critical TV station, May 23; Comment and Letters, May 25) is legitimate given that RCTV has used its access to the public airwaves to repeatedly call for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Hugo Chávez. RCTV gave vital practical support to the overthrow of Venezuela's elected government in April 2002 in which at least 13 people were killed. In the 47 hours that the coup plotters held power, they overturned much of Venezuela's democratic constitution - closing down the elected national assembly, the supreme court and other state institutions.

RCTV exhorted the public to take to the streets and overthrow the government and also colluded with the coup by deliberately misrepresenting what was taking place, and then conducting a news blackout. Its production manager, Andrés Izarra, who opposed the coup, immediately resigned so as not to become an accomplice.

This is not a case of censorship. In Venezuela more than 90% of the media is privately owned and virulently opposed to the Chávez government. RCTV, far from being silenced, is being allowed to continue broadcasting by satellite and cable. In Venezuela, as in Britain, TV stations must adhere to laws and regulations governing what they can broadcast. Imagine the consequences if the BBC or ITV were found to be part of a coup against the government. Venezuela deserves the same consideration.

Yours,

Tariq Ali

Tony Benn

Colin Burgon MP,

Dr. Julia Buxton, academic,

Ruqayyah Collector, Black Students’ Officer, National Union of Students,

Jeremy Corbyn MP,

Jon Cruddas MP,

Megan Dobney, Regional Secretary, SERTUC

Billy Hayes, General Secretary, CWU,

Gordon Hutchison, Secretary, Venezuela Information Centre,

Kelvin Hopkins MP,

Chris Martin, Director, The War on Democracy

Joni McDougall, International Solidarity Officer, GMB,

Gerry Morrissey, General Secretary, BECTU,

Kaveh Moussavi, University of Oxford

John Pilger,

Harold Pinter,

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, LSE,

Keith Sonnet, Deputy General Secretary, UNISON,

Hugh O'Shaughnessy, writer and journalist,

Rod Stoneman, Executive Producer, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,

Jon Trickett MP,

Gemma Tumelty, President, National Union of Students,

Cllr Salma Yaqoob.

I think that puts a different light on it.

Former Member

This I did not know, and yes it does put something of a different light onto it.

I'm looking forward to John Pilger's new film; 'The War on Democracy'.

http://www.johnpilger.com/

Former Member

I can't see why Chavez is so anti-coups given that he led one himself....

Former Member

Is this not similar to our own laws regarding incitement to commit whatever?

Former Member

If it did support the coup, it should have been closed down straight away. I can't see ITV being allowed to continue broadcasting if it supported a coup against Blair. However closing it down five years later looks (fairly or unfairly) as if Chavez is trying to stifle criticism, especially when he replaces it with a state sponsored channel instead of another independent one.

Former Member

Ah well, both sides are gonna argue either way, and I'll be left still thinking what to make of this bloke. Reminds me of Man City's (potential) new owner.

Former Member

Chavez is a terrible ruler, by and large. Nationalising key industries, as we have seen in this country, is an awful idea that has been shown to fail. His close links to communist figures such as Fidel Castro are also deplorable. This move merely confirms that the man is also incapable of dealing with any kind of criticism.

Closing down critical TV stations is what rulers do when power goes to their head. We've seen it with Vladimir Putin, we've seen it under many rulers before. This decision is wrong. The channel should be allowed back on-air immediately. Thanks to Blagsta for bringing that letter from The Guardian to a wider readership than the Left-wing rag itself has. The fact that all those useless Lefties think this is a good thing merely proves how wrong the decision is. These hypocrites and mouthpieces should hang their heads in shame.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

Chavez is a terrible ruler, by and large. Nationalising key industries, as we have seen in this country, is an awful idea that has been shown to fail. His close links to communist figures such as Fidel Castro are also deplorable.

Evidence?

What's wrong with Nationalising industries in a developing country that relies heavily on industry? What's wrong with having Communist friends?

Former Member

Well I suppose you support structural adjustment too SG?

How plain does it have to be before we realise that the Project for the New American Century is just that? They've even go their own bloody website!

Former Member

Martin_Bashir wrote: »

Well I suppose you support structural adjustment too SG?

How plain does it have to be before we realise that the Project for the New American Century is just that? They've even go their own bloody website!

I'm well-aware of the existence of Project for the New American Century? I don't like it either. I think it believes in a number of dangerous, dubious doctrines, and I find its influence on Right-wing American politicians quite disturning. However, I don't especially like the failed socialist model that Chavez practises either.

Former Member

Poverty in South America will not be tackled or solved by deregulation and the magic of the marketplace. It will be exploited and manipulated by Foreign Policy planner as has been the case since 1979.

Chavez was elected. Hamas was elected. Now I don't have to agree with either of them, but the paradox for the US is that you can't promote democracy and actively oppose its outcome. That is of course, unless democracy is code for a particular system that fits into a larger foreign policy agenda.

If the free market American way was so good that given the choice, everyone would choose to move closer to the US, why aren't they?

Former Member

Martin_Bashir wrote: »

Poverty in South America will not be tackled or solved by deregulation and the magic of the marketplace. It will be exploited and manipulated by Foreign Policy planner as has been the case since 1979.

if history is any judge it won't be solved by socialism either. That's not to say that South America needs to fully follow the US model, but it does seem to veer from absolute free markets (much freerer than the US) to state control, without finding that happy medium of mixed economies (regulated free markets) which promotes wealth, health and happiness...

Chavez was elected. Hamas was elected. Now I don't have to agree with either of them, but the paradox for the US is that you can't promote democracy and actively oppose its outcome. That is of course, unless democracy is code for a particular system that fits into a larger foreign policy agenda.

So was Hitler, so was Mussolini... I'm not sure of your point. Of course the US actively opposses the outcome if that's against its interest. They're not going to sit and think "OK Hamas is launching missile strikes against one of our allies, but they're elected so better let them be..."

If the free market American way was so good that given the choice, everyone would choose to move closer to the US, why aren't they?

Lots of reasons, some of which are rationale (I'm doing very well out of the current system thanks), some of which are less so (I don't like Bush and therefore everything he espouses is wrong), plus short-termism (restructuring of the economy is likely to make me worse off in the short term even if I accept in the long term it works) and lack of knowledge (I don't know why the US is rich).

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

Chavez is a terrible ruler, by and large. Nationalising key industries, as we have seen in this country, is an awful idea that has been shown to fail. His close links to communist figures such as Fidel Castro are also deplorable. This move merely confirms that the man is also incapable of dealing with any kind of criticism.

Closing down critical TV stations is what rulers do when power goes to their head. We've seen it with Vladimir Putin, we've seen it under many rulers before. This decision is wrong. The channel should be allowed back on-air immediately. Thanks to Blagsta for bringing that letter from The Guardian to a wider readership than the Left-wing rag itself has. The fact that all those useless Lefties think this is a good thing merely proves how wrong the decision is. These hypocrites and mouthpieces should hang their heads in shame.

What idiocy.

What has been utterly and indisputably discredited is the implementation of the "Washington Consensus" policies of market liberalization and privatization in Latin America and elsewhere. Even its original advocates have been forced to concede this, its only ideologues/doctrinaires/uninformed motormouths like yourself that continue to parrot this crap. It is you who is the mouthpiece.

The reason it has taken Chavez so long to "shut down" these arseholes (actually, he simply didn't renew their license) is probably because still faced too much opposition...now his reforms have proven to be a success, and he has consolidated widespread support, he is able to do so.

Former Member

So was Hitler, so was Mussolini... I'm not sure of your point. Of course the US actively opposses the outcome if that's against its interest. They're not going to sit and think "OK Hamas is launching missile strikes against one of our allies, but they're elected so better let them be..."

I accept that this probably wasn't clear from the original post, but the idea is that there is a contradiction between the ideology that the US claims to uphold, and the material effects of its foreign policy. If ideology and action were in sync one would assume that hostility to US-friendly choices at the ballot box would be lower than they are.

The fact of the matter is that since 1979 continual attempts to intervene in Latin America have led to a de-stabilization of states and populations. People are moving against pro-American political choices in South America as a direct result of this policy.

Oh and careful with the word 'Socialism'; FARC ('The Shining Path') and other Maoist groups often see more central Socialist systems as subversive class enemies.