- This article addresses two of the writer's favorite corporate
media targets - the Wall Street Journal's far-right editorial page and
New York Times on every page. Both broadsheets were recently in attack
mode taking on two Latin American leaders deserving praise but never getting
any other than occasional backhanded kinds from papers devoted to one dual
core mission - supporting the power elite and their own bottoms lines.
First, the Journal.
-
- Readers need a strong stomach and nerves of steel venturing
onto the Wall Street Journal's editorial page any time, but especially
on days when self-styled "Latin American expert" Mary Anastasia
O'Grady's columns appear. This writer has tangled with her a time or two
before. In a response last fall, it was suggested she one day risks a
serious back problem, the result of her permanent position of genuflection
to the far-right extremists she pledges allegiance to. Based on her latest
offering, nothing has changed, but readers be warned. Those accepting
how she views Latin America won't ever know the way it really is.
-
- Her latest April 9 column titled "Sharp Left Turn
in Ecuador" makes the case. It demands another go at her at least
to set the record straight she never does except for those preferring her
kind of vitriol and fiction to fact. First off, a reminder of O'Grady's
background to understand where she's coming from. She earlier worked as
an options strategist for Advest, Inc., Thompson McKinnon Securities, and
Merrill Lynch & Co. She was also employed once at the far-right Heritage
Foundation think tank that never met a regressive corporate-friendly policy
or US war of aggression it didn't support or a populist progressive independent
head of state it didn't denounce as a threat to national security or worse.
-
- O'Grady was also awarded the private media Inter-American
Press Association's (IAPA - for private media corporations) Daily Gleaner
Award for editorial commentary in 1997 and received an honorable mention
in IAPA's opinion award category for 1999. In addition, she won first
prize in the 2005 Annual Bastiat Prize for Journalism. The prize was established
and run by the International Policy Network (IPN - a UK based NGO) to "encourage
and reward writers whose published works promote the institutions of a
free society" according to how its patron saint, 19th century French-born
Frederic Bastiat, saw things. He had a deep distrust of government in
any form and thought regulation and control were inefficient, economically
destructive and morally wrong, or as IPN puts it: It supports "limited
government, rule of law brokered by an independent judiciary, protection
of private property, free markets, free speech, and sound science."
-
- It sounds like apple pie and motherhood, but IPN doesn't
explain those things are in the eye of the beholder, and high-sounding
language can easily brush over policies of another kind. One nation's
free markets doesn't mean they're fair and private property rights have
no right infringing on the public commons. They're for everyone equally,
not just the elitist ones IPN refers to reflecting its membership encouraging
what it calls "better public understanding of the role of the institutions
of the free society in social and economic development."
-
- O'Grady launches her attack with what she calls "the
constitutional crisis that Ecuador finds itself in today (facing a) modern
day plunder frenzy (pitting) President Raphael Correa, an outspoken admirer
of Venezuelan Hugo Chavez, against members of Congress who wish to preserve
the country's institutional balance of power. At stake is the future of
democracy, with 13 million Ecuadoreans facing the prospect of life under
a soft dictatorship allied with the Venezuelan strongman."
-
- It's enough to take your breath away, and a little translation
is in order to set the record straight O'Grady never does. Remember where
she's coming from, who she writes for, and above all whom she represents
- the nation's power elite, not the people of Ecuador who elected Correa
last November in a run-off presidential election. He decisively bested
bible-toting, billionaire oligarch and banana tycoon Alvaro Noboa 58% to
42% in a race pitting progressive populism against more of the same meaning
status quo in a country long ruled for the interests of capital with no
regard for the public welfare.
-
- Correa took office January 15 making impressive promises
he's so far trying to keep. That arouses O'Grady's ire so she oxymoronically
refers to "non-democratic Ecuador" while admitting, at the same
time, Correa "was elected fair and square." The people of Ecuador,
70% of whom live in poverty, were crying for change as do most others in
Latin America where free elections are as rare as an early Chicago spring,
and "demonstration" fake ones are nearly all they get. They're
stage-managed to look democratic but usually turn out leaving power in
the hands of the powerful, never the people they rule with disdain and
indifference. Today they're run the same way in the US in the age of George
Bush gifted his office twice through "electoral engineering,"
winning it neither time fair and square like Correa did in spite of great
efforts to prevent it.
-
- Early on, Correa campaigned like George Bush never did
promising real change including using the country's oil revenue (Ecuador
is the hemisphere's fifth largest producer) for critically needed social
services Ecuadoreans never got before from right wing governments unwilling
to provide them. He promised a "citizens' revolution" beginning
by drafting a new Constitution in a Constituent Assembly with a national
referendum on it scheduled for Sunday, April 15 following the same pattern
his ally Hugo Chavez chose in 1999 following his first election as Venezuela's
president in December, 1998. With popular support for it overwhelming
(85% according to government polls, likely very accurate), it's virtually
certain to pass, again arousing O'Grady's ire calling this democratic process
a "power grab" intended to "rewrite the highest law of the
land, crush the opposition and make himself (Correa) ruler for life (sparking
a) constitutional crisis." For the kleptocracy maybe, not for the
long-exploited people.
-
- O'Grady is right about one thing. Only the country's
unicameral legislature can call for a national constitutional referendum,
but that's precisely what it did by a vote of 54 - 1 with two abstentions
after most opposition Christian Democratic Union (UDC) deputies walked
out facing overwhelming popular sentiment for it and their likely defeat.
-
- Here's O'Grady's account of things, all false and pure
nonsense: "Mr. Correa (got) the electoral court (Ecuador's Supreme
Electoral Council - TSE) to 'expel' 57 of his opponents (only 43 walked
out) from the 100-seat unicameral legislature (they left on their own)
and enlist(ed) the police to enforce the expulsions (false - there were
none). He then called in his 'militias' (and) in recent days the streets
of Quito (the capital) have been flush with violent activists (mass public
supporters) sending a message in favor of the Correa plebiscite....Mr.
Correa (with) an approval rating of about 60% (around 70%, in fact) seems
to believe he has carte blanche to make the law wherever he decides it
is." Ecuadoreans will decide it, not Raphael Correa as O'Grady knows
but won't say. Her job is delivering red meat for the faithful and pure
baloney to her readers for the powerful interests she serves deferentially.
-
- She goes on pathetically calling the people of Ecuador
a "mobocracy" in a country led by a "caudillo" (strongman).
Disingenuously she says Sunday's referendum is "outside the law"
referring to the democratic voice of the people as "lawful plunder."
She then improperly quotes her apparent patron saint Frederic Bastiat at
the end saying: "Woe to the nation....when the mass victims (the exploited
masses) of lawful plunder....in turn seize the power to make laws."
In fact, they seized nothing. They're democratically voting for it to
get what negates O'Grady's final comment that "The losers, of course,
will be the majority of Ecuadoreans." The people feel otherwise.
-
- Here's why. Ecuadoreans look north and elected Raphael
Correa to do for them what Hugo Chavez continues doing for the Venezuelan
people. Venezuelans showed their admiration by reelecting Chavez in December
by a nearly two to one margin over his only serious Washington-backed and
financially supported opponent. Correa promised and appears set on delivering
the same kind of social democratic agenda Venezuelans now have and embrace.
At its core is a true democratic process and kinds of progressive social
programs Chavez gave his people. To move forward, he first needs popular
approval to rewrite the country's Constitution he surely will get this
Sunday.
-
- With it, Ecuador should have a new Constitution later
this year which will likely again be put to a popular referendum to let
the people decide on it, not the politicians. If it's anything like the
1999 Constitucion de la Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, it will be
a cornucopia of progressive social policies written into law that may include
state-delivered health care, education and other benefits for all Ecuadoreans
Correa promised to serve. Correa already said he wants freedom from debt
slavery under IMF/World Bank Washington Consensus neoliberal rules by renegotiating
the country's debt to eliminate the odious part of it, the result of previous
governments' corrupt dealings at the expense of the people.
-
- Correa is also negotiating bilateral and other economic
deals with Hugo Chavez and other Latin leaders based on Venezuela's Bolivarian
Alternative for the Americas or ALBA model. It's the mirror-opposite of
FTAA/NAFTA-type one-way pacts sucking wealth from developing states to
benefit Global North ones, mostly the US. ALBA is based on sound principles
of complementarity, solidarity and cooperation aimed at comprehensive integration
among Latin American nations to build their social states in contrast to
US-type deals wanting to destroy them for profit. Correa also promised
100,000 low-cost homes, a raise in the minimum wage, and doubling the small
"poverty bonus" 1.2 million poor Ecuadoreans get each month.
Still more is likely to follow if Correa is true to his word and has constitutional
authority to act.
-
- He won't need it to follow through on his promise to
close the major US military base at Manta when the ten year lease authorizing
it expires in 2009. O'Grady didn't mention it, but it's got the Pentagon
concerned as it's the largest US base on South America's Pacific coast,
expensive to build, and one they want to hold onto but likely won't.
-
- Pentagon issues aside, all else terrifies people like
Mary O'Grady who feel benefits for ordinary people mean less of them for
the rich and powerful ones she represents who give her Wall Street Journal
editorial space for it weekly. She knows the side her bread is buttered
on, and for her lying is just business as usual and part of the job serving
the powerful.
-
- The New York Times Weighs in on Venezuela's Oil Policy
-
- Not about to let the Wall Street Journal one-up it, the
New York Times assaulted Hugo Chavez in its April 10 Simon Romero/Clifford
Krauss article titled "High Stakes: Chavez Plays the Oil Card."
First a brief explanation of the facts, and then the way the Times skews
them.
-
- Hugo Chavez made it clear to foreign investors the old
way of doing business in Venezuela is over based on corporate exploitation
of the country's resources at the expense of the Venezuelan people. The
new rules are fair ones, the same kinds foreign oil and other investors
agree to in deals with Global North countries but don't have to in relations
with developing ones. Henceforth, if Big Oil and other corporate giants
want to do business in Venezuela, they'll have to deal with Hugo Chavez
the same way they do with Tony Blair, Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin
- fairly.
-
- On the matter of oil, Chavez wants a bigger share of
joint-venture profits Venezuela is entitled to from its own resources and
majority state control over Orinoco River basin lucrative oil projects
believed to hold the world's largest undeveloped oil reserves. It's where
Big US and other oil companies now operate including Chevron, BP Amoco,
ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil. In February, Chavez announced state oil
company PDVSA will become the majority shareholder on May 1 in four basin
projects with minimum 60% ownership with foreign joint-venture partners.
Earlier, he raised taxes on foreign oil companies and other outside investors
requiring them henceforth to pay a more equitable amount of their lucrative
profit back to the people of Venezuela.
-
- So far, Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips are holding out
for a better deal they won't get while Chevron is more willing to go along
understanding less of a huge profit is better than none at all. In the
end, the holdouts may come around to that view as well. All this has the
Times very upset, so it's on the attack as de facto cheerleader for Big
Oil.
-
- Mentioning the looming May 1 deadline, it attacks Hugo
Chavez with charged language like negotiating with "revolutionary
flourish" and his "ambitious" plan (no different from Global
North ones) to "wrest control of several major oil projects from American
and European companies (with a) showdown (ahead) over access to some of
the most coveted energy resources outside the Middle East." If instead
of dealing with Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, negotiations were between
Big Oil and Canada, Norway, the UK, or even Russia, despite current strained
relations between Putin and Bush, it's unimaginable this article would
have been written.
-
- In it, the Times refers to empty Chavez threats to cut
off oil exports to the US because he wants to diversify into more markets
by selling more to countries like China and India. It also sees a problem
where none exists if Venezuela's state oil company PDVSA sells its US refineries
quoting oil analyst Pietro Pitts saying "Chavez is playing a game
of chicken with the largest oil companies in the world....And for the moment
he is winning." The article seems to imply Chavez wants to dismantle
the refineries preventing their use to supply US markets while ignoring
it hardly matters who owns them as long as they operate which they will
under any owner as long as they're profitable.
-
- The article continues with scare-talk saying Chavez's
"confrontation could easily end up with everyone losing" meaning
if Big Oil leaves and Venezuela and other oil producers come in along with
PDVSA, "Venezuela risks undermining the engine behind Mr. Chavez's
socialist-inspired revolution by hampering its ability to transform the
nation's newly valuable heavy oil into riches for years to come."
-
- Nonsense. If Big Oil leaves, which is very doubtful,
it will be the loser and Venezuelan oil production will continue under
new joint-venture partnerships. Because the country's potential is so huge,
it's highly likely Big Oil's current posture is just its way to hold out
as long as possible for the best deal its members can get and in the end
take what Hugo Chavez gives the ones agreeing to it. It's too sweet a
deal to walk away from, and most likely won't despite their wailing and
moaning with help from the New York Times acting as their mouthpiece.
And if any do, they'll be willing takers ready to sign deals to pick up
where those exiting left off.
-
- Nonetheless, it gets still more heated quoting oil analyst
Michael Economides saying "We are on a collision course with Chavez
over oil" in an article he wrote comparing "Mr. Chavez's populist
appeal in Latin America with the pan-Arabism of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi
of Libya two decades ago" when he was persona non grata in the West,
and Ronald Reagan bombed him in 1986 killing his adopted daughter. He
continues saying "Chavez poses a much bigger threat to America's energy
security than Saddam Hussein ever did" - language so hostile it's
practically a declaration of war and 100% nonsense.
-
- But there's more. The Times accuses Chavez of allowing
"politics and ideology" to drive the confrontation and seek "to
limit American influence around the world, starting in Venezuela's oil
fields." Unmentioned is that the "oil fields" belong to
Venezuela, not the US, and the Times writers need to brush up on recent
Middle East events where American influence is already on life support
because of Bush administration blundering. It's made this country persona
non grata in a part of the world most crucial by far to US energy security
having 60% or more of the world's proved reserves, and with all Muslim
nations combined the total is between two-thirds to three-quarters of it.
-
- The Times also dismisses out of hand Chavez's right to
view the US as a threat simply because Washington tried and failed deposing
him three times, not once as NYT claims. Instead it stresses the US remains
Venezuela's largest customer (supplying 10 - 12% of this country's energy
needs and isn't likely to cut off). So the scare tactics continue saying
if Big Oil pulls out, with it goes vitally needed expertise. Again, nonsense,
but it sounds good coming from two reporters who don't know what they're
talking about, nor do they understand Big Oil is likely to stay, not leave,
whatever deal its members are offered. And, again, if one member does
leave, Exxon Mobil being the most likely possibility, another oil giant
will come in to replace it to reap the big profits every oil producer should
be grateful to get and most are.
-
- Some Conclusions Left Out of the Wall Street Journal
and New York Times Articles
-
- The Wall Street Journal and New York Times attacked two
Latin American leaders unwilling to surrender their nations' sovereignty
to ours with Hugo Chavez being boldly vocal about it. Since elected in
1998, Chavez charted his own independent course building a new mass social
and political revolutionary movement based on participatory democratic
social equity and justice. It began as his Bolivarian Revolution inspired
by the vision of 18th century liberator Simon Bolivar to end what Bolivar
called an imperial curse "to plague Latin America with misery in the
name of liberty." In eight years in office, Chavez went a long way
toward achieving it but knows there's much more needed to move things to
the next level toward a "new socialism of the 21st century" based
on humanistic democratic principles of solidarity and respect for political,
economic, social and cultural human and civil rights built from the bottom
up.
-
- It's working socially, politically and economically as
well with poverty levels falling from a high in 2003 of 62% following the
crippling 2002-03 "management lockout/oil strike" and destabilizing
effects of the 2002 two-day aborted coup to levels near one-third today
because of Venezuela's booming economy. It's grown at least 10% three
straight years, including 10 of the last 11 quarters lifting personal incomes,
sparking overall consumer demand, and raising corporate profits to high
levels that were so impressive for financial firms last year the Financial
Times wrote bankers were having a "party" in Venezuela because
"rather than 'nationalise' banks, the 'revolutionary' distribution
of oil money has spawned wealthy individuals who are increasingly making
Caracas a magnet for Swiss and other international bankers."
-
- With comments like that, you'd think the Wall Street
Journal and New York Times would take note and praise Chavez instead of
condemning him. They don't because Washington diktats demand otherwise.
They also ignore Venezuela's impressive drop in unemployment from a high
of 20% in early 2003 to 8.4% in December, 2006 and likely to keep falling
as Venezuela's economy continues strong.
-
- And one other piece of good economic news just came out
showing Venezuela's March inflation rate was a negative - 0.7%, the lowest
in 19 years, thanks to government anti-inflation policies like reducing
the value-added tax (VAT) from 14% to 11%. Other constructive efforts
included government actions to curb speculation in scarce private sector
goods and the sale of government savings bonds. In February, the Chavez
government, along with Argentina, launched a second round of Bonds of the
South amounting to $1.5 billion. Then in March, PDVSA sold $5.5 billion
worth of bonds that along with the government sale removed cash from the
economy serving to reduce inflationary pressures.
-
- These positive developments are happening in a socially
democratic state where constitutional law and government policies require
redistributing much of the nation's wealth back to the people, and it's
lifting all boats. The result is mirror opposite of what happened throughout
Latin America when regional GDP from 1980 - 2000 grew 9% under Washington
Consensus neoliberal rules and 4% from 2000 - 2005, compared to 82% growth
from 1960 -1980 before they were imposed. They're not allowed in Venezuela
under Chavez, and the results speak for themselves.
-
- Raphael Correa understands them as a former finance minister
and trained economist with a doctorate in economics earned in 2001 at the
University of Illinois. He's also a social democrat wanting to do for
Ecuadoreans what Hugo Chavez did for Venezuelans and is off to a good start
to the chagrin of the Wall Street Journal and Washington. It's editorial
writer fears he may succeed making her and her paper look more foolish
than they already do. What counts are Ecuadoreans' feelings, and they'll
have a chance Sunday to express them in the nation's first national referendum
on whether to draft a new Constitution sure to pass.
-
- The same is true for the New York Times, savaging Hugo
Chavez, disingenuously calling him "divisive" and a "ruinous
demogogue," and they were just getting warmed up. The Times championed
the aborted 2 day coup toppling him briefly calling it a "resignation"
and saying Venezuela was "no longer threatened by a would-be dictator."
Instead of calling the coup what it was, the Times lied saying Chavez
"stepped down (and was replaced by a) respected business leader"
(Pedro Carmona) never mentioning he was hand-picked by Washington to do
its bidding. He lasted two days, suspended democratically elected members
of the National Assembly, and temporarily wrecked the Bolivarian Revolution
quickly reconstituted when Chavez returned to office as Carmona fled finding
refuge in neighboring Colombia. The Times is never deterred so its latest
assault on Chavez's oil policy shows the same mean spirit as all other
broadsides it unleashed on the Venezuelan leader from the start.
-
- It's not working as the spirit of social democracy proves
it can trump Washington Consensus alternatives of economic ruin and vast
human misery from it. Venezuelans know it, and hopefully Ecuadoreans soon
will as well. But we'll never hear about it on the pages of the Wall Street
Journal and New York Times continuing their drumbeat support for failed
policies heading one day for the dustbin of history with room there to
spare for these papers sure eventually to follow.
-
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
-
- Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen each Saturday to the Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on
The Micro Effect.com at noon US central time.
|