PANDEMONIUM
EARLY
MORNING SUN
No. 533
SPANISH & ENGLISH:
** Venezuela: La Pesadilla Tropical
de Chomsky /
4 de Enero
2003; Counter Punch
Por: FRANCISO ARMADA and CARLOS MUTANER
Traducido por: Jutta Schmitt
(VER ABAJO)
**
Nato wounded in crossfire over Iraq.
By
Stephen Castle in Brussels, Andrew Grice and
Kim
Sengupta in London.
** NATO Fails to Settle
Iraq Rift; China Seeks More Inspections.
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
with CRAIG S. SMITH.
** U.S. Still Hopes to
Get New U.N. Resolution Against Iraq.
By BRIAN KNOWLTON.
12/02/03.
******************************************************************************
CounterPunch
January 4, 2003
Venezuela: Chomsky’s Tropical Nightmare
by FRANCISO ARMADA and CARLOS MUTANER
To suffer in your own flesh and blood
what Noam Chomsky writes about the ideological power of Media is very different
from reading it. We have enjoyed reading his articles about the media that
helped us understand its enormous influence in contemporary societies. However,
living in Venezuela during the last three years has allowed us to suffer
directly that power.
The role of the media was crucial
during the short coup of last April 11 against the president Hugo Chávez.
Private TV chains and local newspapers maintained a constant campaign of
attack to the government and they supported a national strike just before
the coup. They judged according to their own biased criterion the demonstrations
for and against the coup and they did not doubt in blaming to the government
as author of the unfortunate deaths occurred that day, near the half among
supporters of the government. They quickly endorsed as leading authority
the self -proclaimed temporary president, a conservative business leader.
They even went so far as to endorse the coup’s first government action whereby
the self-proclaimed president annulled the Constitution of the Republica
Bolivariana of Venezuela, changed the name of the country and dissolved all
public powers, including the legislative power and the dismissal of state
governors. The media quickly launched a campaign with an “Orwellian” doublespeak
celebration of return to “democracy”.
While thousands of people took the
streets of the country’s main cities calling for the return of President
Chávez, the media progressively began to change its programming to
children’s movies and practically suppressed any information about what was
going on inside the country. They justified their silence with explanations
involving “security concerns”. Only when the crowd surrounded media headquarters
and demanded the transmission of current political events did the media managers
and owners agree to deliver some news about the return of the president.
After the restoration of the legitimate
democratic government, most of the Venezuelan private media continued its
one-sided political action, serving as a crude outlet for anti-government,
pro-coup propaganda. The media has become one message, to paraphrase McLuhan.
They often transmit interviews with soldiers involved in the coup, dressed
in military uniforms and ask their old comrades-in-arms not to recognize
the government. The media have endorsed the take over of a Caracas square
where groups of civilians, mostly upper middle and upper class, have supported
to the leaders of the coup for months. The daily live coverage from this
square has become the “reality show” in a grotesque fascist experiment. When
several people were injured and three were killed during a terrible spur
of violence in that square, the media immediately blamed president Chávez,
and aired demonstrations of coup perpetrators blaming the president for murder
and calling on the armed forces to rebel.
The media not only ignores the most
obvious realities, propagates and endorses protests called by the opposition,
censors news about the events carried out in support of the government, labels
Chávez’s followers as violent and their opponents as democrats; it
also exaggerates the size of the opposition’s protests while minimizing or
ignoring the breadth of support for Chávez. The media is thus both
jury and defendant in this trial.
Numerous popular demonstrations have
taken place by government supporters against the role of the media. Recently
four young university students initiated a front hunger strike one of local
T.V. chains, while the private media has yet to consider this event news
at all. The private media has also ignored a caravan of hundreds of vehicles
that called for an end to mass psychological terror and urged people to not
watch private TV channles. This demonstration ended with the destruction
of a dozen television sets in front of one of the main TV stations.
Popular demonstrations in front of
media headquarters are frequent these days in Caracas and other Venezuelan
cities. The majority of these demonstrations against the media are peaceful,
although one turned violent and ended up with the destruction of some material
goods. While the police protect TV stations and newspapers, the media continues
with its pro-coup political activism, propaganda, and call for the violent
overthrow of a democratically elected government. While the government is
afraid of curtailing the freedom of expression, viewers cannot be protected
from this media manipulation unless we continue to build alternative mechanisms
of organization, participation and communication in defence of our society.
Carlos Muntaner teaches at the University
of Maryland at Baltimore.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:28
PM
Subject: Traducción: La verdad
comienza ....
Estimado René,
estuvimos fuera de casa un día y al regresar
en la noche encontré su petición. He aquí la traducción
requerida.
Saludos solidarios,
Jutta.
-------
Venezuela: La Pesadilla Tropical de Chomsky
/
4 de Enero 2003; Counter Punch
Por: FRANCISO ARMADA and CARLOS MUTANER
Traducido por: Jutta Schmitt
Padecer
en carne propia lo que Noam Chomsky escribe sobre el poder ideológico
de los medios de comunicación es algo muy diferente de la mera lectura.
Hemos disfrutado leer sus artículos sobre los medios que nos ayudaron
a entender la influencia inmensa, que éstos ejercen sobre las
sociedades contemporáneas. Sin embargo, haber vivido en Venezuela
durante los ultimos tres años nos ha permitido sufrir dicho
poder directamente.
El rol
de los medios era crucial durante el breve golpe de Estado del 11 de Abril
del año pasado en contra del presidente Hugo Chávez. Cadenas
de TV privadas y la prensa local mantenían una campaña de
ataque constante contra el gobierno y apoyaron una huelga nacional justo
antes del golpe. Juzgaron, de acuerdo a sus propios criterios sesgados,
a las manifestaciones en pro y en contra del golpe y no hesitaron de
señalar al gobierno como el autor y culpable de las muertes desafortunadas
que habían occurrido este día, con casí la mitad de
las víctimas simpatizantes del propio gobierno. Fueron rápidos
en apoyar como autoridad líder el auto-proclamado presidente temporal,
un conservador hombre y líder de negocios. Hasta llegaron tan lejos
como para apoyar la primera acción de gobierno en el marco del golpe
de Estado, por medio de la cual el presidente auto-proclamado anuló
la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, cambió
el nombre del país y disolvió a todos los poderes públicos, inclusive
el poder legislativo, y suspendió de sus cargos a los gobernadores
de los Estados. Los medios rápidamente lanzaron una campaña
con la celebración de doble discurso a la Orwelliana, del "retorno
a la democracia".
Mientras
miles de personas se volcaron a las calles de las ciudades principales del
país, exigiendo el regreso del presidente Chávez, los medios
progresivamente comenzaron a cambiar sus programaciones televisivas, emitiendo
películas de niños y practicamente suprimiendo cualquier información
sobre lo que estaba pasando en el interior del país. Justificaron
su silencio con explicaciones que involucraron "asuntos de seguridad". Sólo
cuando las masas rodearon las sedes principales de los medios de comunicación
y exigieron la transmisión de los eventos políticos actuales,
tal y como estaban sucediendo, los directivos y dueños
de los medios acordaron mostrar algunas informaciones acerca del retorno
del presidente.
Después
de la restauración del gobierno legítimo y democrático,
la mayoría de los medios privados de Venezuela continuó
en sus acciones políticas unilaterales, sirviendo como plataforma
para propaganda anti-gobierno, pro-golpe. Los medios se han convertido en
un sólo mensaje, para parafrasear a McLuhan. A menudos están
transmitiendo entrevistas con militares involucrados en el golpe de Estado,
vistiendo su uniforme militar y haciendo un llamado a sus compañeros
de armas a que desconozcan al gobierno. Los medios han apoyado la toma
de una Plaza en Caracas, donde grupos de civiles - en su mayoría
personas provenientes de las clases media alta y alta -, han apoyado a los
líderes del golpe durante meses. La cobertura en vivo desde
esta Plaza se ha convertido en el "show de la realidad", en un grotesco
experimento fascista. Cuando varias personas resultaron heridas y tres cayeron
muertos durante una terrible irrupción violenta en esta Plaza, los
medios inmediatamente culparon al presidente Chávez, y transmitieron
las declaraciones de los perpetradores del golpe de Estado, quienes culparon
al presidente de asesinato y quienes llamaron a las fuerzas armadas a la
rebelión.
Los medios
no sólo ignoran las realidades más obvias, propagando y apoyando
a todo tipo de protesta organizado por la oposición, censurando la
información acerca de los eventos realizados a favor del gobierno,
tildando a los simpatizantes de Chávez como violentos y a los opositores
como demócratas; sino también exageran el tamaño de
las protestas de la oposición, mientras que minimizan o ignoran por
completo la amplitud de apoyo a favor de Chávez. Los medios, por
consiguiente, son tanto juez como acusador en este juicio.
Numerosas
manifestaciones populares por parte de simpatizantes del gobierno se
han dado en contra del rol de los medios. Recientemente, cuatro jóvenes
estudiantes iniciaron una huelga de hambre frente a una estación de
las televisivas locales, mientras que los medios privados todavía
no le han prestado atención a esta noticia en primer lugar. Los
medios privados también han ignorado una caravana de centenares
de vehículos, los manifestantes de los cuales llamaron a un cese
del terror psicológico de masas, e instaron a la gente a no ver los
canales de televisión privados. Esta manifestación terminó
con la destrucción de una docena de aparatos de televisión
frente a una de las principales estaciones de televisión.
Manifestaciones
populares frente a las sedes principales de los medios son una cosa
frequente en estos días en Caracas y en otras ciudades Venezolanas.
La mayoría de estas manifestaciones en contra de los medios son pacíficas,
aun cuando una de ellas se convirtió en violenta y terminó
con la destrucción de algunos bienes materiales. Mientras la
policía protege a estaciones de televisión y a los diarios,
los medios continuan con su activismo político pro-golpe, su progapanda
y su llamado al derrocamiento violento de un gobierno democráticamente
electo. Mientras el gobierno teme restringir la
libertad de expresión, los televidentes no pueden ser protegidos
de esta manipulación mediática, al menos que continuemos construyendo
mecanismos alternativos de organización, participación y comunicación
en defensa de nuestra sociedad.
Carlos Muntaner
enseña en la Universidad de Maryland en Baltimore.
Nato wounded in crossfire
over Iraq
By Stephen Castle in Brussels,
Andrew Grice and Kim Sengupta in London
11 February 2003
Nato faced one of the most serious crises
of its 54-year history yesterday when divisions over Iraq burst into the
open and the United States fiercely criticised three European member nations.
Exposing a deep rift in the alliance, France,
Germany and Belgium blocked moves to defend their Nato ally Turkey in the
event of war in the region. Nicholas Burns, America's ambassador to Nato,
described the actions of the three countries as "inexcusable" and warned
that the alliance faced "a crisis of credibility".
The public row followed more than three
weeks of negotiations over plans to send to Turkey Awacs surveillance aircraft,
Patriot missiles and equipment to combat nuclear, chemical and biological
warfare.
The proposals are acutely sensitive because
America is expected to use Turkey as a launchpad for an invasion of Iraq,
and a push to bolster Turkey's defences is seen in some capitals as an extension
of preparations for conflict.
French officials seemed to rule out any
deal before Hans Blix, the chief UN arms inspector, reports to the Security
Council on Friday. Louis Michel, the Belgian Foreign Minister, said backing
Nato's proposal now would imply acceptance of a "logic of war".
In Washington, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence
Secretary, said the US would not be deflected. "I think it's a mistake. What
we have to do for the United States is make sure that that planning does
go forward." Earlier he described the manoeuvre as "a disgrace".
Greece, which holds the EU presidency,
called an emergency summit of heads of government and foreign ministers for
next Monday. That meeting, convened against the advice of senior EU officials,
faces the formidable task of trying to reach a consensus in an EU that is
badly split. As Jacques Chirac, the French President, met Vladimir Putin,
his Russian counterpart, France, Russia and Germany issued a joint declaration
calling for strengthened UN inspections in Iraq, part of a diplomatic initiative
– already rejected by Washington – aimed at disarming Saddam Hussein without
war.
Although M. Chirac stressed the need for
President Saddam to be disarmed, he added: "Nothing today justifies a war.
This region really does not need another war."
Downing Street denied there was a "crisis"
in Nato over Iraq and stressed discussions would continue today. Although
aides said Tony Blair would "argue his corner" at Monday's EU summit, the
Prime Minister fears the meeting will highlight Europe's divisions. Mr Blair's
official spokesman said the international response to Mr Blix's UN report
on Friday mattered most.
Privately, British ministers are appalled
by the actions of France and Germany, and fear their plan to avoid a war
will only help President Saddam's efforts to split the international community.
One government source said: "This is very messy. The atmosphere between us
and them is poison-ous. This is bound to do some lasting damage to Nato and
relations between Europe and America. How much depends on the final outcome
in Iraq."
Some British sources described the Franco-German
initiative as half-baked while others said there was total confusion over
whether it was a formal proposal. They said Paris and Berlin should have
stuck to UN resolution 1441.
Mr Blair's spokesman admitted the Government
was disappointed over the lack of agreement at Nato but added: "The important
point is that discussions continue. This is not a final decision. A veto
is only a veto if it results in something never happening."
At Nato there was little attempt to conceal
concern about the split, which has raised questions over the alliance's ability
to act, and about its future. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, the Nato secretary
general, argued: "It is a matter of enormous consequence for this alliance
and therefore people are taking it very seriously."
Turkey invoked article four of Nato's founding
treaty, claiming it faces potential danger. Lord Robertson sought to keep
up the pressure on France,Germany and Belgium with a second meeting of alliance
ambassadors.
|
|
11 February 2003 22:14
Printable Story
|
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=377354
***************************************************************************************************
NATO Fails to Settle Iraq Rift; China Seeks
More Inspections
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN with CRAIG S. SMITH
RUSSELS, Feb. 11 - NATO failed today to settle its deep differences over
Iraq, the worst rift in the alliance's history, but a spokesman said informal
talks would continue through the night and a new meeting would be called
for Wednesday.
France, Germany and Belgium continued to block
an effort to have NATO begin military planning for the defense of Turkey
in the event of war of Iraq.
And China joined calls for an increase in the
number of United Nations inspectors working in Iraq. In a statement issued
in Paris on Monday, France, Germany and Russia argued that the inspections
should continue in a more vigorous form before war is contemplated and that
the inspectors be given more time to complete their job.
After informal talks throughout the day, ambassadors
from the 19 NATO countries met for only 20 minutes this evening before ending
the session, a spokesman said.
``Right now we do not have a conclusion,'' the
spokesman, Yves Brodeur, added.
President Jiang Zemin of China, in a telephone
conversation with the French president, Jacques Chirac, reiterated China's
stance on finding a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis.
China now joins Russia and and France, all of
which have veto power in the Security Council, in opposing the United States
and Britain on military action against Saddam Hussein.
``The inspection in Iraq is effective and should
be continued and strengthened,'' the official New China News Agency quoted
Mr. Jiang as saying today. ``Warfare is good for no one, and it is our responsibility
to take various measures to avoid war.''
In Paris, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin
praised the partnership between France and Russia, saying it was up to them
``to do everything possible to prevent a conflict that could seriously threaten
regional and international stability.'' He spoke as he made a toast to President
Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has been visiting France.
In London, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain
dismissed the French and German counter-proposals today as ``impossible to
achieve unless and until you have the complete disarmament of Iraq.''
In a speech to the International Institute of
Strategic Studies in London, Mr. Straw rebutted proposals either made publicly
by France and Germany or reported to be under consideration in Paris and
Berlin.
NATO ambassadors gathered today for their third
meeting in a little over 24 hours when the alliance's secretary general,
Lord Robertson, decided to call it off.
``There's so much informal consultation going
on it was felt we didn't need the meeting,'' a NATO official said.
The move did not mean that a standoff over Iraq
had hardened, the official said then.
The moves by NATO on Monday came after France
and Germany closed ranks against the United States, issuing a joint declaration
with Russia calling for intensified weapons inspections as an alternative
to war.
In a statement issued in Paris, Russia, Germany
and France called for a ``substantial strengthening'' of the ``human and
technical capabilities'' of the weapons inspectors in Iraq, arguing that
the inspections should continue in a more vigorous form before war is contemplated.
In response to NATO's decision, Turkey took the
highly unusual step of invoking Article IV of the NATO treaty, which requires
the entire alliance to consult if any member feels its security is threatened.
The move by the three NATO members most reluctant
to use military force against Iraq marked one of the most serious cleavages
in the alliance and was sharply criticized by some members as a blow to the
strength and credibility of the organization at the core of trans-Atlantic
cooperation.
``I am disappointed that France would block NATO
from helping a country like Turkey prepare,'' President Bush said. ``I think
it affects the alliance in a negative way.'' Nicholas Burns, the American
ambassador to NATO, said the organization now faced a ``crisis of credibility.''
Ever since the United States began serious preparations
for a possible war to oust Saddam Hussein, tensions with several European
states have sharpened. But the developments on Monday - defiance of America
at NATO and criticism of America from Moscow to Paris - appeared to crystallize
the differences.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/middleeast/12cnd-iraq.html
*************************************************************************************************
U.S. Still Hopes to Get New U.N. Resolution
Against Iraq
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
ASHINGTON, Feb. 11 — The White House said today that it was conducting "intense
diplomacy" in the face of strong European-led opposition to its tough approach
on Iraq, and that it still hoped the United Nations Security Council would
pass a new resolution on the use of military action against Baghdad.
But officials in Berlin and Paris said they
believed they had enough votes to block any such resolution.
A spokesman for Chancellor Gerhard Schröder
said that by Germany's count, 11 of 15 council members wanted to continue
United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq. A French official tallied nine
such votes, including those of Germany, which now heads the council, and
China, Russia and France, all of which have veto power. Passage requires
nine votes, with no veto.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia warned
today that the United States would be making a "grave error" by taking military
action against Iraq without the Security Council's assent, and he hinted
that Russia might use its Security Council veto against "unreasonable use
of force."
Mr. Putin told a French radio interviewer that
he saw no need at present for Russia to use its veto, The Associated Press
reported. But asked if Russia would support Paris if France cast a veto,
Mr. Putin said: "If today a proposition was made that we felt would lead
to an unreasonable use of force, we would act with France or alone."
Should a new resolution against Iraq be blocked,
the United States has said it will bypass the Security Council and lead a
"coalition of the willing" to forcibly disarm Iraq. But even Prime Minister
Tony Blair of Britain, the staunchest American ally in the Iraq crisis, has
expressed a strong preference for gaining the support of the United Nations.
Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, was
asked today whether the resistance of France, Germany and others did not
quash hopes for a new resolution.
"Keep your powder dry before you make predictions,"
he said, urging reporters not to jump to conclusions. "The president is going
to continue to talk to leaders around the world and he believes that the
call will be answered."
While the debates splitting the United Nations,
as well as NATO, have been widely depicted as among their worst in decades,
Mr. Fleischer tried to play down the trans-Atlantic differences as a "good
spat" among friends.
"This will all pass over and we will all remain
as allies," he said. Mr. Fleischer said President Bush was confident that
"we will remain an alliance, that we will remain unified, and that in the
end Saddam Hussein will be disarmed thanks to the collective will of all."
Asked how much longer the United States would
wait before deciding to act against Iraq — without United Nations backing,
if need be — Mr. Fleischer would not offer a timetable or deadline.
"Again, the president believes in the importance
of diplomacy," he said.
Mr. Bush had spoken by phone both with Mr. Blair,
a staunch supporter, and President José Eduardo dos Santos of Angola,
whose country currently holds a Security Council seat.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell stepped up
pressure on fellow Security Council members today, saying "a moment of truth"
was fast approaching. The council is to meet on Friday to hear the latest
reports from its top weapons inspectors.
The Bush administration, continuing to build
its military forces in the region, wants quick action by the council after
that.
Mr. Powell's British counterpart, Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw, suggested that the inspectors' reports on Friday could make the
case for a new Security Council resolution "overwhelming." This would happen,
he suggested, if the inspectors declared Iraq to be in material breach of
Security Council Resolution 1441, as both the United States and Britain have
said it is.
Mr. Straw also dismissed the calls for continued
inspections as "a recipe for procrastination," saying that unless Iraq cooperated
with the United Nations, "even a 1,000-fold increase in the inspectors' capabilities
will not allow us to establish with any degree of confidence that Iraq has
been disarmed."
Mr. Powell vented his frustration, meanwhile,
at suggestions that the United States might be responsible for the severe
strains over a possible war that have created some of the deepest divides
in decades in both NATO and the United Nations.
"We're not breaking up the alliance," Mr. Powell
said during testimony before the Senate Budget Committee. "We're just making
sure the alliance, both the U.N. alliance and the NATO alliance, deals with
this responsibility and remains relevant."
If the United Nations fails to compel "a dictator
like Saddam Hussein" to comply with repeated resolutions demanding that he
disarm, and watches as he remains defiant, "then who is breaking up the alliance?"
Mr. Powell asked. "Not the United States. The alliance is breaking itself
up because it will not meet its responsibilities."
Mr. Powell also said Washington still hoped
that France, Germany and Belgium would drop their opposition within NATO
to American and Turkish requests to plan for Turkey's defense in the event
of a war with Iraq. "We are undertaking the most intense diplomacy today"
with the three, he said.
In Iraq today, United
Nations weapons inspectors paid a surprise visit to a Baghdad missile plant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/middleeast/11CND_POLI.html
***************************************************************************************************
