Financial Times reporting of Venezuela is crass ideology disguised as astute analysis

www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 By: Steven Hunt

US-based commentarist Steven Hunt writes: The Financial Times is supposed to be some of the best reporting from the UK.  However, Andrew Webb-Vidal's piece entitled "Terror Groups Relocating to US's Backyard", dated March 4, 2003,  is mere crass ideology disguised as astute analysis.

Vidal-Webb quotes General James Hill, head honcho at the US Southern Command, as sounding the alarm that Middle Eastern terrorist groups are jeopardizing US security by establishing a foot hold in Latin America.  Hill, points to Venezuela's Margarita Island as one of the new "terrorist" hotspots.

So in the first few paragraphs of the story we, the average readers, have the central point, spoken from the mount of the most powerful military commander in the Americas:  terrorists have set up shop on Margarita Island.

Vidal-Webb makes explicit that certain "security experts" (that tellingly go unnamed) say that "as yet" no regional governments can definitively be said to be aiding these Middle Eastern terrorists.  But the FT reporter states that US officials (again, un-named) are "worried that weak state institutions are making the region a haven for operatives" with links to al-Qaeda, Osama's group.

The "weak state institutions", or the specific states, are not singled out by Vidal-Webb.  But, of course, since Venezuela is singled out in this story, any competent reader would assume that Venezuela has "weak state institutions."

If there would be any doubt in the reader's mind as to which states pose the US a problem, than those are laid to rest when the reporter quotes Fernando Falcon, a former Venezuelan state security police chief.  Falcon ominously states that "If I were al-Qaeda, I would be setting up in Venezuela right now."

Again, dear VHeadline readers, pay attention to what gets included and what is omitted:  Webb-Vidal never interviews anyone involved in Venezuelan state security, not one person.  However, the reporters chooses to give voice to a "former" police chief.

A competent reporter, knowing a little about the recent political tumult in Venezuela, might think to ask whether or not former chief Falcon or his political allies have anything to gain by smearing the current government as inept or villainous adjuncts to terror; or as weak in the area of intelligence and enforcement.

(If I were al-Qaeda, I would head straight to Honduras.  The US military has a huge presence in the country and almost everyone is on the make for bribes from foreigners.  Moreover, with the US presence in that country, it would be one of the last places that the US "experts" would think that terrorists would hide.  More, the country is desperately poor--money can buy almost anything, even anonymity.  Moreover, Honduras is a lot closer to the US than is Venezuela.  It would be faster to ship chemical or nuclear weapons from Central America.  If Honduras is good enough for US supported terrorists, for example, the Contras, than it should be adjudged good enough for Third World terrorists from the Middle East.)

Just so we can understand the ideological framework in which Webb-Vidal's vaunted US General Hill is operating within, it is important to understand what this military stooge considers "terrorist".  Hill states that Colombia saw "more terrorist attacks than all the other nations in the world combined."

What General Hill does not point out is that most attacks in Colombia that saw the death of non-combatants, innocent civilians, were carried out by pro-government and pro-US partisans--the rightwing paramilitaries that are documented as having ties to the military, and are responsible for roughly two-thirds of all civilian deaths.

This is one of those "omitted" facts that the US corporate press usually does not see fit to include in stories about the Colombian civil war.

After General Hills statements to the effect that the Colombian conflict could be won, while the US ends up "losing the battle in the rest of the region."

Curiously, Webb-Vidal takes this very ominous warning from the General as  indicating that "the Colombian conflict is becoming enmeshed with increasingly violent political tensions in Venezuela."

Just how this political conflict in Venezuela is connected with the Colombian civil war, the reporter does not say.  But in the next paragraph he highlights two historical "facts": (a) that two powerful bombs went off in the Colombian and Spanish diplomatic missions; and (b) that the attacks followed shortly after President Chavez criticized Colombia, Spain, and the US for involving themselves in Venezuelan affairs.

Thus, like spokespersons for the US government tried to imply, the reporter suggests a casual connection between Chavez's admonishments and the bombings.

Though the FT reporter does present the opinion of the Chavez government about the blast, he quotes--again, unnamed--"intelligence sources in Miami that the terrorists behind the bombings were either left-wing Colombian guerrillas, or a group from the Chavez government!

So there you have it, "intelligence sources in Miami" have the final say in the FT story as to who the likely culprits behind the bombings were.  Since the Colombian, US, and Venezuelan rightwing has long smeared the Chavez government with helping and coddling the FARC.  The average reader is lead to assume that the Venezuelan government is a weak security link that allows the proliferation of Middle East terrorists, and also, that the Chavez government itself was responsible for bombing the diplomatic seats of Colombia and Spain.

Most disturbing and inexcusable, however, is that Webb-Vidal does not think that it is necessary to name the Miami "intelligence" contacts he uses for his report.  They could very well be very rightwing groups that have a history of terrorist attacks on Cuba, we will never know.

Webb-Vidal uses the precious last paragraphs--the ones that tend to leave the greatest impression on the reader--for highlighting the developing US presence in Colombia.  However, what is ostensibly the reason for the US Colombian presence, the war on "drugs", goes unmentioned by Webb-Vidal.  We are given information that Colombian military men have been investigating the movement of FARC rebels into Venezuela.

In the last paragraph we are given a quote from a Mr. Robert Steele, described as "a former deputy director of US Marine intelligence and the private sector advisor":

     "We have cold war mindsets that are not adequate for        today.  The US thinks of Latin America as a benign        backyard.  They are wrong.  It is a nightmare ready to        go north, and the Americans don't understand that."

With Steele's interesting interpretation of Latin America as "a nightmare ready to go north" what are we, the average readers, supposed to come away with from the story.

(1) That Venezuela is a gathering point for terrorists. (2) Venezuela's government is an ideal place for terrorists. (3) That the Chavez government, or its allies, are likely involved with terrorists attacks against the diplomatic seats of Spain and Colombia. (4)  As the noble battle against terrorism is won in Colombia, it is likely to spread throughout the adjacent countries, especially Venezuela. (5) That the US government and its citizens in the north should pay special attention to Latin America because the area has weak, or pro-terrorist states that are planning to cause havoc to innocent civilians in the US.

Again, dear reader, the US public and people in "allied", wealthy nations are being set up--if the lying, fascistic, and morally-defunct elites of the world get their way,  the Chavez regime will become another target in the "war on terrorism".  From Webb-Vidal's unscrupulous reporting we can already see the broad trajectory of what US intelligence and their Venezuelan buddies, the extremists in the opposition, have planned.

Smear the government as "weak" and incapable of controlling terrorists (Middle Eastern or otherwise;  label Chavez as an undemocratic thug, an enemy of human freedom and freedom of the press; talk up or manufacture tensions (between Colombia and Venezuela, Chavez and the opposition); conflate regional terrorism--that is predicated on antagonisms rooted in economics, racism, and social classes--with the US-led global "war on terrorism."

Look for further economic and social destabilization--these are the requisites if the opposition is to ever be successful in any "fair" elections.

Remember, the US would rather not have to deal with an outright invasion, that scenario would yield too many dead US servicemen, such an endeavor would loose favor with a public still shell-shocked from Vietnam.

Thus, the US intelligence "black-braggers" and their ideological cohorts in Venezuela are hoping to cause enough chaos so as to promote a military coup.

None of the above described scenarios are already "written onto the pages of history".  By studying and understanding propaganda, US imperialism and covert actions, we can reasonable understand and counter the ongoing destabilization.

However, more people need to avail themselves of alternative, non-corporate sources of information.  Moreover, commonality, mutual-aid, and authentic solidarity are essential.

They are but a puny, fearful, selfish, and immoral group of fascist agitators and coup-mongers.  But not all the opposition are, however.  Many are merely fearful that historically subordinate groups of people are finally asserting themselves proactively.  In their fear they want to believe those in the opposition that are duplicitous and essentially against democracy.

Where the right-wing has historically deployed death-squads we need to release an even more deadly weapon: love-squads.  Love-squads are people, operating individually or in groups, that are capable of describing the goals of the Bolivarian revolutions to those that have been grossly lied to.

We can share with them our ideals, describe our projects, and more importantly, work to help them in any way that we reasonably can.

Love and cooperation will always triumph over fear and oppression.

This we must believe, but more importantly, really live.

Steven Hunt ecocentricsolutions@earthlink.com