Advertisement

Recurrent fabrications about Venezuela and Chavez

Olga Lopez, Caracas

Associated Press agency spread the information that the Venezuelan authorities intended to set up five military bases along the border with Colombia.

Internet-edition Gazeta.ru reprinted this news with reference to certain “analysts”, who think that by means of these bases, president Hugo Chavez “is eager to strengthen his positions in the country and intensify infrastructure, which supports pro-leftist militants acting in Colombia”.

One cannot help but note that the said internet-edition treats all news from western agencies about events in Venezuela, its foreign and home policy, activity of president Chavez with traditional lack of criticism.

Firstly, according to the latest polls, if presidential elections were held today, almost 55% of the population would have voted for Chavez without a moment's hesitation. About 75% approve of his government activity. Even the opposition, that tends to minify the merits of Chavez agree with the figure of 60%. And there is nothing to be ashamed of “strengthening the positions” and any politician should do this every day.

Secondly, unlike in Russia with its borderline special regime zone, in Venezuela, like in other Latin American countries, the border is actually open. Suffice it to travel along the western shore of the Maracaibo lake to get the proof of it. The border between Venezuela and Colombia runs for 2300 kilometers. In Zulia state it runs along the mountain range of Sierra de Perija.

The government of Venezuela informed that “5 security zones” would be established in Sierra de Perija in five regions of compact habitation of Yukpa tribe nationality to protect the Indians from encroachment of Colombian ultra-right militants that often make their way on the territory of Venezuela with criminal-terrorist intentions. By the way, even rich cattle-breeders of Zulia suffer from invasion of militants. They often have to “buy off” their lives.

The thesis that Chavez supports “pro-leftist” (?) militants is used in the information warfare since the very first days of Chavez tenure at power. It is true that Chavez took part in liberating the hostages of FARC, but at the request of Colombian authorities. When they refused from his services, Chavez stepped aside.

The disseminated by certain Russian mass media information that former Polish president Leh Valensa was not allowed by the Venezuelan authorities to enter the country may be attributed to this category of fabrications. Allegedly he was refused the visa. In fact, due to the heat of the election struggle in Venezuela and aggressiveness of opposition, the embassy of Venezuela in Warsaw warned Valensa that in case of his arrival the Bolivarian authorities “wouldn't be able to guarantee his efficient security”. Leh Valensa preferred to criticise Chavez and his government from afar. Among other guests of international forum arranged by opposition in the Central university of Caracas were ex-president of Czech Republic Vatslav Gavel, ex-prime minister of Bulgaria Philip Dimitrov, ex-minister of Slovakia Eduard Kukan and other steadfast defenders of western democracy that risked and came to Venezuela. But their feedback greatly disappointed the opposition, which expected from them something more. Ultimately, the most advantageous propaganda episode was “non-arrival” of Valensa.

Certain degree of exaggeration is also present in a sensational mass media news that “Chavez is ready to bring tanks to the streets in case of victory of opposition at regional elections”. Chavez likes strong expressions but he is a realistic politician. Naturally Chavez wants very much members of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) to become the governors of all 22 states. But he will never put his people to the governors posts under the tank guns. According to optimistic forecasts of the opposition it has a chance to get 6 states under its control.

Now, on the eve of president of Russia D. Medvedev visit to Venezuela, the number of such fabrications substantially increases. Washington does not like close contacts of Chavez with Russian politicians, businessmen, military. And that is the reason for creating the “virtual” image of Hugo Chavez, “accomplice of terrorists, guerilla-extremists and drug businessmen”, and the one, who “does not enjoy the people's support”. Is it worth assisting western mass media to spread around these flagrant lies?