The US intelligence is making systematic efforts to energize the
political opposition in Latin American countries deemed unfriendly in
Washington. The strategy encompasses the radicalization of the existing
political parties and groups plus the creation of new ones pursuing ever
more aggressive agendas, and the formation of a network of seemingly
harmless NGOs ready to launch massive attacks against the regimes in
their respective countries whenever their sponsors and curators chose to
unleash them. It is a reality that newspapers and electronic media in
Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela shower their audiences with
allegations that the ruling populists are completely unable to tackle
the problems of corruption and drug-related crime or to modernize the
economies of the countries where they are at the helm.
Estimates show that at least 80% of the media in ALBA countries are
slamming the nations' leaders in a permanent information warfare
campaign and providing a propaganda backing for pro-US and pro-Israel
NGOs. In fact, the standoff between the ALBA governments and their
opponents – the Washington-controlled fifth column and the NGOs – is in
many regards a unique phenomenon. While Latin American populist leaders
Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, and Hugo Chavez strictly abide by their
countries' constitutions, the camp challenging them does not recognize
legal constraints in principle, especially when the situation holds the
promises of a color revolution. For most of them, the escalation of a
revolt into a full-blown civil war appears to be the optimal scenario
since a bloody conflict would provide a pretext for a US military
intervention.
Rafael Correa who constantly takes hammering from NGOs and the media
which eagerly relay their invectives, sued the El Universo
paper over an opinion piece where he was referred to as a dictator and
charged with ordering to open fire on a hospital crammed with civilians
and innocent people. The above was El Universo's interpretation
of an episode which took place during the September 30, 2010 police
riots organized by the CIA in Ecuador. At the time, Correa who narrowly
escaped an assassination attempt was for several hours forced to take
shelter from sniper fire in a hospital building. Moreover, the column
which Correa condemned as “defamatory libel” carried a thinly veiled
threat at the Ecuadoran leader – it said “the dictator” should be
mindful of the possibility that the next president would order to put
him on trial for ordering to fire on civilians without “prior
notification”. Three court probes were held as Correa, determined to get
a formal ruling on the case, brushed off calls from various free-speech
advocacy groups, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the
Inter-American Press Association, the Ecuadoran Business Committee, etc.
which in concert tried to coerce him into dropping the suit. The court
eventually issued a criminal verdict slapping a $40m fine and a
three-year jail term on the owners of El Universo and the
author of the opinion piece. The latter promptly requested political
asylum from the US, and the whole crew fled to Miami to avoid
punishment. Correa stressed that the verdict set a key precedent for the
entire Latin America and made it clear that free speech must be a right
enjoyed by everyone, not only by those who have enough money to run a
newspaper business.
Since September 2009, the Ecuadoran National Assembly has been debating
a mass media code praised by Correa as the most progressive and
top-democratic in the Western Hemisphere. According to Ecuador's leader,
the new legislation reflects the broadest interests of the nation,
should put an end to the concentration of the media resources in the
hands of the chosen few, and will shield the media from corruption and
the pressure of big money. In contrast, the opposition and the NGOs
accountable to the US embassy say the new law is a gag intended to
silence free speech and to cause journalists and media owners to
exercise self-censorship. Critics maintain that the law will enable
Correa to dictate the rules of the game in the information sphere, that
personal control over the government-run media would open opportunities
to smear the president's opponents, and that the threat of multi-million
fines would be used to intimidate independent media.
Actually, the informational dictate that the opposition pretends to
discern on the horizon is what Correa seeks to eradicate. The plan is
that the government, private, and public media would be subject to the
same set of regulations and that disputes would be submitted to an
independent media council for arbitration. Part of the council's mission
will be to build a barrier in the way of media materials calling for
violence, containing pornography, or offering discriminatory
perspectives. It is a cornerstone of Ecuador's upcoming media that no
outlets can be closed based on administrative decisions, which means
that the opposition's argument to the effect that Correa is going to
assign censorship functions to the media council makes no sense. The
Ecuadoran criminal code includes an article on crimes committed by media
outlets which establishes that, apart from authors' responsibilities,
editors and publishers are responsible for libel, the punishment
reaching three years in jail. It should also be noted that an
important line on Ecuadoran government's list of priorities is occupied
by the task of tightening the oversight of the NGOs which proliferate in
the country at a breakneck rate. Correa and his closest co-workers
evidently count among the key short-term risks the possibility of a coup
attempt in which, in line with a US scenario, NGOs receiving additional
financial infusions on the occasion would be supposed to guarantee the
involvement of large numbers of protesters.
Bolivia is the country where drastic steps were taken to tame the
political influence of media tycoons. In July, 2011, the country's
congress passed by a convincing majority the legislation which
introduced a 33% cap on the share of the private sector in the
broadcasting industry (originally, the share used to climb close to 90%
of the market). Media licenses were handed out in the process of the
reform to Bolivia's Indian communities, trade unions, and public groups.
The government believes that the new media law will guarantee better
quality and diversification of reporting and help take into account the
interests of the Bolivian indigenous population. President Morales
rejects the opposition's view that those were cited as a pretext for
giving him a stronger grip on the media. No doubt, unbiased coverage is
what the Indians of Bolivia have been lacking over the past decades,
considering that over the period of time they had been treated as the
key target audience by myriads of specialized NGOs. Currently the
government led by Morales has to keep in mind that the US embassy in
Bolivia has a serious potential to draw the Indian communities into
protest activities.
The Bolivian plan for media modernization will continue to unfold
through 2016, the deadline by which most of the previously issued
licenses expire. In particular, its implementation will serve to reign
in the media sway of the Roman Catholic church which at the moment runs
over 800 (!) broadcasters in the country. Private TV channels in Bolivia
will similarly see their share of the market shrink. As of today, much
of the Bolivian media activity emanates from the chronically
oppositional Santa Cruz province. As a result, the media fuel hostility
towards Morales's government, uphold separatism and racism, and almost
openly advertise terrorism as an acceptable means of resisting the
regime. The new law authorizes the government to impose sanctions on the
media, including those based in the Internet, for putting national
security in jeopardy, playing the coordinating role in subversive NGO
games, or espousing racial discrimination.
Over a hundred private broadcasters and a host of private TV networks
function completely uncensored in Nicaragua, bombarding the Sandinista
government with mostly unfair criticisms. Daniel Ortega, a leader with a
personal record of having been denied access to media in the epoch when
he championed the opposition to neo-liberal governments, was obviously
prepared to pick up the challenge. The network of Sandinista radio
stations expanded after his ascension to power, plus an extra TV channel
- Channel 13 headed by Ortega's children Camila, Luciana and Maurice –
became the third Sandinista TV outlet. The channel is expected
to evolve into the leader among the Nicaraguan media, one of its
priorities being to unmask the NGOs waging CIA-inspired anti-government
campaigns. The NGO's strive to undermine the prestige of the Sandinista
regime, press for the closure of the programs of international aid to
Nicaragua, and churn out negative coverage of Nicaragua's cooperation
with ALBA countries, China, and Russia. By the way, Russian human rights
activist Ilya Yashin toured Nicaragua recently as an NGO representative
with the likely purpose of swapping experience with his peers in the
country.
Venezuela enacted a Law for the Defense of Political Sovereignty and
National Self-Determination in December, 2010. The legislation was in
fact long overdue in the country where foreign intelligence services and
US foundations have created a pervasive network of NGOs synchronously
bracing for a replay of the April, 2002 coup which made it abundantly
clear that the groups' activists were ordinary agents hired by external
forces and ready to sacrifice without remorse the lives of their
countrymen. The objective behind the Law is to make it impossible to
pour money into Venezuelan NGOs from abroad. At present, all
forms of foreign support for Venezuelan NGO's are outlawed, and those
are confronted with the requirement of absolute financial transparency.
NGOs guilty of illicit funding face fines in the amount twice that
received from outside of the country, and the preamble of the
law explains unequivocally that the punishment must be administered to
Venezuelans and foreigners for infringing upon the country's sovereignty
and stability or for disrupting the functioning of its legitimate
authority.
By the law, Venezuelan NGO leaders caught getting money from
abroad lose the right to engage in political activities for a term of
five to eight years. The right to take part in electoral campaigns can
be revoked or serious measures of fiscal character are applicable for
repeated offense. The law includes specific provisions – a combination
of large fines and deportation - for foreigners invited to Venezuela by
NGOs and publicly expressing disregard for the Venezuelan government
institutions or statesmen.
It is unlikely that the legislative steps taken in ALBA countries would
make the groups and media which de facto operate as foreign agents on
their territories completely give up their subversive jobs, but a
message is sent legibly that nobody can hope to stay immune to
law and no type of enemy activity will be tolerated.
No comments:
Post a Comment