MEDIA PORNOGRAPHY

A graphic image published on the front page of a Venezuelan newspaper has sparked an international controversy over the limits of press freedom and journalistic ethics

Imagine you’re walking on the street with your children and you pass a newstand with today’s papers displayed as usual and the front pages clearly visible to all who pass by. But to your horror, today’s national daily has an almost full-page graphic image of dead, bloodied bodies piled on top of each other in the local morgue. Every newstand you walk by has the same image, even repeated in several national and local papers. Your children are forced to see this with no warning.

Such a horrifying image could be justified if it was taken last night after some atrocious event had occurred. But no, as it turns out, it’s a photograph taken last December, more than eight months ago, and is simply being used to make a political statement against crime. Furthermore, the photograph has no visible credits and, according to the morgue authorities, was taken in secrecy, unauthorized, and in clear violation of the privacy rights of the family members of the deceased.

Is this the kind of journalism society defends? When do media cross the limits into the grotesque, the pornographic and the obscene? Whose job is it to ensure viewers and readers are protected from such offensive and violent images? Is it only a question of journalistic ethics, or is it a larger issue of values, privacy rights and fundamental well being?

POLITICAL AGENDAS

These are the issues Venezuela is grappling with after the publication of a graphic image, as described above, in the daily paper, El Nacional. The image was then republished in another national daily, Tal Cual, along with several regional newspapers.

El Nacional editor and owner, Miguel Henrique Otero, admitted the image was taken “unauthorized” last December in the Caracas morgue, and said he “held off from publishing it because of its graphic content” until the “right moment”. Venezuela is one month away from critical legislative elections, and Otero forms part of an extremist opposition organization, “2D”, supporting opposition candidates to the National Assembly. Otero makes no effort to hide his “anti-Chavez” opinions in his newspaper, one of the two main national dailies.

In an interview on CNN en Español with Otero, the US news network admitted the image published by El Nacional was too graphic to present to viewers and stated, “CNN will not show this image during any of our broadcasts since we consider it could perturbe viewers and is too graphic to show”. Nonetheless, Otero, and other corporate media in Venezuela, claim the publication of the graphic image is a part of “free expression”.

But Otero did admit during the interview on CNN that he decided to publish the 8-month old photo last Friday because Venezuela is “one month away from elections” and “we are in campaign mode”, thereby admitting the publication of the photo was a political act, and not merely an expression of press freedom.

So, the question then arises, are there limits to media’s power? If so, what are they and who decides what they are?

PUBLIC OUTCRY

Venezuelans reacted largely critical regarding the publication of the graphic photo in El Nacional. A group of concerned citizens protested on Tuesday before the Attorney General’s office, demanding children be protected from such violent images. Litbell Diaz, President of the National Institute for the Rights of Children and Adolescents (Idena), declared to the press, “Whoever published that photograph knew those types of images affect children, but their intention was to destabilize, and it was done with premeditation”.

Diaz and several dozen representatives from Idena, along with hundreds of children and adolescents, requested the Public Prosecutor’s office open a criminal investigation into the publication of the photograph by El Nacional.

On Tuesday afternoon, Venezuela’s Mediation Court for the Protection of Children and Youth in Caracas ordered the prohibition of “images, information and publicity of any kind, with bloody content or messages of terror, physical aggresion, or images that use war content or messages of deaths and deceased that could alter the psychological well being of children and youth”. This is the first time in Venezuela that the judiciary has taken a stance on print media content. The decision also ordered El Nacional to cease publication of such images based on an “Order of Protection” requested by the Public Prosecutor’s office. The national daily Tal Cual was also subject to the restraining order, which was issued for a one-month period while investigations continue.

The judicial decision caused national responses.

Opposition candidate to the National Assembly, Delsa Solorzano, declared during an interview on Wednesday that “pornographic magazines are sold in newstands” so therefore, “children are already vulnerable” to such images. What Solorzano failed to mention is that pornographic material is not fully viewable in newstands and is placed “out of reach” for children. On the other hand, the El Nacional front page was displayed prominently in newstands and shops nationwide.

Forensic doctors working at the Caracas morgue publicly repudiated the publication of the graphic image in El Nacional claiming it was an “aggression” against their profession and workplace. “This is not an easy job, and we do not agree that the [press] manipulate us. We demand respect and ask you allow us to do our jobs in peace”, said Carmen Julieta Centeno, National Coordinator of Forensic Scientists of the CICPC (Venezuela’s Forensic Police).

For his part, President Chavez called the publication of the 8-month old violent image a sign of “desperation” on behalf of the opposition. “The country demands respect…The publication of this image just shows desperation, because they are trying to sabotage the Bolivarian Revolution by any means”.

“The opposition have been working on a mix of plans, so that by today we would have been in a state of chaos in the country”, said Chavez, adding, “Nonetheless, it seems as though their plans haven’t worked and they are desperate now, so they are trying to generate reactions from the people”.

But journalist Alberto Nolia, who hosts en evening program on Venezuelan state television that harshly criticizes the opposition, declared the court’s decision “absurd”. While considering the publication of the image in El Nacional “yellow journalism”, Nolia also stated that “children are not stupid, they know what’s going on. Perhaps it would be better to publish images of people killed by violent crime with explanations about who they were and the fact that now their lives are over, so that kids will understand the severity of delinquency”.

“Neither children nor anyone should be protected from learning of the violence of our societies”, declared Nolia, adding that “the problem of crime in Venezuela is very serious”.

MEDIA LIMITS

Earlier this year, US media struggled with the publication of graphic images from Haiti’s tragic earthquake. In a National Public Radio (NPR) discussion titled “What’s Too Graphic? How to Photograph Disaster”, most journalists agreed that it was essential to weigh the public value and use of the images or information versus family privacy and violent impact.

“Photographs have the power to impact people at a visceral level and change the hearts and minds of public opinion and national focus”, said Kenneth Irby, Director of the Visual Journalism Group at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. “There’s an awful lot of censorship that happens both in terms of military and governmental activites in America (US) in particular”, he added, referring to Pentagon controls over the publication of images of US soldiers killed in battle.

In the US, a country that strongly lauds itself for press freedom standards, freedom of expression is not absolute under the First Amendment. Privacy rights often supersede press freedoms. According to US Tort Law, “material may be published so long as it is legally obtained, not offensive to a reasonable person and of legitimate public concern”.
But who makes such determinations?

Today, the Pentagon is hunting down the founders of the website, Wikileaks.com, because of the publication of thousands of classified US government documents. Wikileaks claims the publication is in the “public interest”, but the Pentagon says it’s harmful to “private interests”. Who is right and who is wrong?

As media grow stronger and gain more power and influence over our societies, these issues will become more prominent in our every day lives. At some stage it will be necessary to stop considering all journalists and corporate media outlets as “proveyers of the truth” and start to look critically at the interests and agendas those powerful corporations represent.

Last month, declassified documents from the US Department of State evidenced millions of dollars in funding to Venezuelan media groups and journalists, to "foster freedom of expression and press" and to ensure favorable reporting on issues of interest to the US government.


T/ Eva Golinger

US INTERFERENCE IN VENEZUELA KEEPS GROWING

Broken Promises

US Interference in Venezuela Keeps Growing

By Eva Golinger



Despite President Obama’s promise to President Chavez that his administration wouldn’t interfere in Venezuela’s internal affairs, the US-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is channeling millions into anti-Chavez groups.

Foreign intervention is not only executed through military force. The funding of “civil society” groups and media outlets to promote political agendas and influence the “hearts and minds” of the people is one of the more widely used mechanisms by the US government to achieve its strategic objetives.

In Venezuela, the US has been supporting anti-Chavez groups for over 8 years, including those that executed the coup d’etat against President Chavez in April 2002. Since then, the funding has increased substantially. A May 2010 report evaluating foreign assistance to political groups in Venezuela, commissioned by the National Endowment for Democracy, revealed that more than $40 million USD annually is channeled to anti-Chavez groups, the majority from US agencies.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was created by congressional legislation on November 6, 1982. It’s mandate was anti-communist and anti-socialist and its first mission, ordered by President Ronald Reagan, was to support anti-Sandinista groups in Nicaragua in order to remove that government from power. NED reached its goal after 7 years and more than $1 billion in funding to build an anti-Sandinista political coalition that achieved power.

Today, NED’s annual budget, allocated under the Department of State, exceeds $132 million. NED operates in over 70 countries worldwide. Allen Weinstein, one of NED’s original founders, revealed once to the Washington Post, “What we do today was done clandestinely 25 years ago by the CIA…”

VENEZUELA

Venezuela stands out as the Latin American nation where NED has most invested funding in opposition groups during 2009, with $1,818,473 USD, more than double from the year before.

In a sinister attempt to censure the destination of funds in Venezuela, NED excluded a majority of names of Venezuelan groups receiving funding from its annual report. Nonetheless, other official documents, such as NED’s tax declarations and internal memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, have disclosed the names of those receiving its million dollar funding in Venezuela.

Of the more than $2.6 million USD given by NED to Venezuelan groups during 2008-2009, a majority of funds have gone to organizations relatively unknown in Venezuela. With the exception of some more known groups, such as CEDICE, Sumate, Consorcio Justicia and CESAP, the organizations receiving more than $2 million in funding appear to be mere façades and channels to distribute these millions to anti-Chavez groups.

Unknown entities such as the Center for Leadership Formation for Peace and Social Development received $39.954 (2008) and $39.955 (2009) to “strengthen the capacity of community leaders to participate in local democratic processes”.

For several years, the Civil Association Kapé Kapé, which no one knows in Venezuela, has received grants ranging from $45,000 (2008) to $56,875 (2009) to “empower indigenous communities and strengthen their knowledge of human rights, democracy and the international organizations and mechanisms available to protect them”. In a clear example of foreign interference, NED funds were used to “create a document detailing the human rights violations perpetrated against them and denounce them before international organizations”. In other words, the US funded efforts inside Venezuela to aid Venezuelans in denouncing their government before international entities.

FUNDING STUDENT MOVEMENTS

A large part of NED funds in Venezuela have been invested in “forming student movements” and “building democratic leadership amongst youth”, from a US perspective and with US values. This includes programs that “strengthen the leadership capabilities of students and youth and enhance their ability to interact effectively in their communities and promote democratic values”. Two jesuit organizations have been the channels for this funding, Huellas ($49,950 2008 and $50,000 2009) and the Gumilla Center Foundation ($63,000).

Others, such as the ‘Miguel Otero Silva’ Cultural Foundation ($51,500 2008 and $60.900 2009) and the unknown Judicial Proposal Association ($30,300 2008), have used NED funds to “conduct communications campaigns via local newspapers, radio stations, text messaging, and Internet, and distribute posters and flyers”.

In the last three years, an opposition student/youth movement has been created with funding from various US and European agencies. More than 32% of USAID funding, for example, has gone to “training youth and students in the use of innovative media technologies to spread political messages and campaigns”, such as on Twitter and Facebook.

FUNDING MEDIA AND JOURNALISTS

NED has also funded several media organizations in Venezuela, to aid in training journalists and designing political messages against the Venezuelan government. Two of those are the Institute for Press and Society (IPyS) and Espacio Publico (Public Space), which have gotten multimillion dollar funding from NED, USAID, and the Department of State during the past three years to “foster media freedom” in Venezuela.

What these organizations really do is promote anti-Chavez messages on television and in international press, as well as distort and manipulate facts and events in the country in order to negatively portray the Chavez administration.

The Washington Post recently published an article on USAID funding of media and journalists in Afghanistan (Post, Tuesday, August 3, 2010), an echo of what US agencies are doing in Venezuela. Yet such funding is clearly illegal and a violation of journalist ethics. Foreign government funding of “independent” journalists or media outlets is an act of mass deception, propaganda and a violation of sovereignty.

US funding of opposition groups and media inside Venezuela not only violates Venezuelan law, but also is an effort to feed an internal conflict and prop up political parties that long ago lost credibility. This type of subversion has become a business and source of primary income for political actors promoting US agenda abroad.

Bad Diplomacy

On Tuesday, statements made by designated US Ambassador to Venezuela, Larry Palmer, on Venezuelan affairs were leaked to the press. Palmer, not yet confirmed by the Senate, showed low signs of diplomacy by claiming democracy in Venezuela was “under threat” and that Venezuela’s armed forces had “low morale”, implying a lack of loyalty to the Chavez administration.

Palmer additionally stated he had “deep concerns” about “freedom of the press” and “freedom of expression” in Venezuela and mentioned the legal cases of several corrupt businessmen and a judge, which Palmer claimed were signs of “political persecution”.

Palmer questioned the credibility of Venezuela’s electoral system, leading up to September’s legislative elections, and said he would “closely monitor threats to human rights and fundamental freedoms”. He also stated the unfounded and unsubstantiated claims made by Colombia of “terrorist training camps” in Venezuela was a “serious” and real fact obligating Venezuela to respond.

Palmer affirmed he would “work closely to support civil society” groups in Venezuela, indicating an intention to continue US funding of the opposition, which the US consistently has referred to as “civil society”.

These statements are a clear example of interference in internal affairs in Venezuela and an obvious showing that Obama has no intention of following through on his promises.

View Palmer's statements here.

UPDATE: Venezuela will suspend all oil shipments to the US in the event of an attack

By Eva Golinger

Caracas, Sunday, July 25, 2010 - After Venezuelan President Chavez revealed intelligence data yesterday during a national address indicating the imminence of an aggression against his government via Colombia with support from the United States, the country is on maximum alert. Today, the Venezuelan President suspended an important trip to Cuba to celebrate the July 26th anniversary of the Moncada Battle. Chavez was to meet with Fidel Castro, recently recuperated and active again in his nation's politics, and was scheduled to give the key address at the Moncada commemoration.

"After reviewing intelligence reports and other information all night, I have decided to suspend my trip to Cuba", declared Chavez on Sunday before tens of thousands of members from the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). "The possibility of an armed attack against Venezuela from Colombia is too high, and therefore I will remain in the country".

Chávez also warned the US government that in the event of a military attack against Venezuela from Colombia or elsewhere, all oil supply will be suspended. "Let the United States know, that if any aggression is waged against us, we will cut off all oil supply to them. Not a single drop of oil for the United States!"

Venezuela currently supplies more than 15% of US oil needs, but also has seven oil refineries in US territory and over 14,000 gas stations run by CITGO, a Venezuelan-owned company. In January, the US Geological Survey (USGS) determined that Venezuela has the largest recoverable oil reserves in the world, with over 500 billion barrels and counting.

On July 1, Costa Rica, a nation whose constitution prohibits the presence of any armed forces, agreed to allow 46 warships and 7000 US marines inside its territory. Last October, Colombia signed a 10-year agreement permitting the US to occupy seven military bases and all civilian installations as necessary within its territory.

US Air Force documents from May 2009 revealed the intention behind the occupation of Colombian bases was to combat "the constant threat...of anti-US governments in the region", as well as to conduct "full spectrum military operations" throughout South America (see below).

Chavez: US and Colombia plan to attack Venezuela

By Eva Golinger

Caracas, July 24, 2010 – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez denounced this Saturday US plans to attack his country and overthrow his government. During a ceremony celebrating the 227th birthday of Independence hero Simon Bolivar, Chavez read from a secret memo he had been sent from an unnamed source inside the United States.

“Old friend, I haven’t seen you in years. As I said to you in my three prior letters, the idea remains the generation of a conflict on your western border”, read Chavez from the secret missive.

“The latest events confirm all, or almost all, of what those here discussed as well as other information that I have obtained from above”, the letter continued.

“The preparation phase in the international community, with the help of Colombia, is in plain execution”, manifested the text, referring to last Thursday’s session in the Organization of American States (OAS), during which the Colombia government accused Venezuela of harboring “terrorists” and “terrorist training camps” and gave the Chavez government a “30-day ultimatum” to allow for international intervention.

The letter continued with more details, “I told you before that the events wouldn’t begin before the 26th, but for some reason they have moved forward several actions that were supposed to be executed afterward”.

“In the United States, the execution phase is accelerating, together with a contention force, as they call it, towards Costa Rica with the pretext of fighting drug trafficking”.

On July 1, the Costan Rican government authorized 46 US war ships and 7,000 marines into their maritime and land territory.
The true objective of this military mobilization, said the letter, is to “support military operations” against Venezuela.

ASSASSINATION AND OVERTHROW

“There is an agreement between Colombia and the US with two objectives: one is Mauricio and the other is the overthrow of the government”, revealed the document. President Chavez explained that “Mauricio” is a pseudynom used in these communications.

“The military operation is going to happen”, warned the text, “and those from the north will do it, but not directly in Caracas”.
“They will hunt ‘Mauricio’ down outside Caracas, this is very important, I repeat, this is very important”.

President Chavez revealed that he had received similar letters from the same source alerting him to dangerous threats. He received one right before the capture of more than 100 Colombian paramilitaries in the outskirts of Caracas that were part of an assassination plan against the Venezuelan head of state, and another in 2002, just days before the coup d’etat that briefly outsted him from power. “The letter warned of snipers and the coup”, explained Chavez, “and it was right, the information was true, but we were unable to act to prevent it”.

US MILITARY EXPANSION

This information comes on the heels of the decision last Thursday to break relations between Colombia and Venezuela, made by President Chavez after Colombia’s “show” in the OAS.

“Uribe is capable of anything”, warned Chavez, announcing that the country was on maximum altert and the borders were being reinforced.

Last October, Colombia and the US signed a military agreement permitting the US to occupy seven Colombian bases and to use all Colombian territory as needed to complete missions. One of the bases in the agreement, Palanquero, was cited in May 2009 US Air Force documents as necessary to “conduct full spectrum military operations” in South America and combat the threat of “anti-US governments” in the region.

Palanquero was also signaled as critical to the Pentagon’s Global Mobility Strategy, as outlined in the February 2009 White Paper: Air Mobility Command Global En Route Strategy, “USSOUTHCOM has identified Palanquero, Colombia (German Olano Airfield SKPQ), as a cooperative security location (CSL). From this location nearly half of the continent can be covered by a C-17 without refueling”.

The 2010 Pentagon budget included a $46 million USD request to improve the installations at Palanquero, in order to support the Command Combatant’s “Theater Posture Strategy” and “provide for a unique opportunity for full spectrum operations in a critical sub region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, anti-US governments, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters”.

The May 2009 Air Force document further added that Palanquero would be used to “increase our capacity to conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach…and expand expeditionary warfare capability”.

In February 2010, the US National Directorate of Intelligence (NDI) classified Venezuela as “Anti-US Leader” in the region in its annual threat assessment.

The US also maintains forward operation locations (small military bases) in Aruba and Curazao, just miles off the Venezuelan coast. In recent months, the Venezuelan government has denounced unauthorized incursions of drone planes and other military aircraft into Venezuelan territory, originating from the US bases.

These latest revelations evidence that a serious, and unjustified conflict is brewing fast against Venezuela, a country with a vibrant democracy and the largest oil reserves in the world.

VENEZUELA BREAKS RELATIONS WITH COLOMBIA

“For the dignity of Venezuela”

Venezuela and Colombia break relations




President Chavez ordered maximum alert on Venezuela’s border with Colombia after the Uribe administration made grave accusations against Venezuela claiming the Chavez government harbors terrorists and terrorist training camps

The outgoing government of Alvaro Uribe in Colombia gave a shameful presentation before member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) on Thursday, reminiscent of Colin Powell’s “weapons of mass destruction” power point evidence presented in 2003 before the United Nations Security Council to justify the war in Iraq.

Colombia alleged that Venezuela is harboring “terrorists” from the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) and hosting several “terrorist training camps” near the border region that divides the two nations.

During an extraordinary session convened at OAS headquarters in Washington on Thursday, upon request of the Uribe government, Colombia’s ambassador to the OAS, Luis Alfonso Hoyos, presented television and video images allegedly taken from computers confiscated during the illegal invasion of Ecuatorian territory on March 1, 2008, which resulted in the death of FARC leader Raul Reyes and a dozen other Colombian, Ecuatorian and Mexican citizens. Hoyos also presented several computer-generated maps and photographs of alleged members of the FARC, which he said were taken inside Venezuela.

NO REAL PROOF

Yet none of the images were authenticated or verified as reliable by any source other than the Colombian government. Colombia also used satellite map images, some from Google Earth, to show alleged “coordinates” where FARC members are in Venezuela.

Furthermore, the photographs presented by Hoyos had no source identification, dates or times, and merely showed alleged members of the FARC and ELN in different jungle and coastal areas.

Venezuela and Colombia share a porous, jungle and mountainous border and both countries have Caribbean coasts. The countries have similar vegetations, climates and scenery.

Venezuela’s ambassador to the OAS, Roy Chaderton said the photographs looked to him as though they had been taken in Colombia. “That looks like the beach in Santa Marta to me”, responded Chaderton, after Hoyos claimed a photo of a FARC member drinking a beer on the beach was taken at Chichirivichi, a Venezuelan beach town.

“There is no evidence, not a single piece of proof, of where those photographs were taken”, said Chaderton, adding that the “evidence” presented by Colombia was “confusing, imprecise and non-convincing”.

The Venezuelan army verified and thoroughly inspected the locations and coordinates provided by the Uribe administration on Thursday and found none of the alleged “terrorist sites”, “camps” or “guerrilla presence” claimed by Colombia.

Upon arriving at the first coordinate indicated in Colombia’s report, identified as an alleged terrorist camp of alias Ruben Zamora, the Venezuelan army found a farm growing plantains, yucca and corn. The second coordinate, which was the alleged camp of FARC commander Ivan Marquez, was merely an extensive field with no structures or presence of anyone or anything.

INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION

During his two-hour long flamboyant presentation, Hoyos called for “international intervention” in Venezuela to verify the campsites and gave Venezuela a “30-day ultimatum”.

“Colombia requests a commission of international members, including all those of the OAS, go to Venezuela and verify each of the terrorist camp sites and coordinates to see the truth”, said Hoyos, adding, “we give the Venezuelan government 30 days”, although he didn’t specify what could happen afterward.

Hoyos also accused the Venezuelan government of facilitating drug trafficking, money laundering, illegal arms trade, attacks against Colombian armed forces and even went so far as to allege the Chavez government “squashes its opposition”, “represses freedom of expression”, “insults other governments” and “violates principles of democracy”.

At the same time, Hoyos said his government would be unwilling to listen to or respond to any accusations, insults or offenses made by the Venezuelan government.

Colombia’s position is an echo of Washington’s, which has accused Venezuela of harboring and providing refuge to members of the FARC during the past seven years. But, the US government has also failed to present any evidence to back such claims, and often makes contradictory statements, which appear to confirm the lack of solid proof.

In March 2010, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) chief General Douglas Fraser said that he had seen no evidence of any links between Venezuela and the FARC. “We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify where there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection”, declared Fraser during a hearing before the US Senate Armed Forces Committee.
However, the following day, General Fraser contradicted himself before the press, stating, “There is indeed clear and documented historical and ongoing evidence of the linkages between the Government of Venezuela and the FARC”.

Possibly, Fraser was referring to previous governments in Venezuela, such as those of Carlos Andres Perez (1989-1993) or Rafael Caldera (1994-1998), which actually housed an office of the FARC in the presidential palace. President Chavez shut down that office when he entered the presidency in early 1999.

Or maybe General Fraser was referring to the specific requests made by two Colombian presidents, Andres Pastrana and Alvaro Uribe, for Chavez to mediate the release of hostages held by the FARC.

With full disclosure and complete authority from President Alvaro Uribe, and based on his own personal request, in September 2007, President Chavez accepted the role as mediator in order to secure the release of several hostages held by the FARC inside Colombian territory. For that reason only, Chavez met with FARC commander Ivan Marquez and assured the release of Clara Rojas and Consuelo Gonzalez in January 2008.

But otherwise, the Venezuelan government has consistently and repeatedly denied any links or support given to the FARC or any other armed, irregular group from Colombia or elsewhere.

RELATIONS BROKEN

After Colombia’s presentation before the OAS, President Chavez announced a complete rupture in relations.
“It is with tears in my heart that I announce that we will break all relations with Colombia. We have no other choice, for our dignity and our sovereignty”.

Chavez also ordered troops to secure all border areas. “I have ordered a maximum alert on our borders. Uribe is a mafioso and a liar, and is capable of anything”, he said, recalling how Uribe ordered the invasion of Ecuador’s territory in 2008 and then lied to President Rafael Correa about what had happened.

Venezuela accused Colombia of failing to resolve its own internal conflicts, including a 60-year old civil war that has negatively impacted its neighbors with violence and drug trafficking spilling over the borders. More than 4 million Colombians, fleeing the violence in their country, live in Venezuela today.

The Colombian “show” appears to be an effort to justify preemptive war against Venezuela. Last year Colombia opened its territory to seven US military bases in an agreement that the US Air Force claimed was necessary in order to conduct “full spectrum military operations” throughout South America to “combat the constant threat of anti-American governments in the region”.

T/ Eva Golinger

Documents reveal multimillion-dollar funding to journalists and media in Venezuela

Buying the Press



By Eva Golinger
Documents reveal multimillion-dollar funding to journalists and media in Venezuela

US State Department documents declassified under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) evidence more than $4 million USD in funding to journalists and private media in Venezuela during the last three years. This funding is part of the more than $40 million USD international agencies are investing annually in anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela in an attempt to provoke regime change

The funding has been channeled directly by the State Department through three US agencies: Panamerican Development Foundation (PADF), Freedom House, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

In a blatant attempt to hide their activities, the State Department has censored the names of organizations and journalists receiving these multimillion-dollar funds. However, one document dated July 2008 mistakenly left unveiled the names of the principal Venezuelan groups receiving the funds: Espacio Publico (Public Space) and Instituto de Prensa y Sociedad (Institute for Press and Society “IPYS”).

Espacio Publico and IPYS are the entities charged with coordinating the distribution of the millions in State Department funds to private media outlets and Venezuelan journalists working to promote US agenda.

The documents evidence that PADF has implemented programs in Venezuela dedicated to “enhancing media freedom and democratic institutions” and training workshops for journalists in the development and use of “innovative media technologies”, due to the alleged “threats to freedom of expression” and “the climate of intimidation and self-censorship among journalists and the media”.

According to the documents, PADF’s objective is to “strengthen independent journalists by providing them with training, technical assistance, materials and greater access to innovative internet-based technologies that expand and diversify media coverage and increase their capacity to inform the public on a timely basis about the most critical policy issues impacting Venezuela”.

However, while on paper this may appear benign, in reality, Venezuela’s corporate media outlets and journalists, together with US agencies, actively manipulate and distort information in order to portray the Venezuelan government as a “communist dictatorship” that “violates basic human rights and freedoms”.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Not only do media and journalists in Venezuela have a near-absolute freedom of expression, during the past decade, under the Chavez administration, hundreds of new media outlets, many community-based, have been created in order to foster and expand citizens’ access to media. Community media was prohibited under prior governments, which only gave broadcasting access to corporations willing to pay big money to maintain information monopolies in the country.

Today, corporate media outlets and their journalists use communications power to publicly promote the overthrow of the Venezuelan government. The owners and executives of these media corporations form part of the Venezuelan elite that, under the reigns of Washington, ran the country for forty years before Chavez won the presidency in 1998.

What these documents demonstrate is that Washington not only is funding Venezuelan media, in clear violation of laws that prohibit this type of “propaganda” and “foreign interference”, but also is influencing the way Venezuelan journalists perceive their profession and their political reality.

The State Department funding not only is used to create and aid media outlets that promote anti-Chavez propaganda, but also to capture Venezuelan journalists at the core - as students – in order to shape their vision of journalism and ensure their loyalty early on to US agenda.

FUNDING FOR ANTI-CHAVEZ WEB PAGES

One of the PADF programs, which received $699,996 USD from the State Department in 2007, “supported the development of independent media in Venezuela” and “journalism via innovative media technologies”. The documents evidence that more than 150 Venezuelan journalists were trained by US agencies and at least 25 web pages were created with US funding.

During the past two years, there has been a proliferation of web pages, blogs, and Twitter, MySpace and Facebook users in Venezuela, the majority of whom use these media outlets to promote anti-Chavez messages and disseminate distorted and false information about the country’s political and economic reality.

Other programs run by the State Department have selected Venezuelan students and youth to receive training in the use of these new media technologies in order to create what they call a “network of cyber-dissidents” against the Venezuelan government.

For example, in April 2010, the George W. Bush Institute, together with Freedom House and the State Department, organized an encounter of “activists for freedom and human rights” and “experts in Internet” to analyze the “global movement of cyber-dissidents”. Rodrigo Diamanti, anti-Chavez youth activist, was present at the event, which took place in Dallas, Texas and was presided over by George W. Bush himself, along with “dissidents” invited from Iran, Syria, Cuba, Russia and China.

In October last year, Mexico City hosted the II Summit of the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM), an organization created by the State Department to bring together select youth activists from countries of strategic importance to the US, along with the founders of new media technologies and representatives from different US agencies. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presided over the event, and anti-Chavez youth activists Yon Goicochea (Primero Justicia), Rafael Delgado, and Geraldine Alvarez, attended as special guests. All three are members of Futuro Presente, an organization created in Venezuela in 2008 with funding from the Cato Institute in Washington.

FUNDING TO UNIVERSITIES

The declassified State Department documents also reveal more than $716,346 USD in funding via Freedom House in 2008, for an 18-month project seeking to “strengthen independent media in Venezuela”. This project also funded the creation of a “resource center for journalists” in an unnamed Venezuelan university. “The center will develop a community radio, website and training workshops”, all funded by the State Department.

Another $706,998 USD was channeled through PADF to “promote freedom of expression in Venezuela” through a two-year project focusing on “new media technologies and investigative journalism”. “Specifically, PADF and its local partner will provide training and follow-up support in innovative media technologies and formats in several regions throughout Venezuela…This training will be compiled and developed into a university-level curriculum”.

Another document evidences three Venezuelan universities, Universidad Central de Venezuela (Central University of Venezuela “UCV”), Universidad Metropolitana (Metropolitan University) and Universidad Santa Maria (St. Mary’s University), which incorporated courses on media studies into their curriculums, designed and funded by the State Department. These three universities have been the principal launching pad for the anti-Chavez student movements during the past three years.

PADF also received $545,804 USD for a program titled “Venezuela: The Voices of the Future”. This project, which allegedly lasted one year, was devoted to “developing a new generation of independent journalists through a focus on new media technologies”. PADF also funded various blogs, newspapers, radio stations and television stations in regions throughout Venezuela, to ensure the “publication” of reports and articles by the “participants” in the program.

USAID and PADF

More funds have been distributed to anti-Chavez political groups in Venezuela through USAID’s Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Caracas, which has an annual budget between $5-7 million USD. These millions form part of the more than $40 million USD given annually to opposition organizations in Venezuela by US, European and Canadian agencies, as evidenced in the May 2010 report, “Venezuela: Assessing Democracy Assistance” published by the National Edowment for Democracy’s World Movement for Democracy (WMD) and Spain’s FRIDE Institute.

PADF has been active in Venezuela since 2005 as one of USAID’s principal contractors. PADF was created by the State Department in 1962 and is “affiliated” with the Organization of American States (OAS). In Venezuela, PADF has been working to “strengthen local civil society groups”, and is “one of few major international groups that have been able to provide significant cash grants and technical assistance to Venezuelan NGOs”.

Venezuela captures a top Latin American terrorist

Plans to commit terrorist acts in Venezuela were impeded

Venezuela captures a top Latin American terrorist

By Jean-Guy Allard and Eva Golinger


Francisco Chavez Abarca was captured entering Venezuela with a falsified passport. The El Salvadoran is known as the “right hand” of Cuban terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, responsible for bombings and terrorist acts against Cuba and its allies during the past 40 years

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez announced the capture of Salvadoran terrorist Francisco Chavez Abarca after he attempted to enter Venezuela’s international airport with a false passport last Thursday.

The Salvadoran criminal nicknamed "El Panzon" not only organized a series of explosions that killed young Italian tourist Fabio di Celmo in 1997, he also recruited, trained and dispatched several other mercenaries to Havana, in addition to personally making three trips to the island to conduct several attacks against Cuban installations.

President Chavez revealed that the arrest of "El Panzon" was made during an intelligence operation on the evening of July 1 when the offender tried to enter Venezuela. Abarca was arrested at the airport in Maiquetia after arriving on a commercial airliner from Costa Rica and was immediately transferred to the headquarters of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (Sebin).

"What did Chavez Abarca plan to do in Venezuela? Who was waiting for him?" asked President Chavez before announcing that the terrorist would be deported to Cuba based on an Interpol request seeking his arrest.

"This gentleman came here to kill me, my heart tells me so", said President Chavez, referring to the Salvadoran’s mission in the South American nation.

"Posada Carriles must be very nervous because we’ve captured one of his main cohorts", exclaimed the Venezuelan leader. Venezuela has an outstanding extradition request for Luis Posada Carriles, who has been protected by the US government since his illegal entry via Texas in May 2005. Posada Carriles, a naturalized Venezuelan citizen, is a fugitive from Venezuela’s justice system, having escaped from a Venezuelan prison in 1985 after his arrest for his role in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed all 73 passengers on board.

The Salvadoran criminal Luis Posada Carriles hired in 1997 is a known criminal gang leader who for years made the headlines in El Salvador for his illicit activities, including car theft, drug trafficking and money laundering.

While Posada, the continent's most notorious terrorist, is in the United States, under the protection of the Obama administration - with a trial that never seems to happen - and a hero of the Miami mafia, Chavez Abarca was imprisoned for two years in El Salvador, not for terrorism, but for his role as head of a Central American network of car thieves.

CRIMINAL MAFIA
In the early 90s, Francisco "El Panzon" Chavez Abarca was involved in drug trafficking and the sale of weapons and counterfeit money in Guatemala. Through these illicit operations, which were all overseen by Posada, he gradually became his confidant.

"El Panzon" was linked in the early 90s with Posada Carriles through his father, the arms dealer Antonio Chavez Diaz, who was involved during the 1980s buying weapons captured by the Salvadoran army in counterinsurgency operations while Posada, his client, "ran" drug operations and transported arms for the US-backed and funded Nicaraguan Contras.

TERRORISM
The 1997 plot to sow terror in Cuba was generated in the offices of the US-funded Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), founded in September 1981 under the guidance of the Reagan-Bush administration, and run by CIA agent Jorge Mas Canosa.

Chavez Abarca was publicly linked to Posada Carriles by the Salvadoran mercenary Ernesto Cruz Leon, when he was arrested in Havana after the attacks that resulted in the death of Italian tourist Fabio di Celmo, and the damage against several major tourist installations in Cuba. Cruz Leon confessed to working under the guidance of Posada Carriles. Cruz Leon also admitted he had been trained by Chavez Abarca to place explosives in Cuba.

The Salvadoran terrorist made three trips to Cuba in April and May 1997, all very brief, during which he placed the first explosive that initiated the terror campaign of 1997. A bomb made of 600 grams of C-4, placed by Chavez Abarca in the bathroom at the Hotel Melia Cohiba, exploded on April 12, 1997, causing material damage to the tourist installation and frightening the hundreds of visitors and guests at the Spanish-owned hotel.

Additionally, on May 24, 1997, while Chavez Abarca was in Mexico, a bomb exploded at the entrance to the offices of the corporation Cubanacan, a Cuban tourist agency.

Chavez Abarca also collaborated with Posada Carriles to recruit other terrorists in Central America, including the Guatemalan Maria Elena Gonzalez, Nader Kamal Musalam Barakat, also known as Miguel Abraham Herrera Morales, and Jazid Ivan Fernandez Mendoza, all arrested in Havana in March 1998, when they tried to bring explosives into Cuba.

Kamal Nadel revealed at his trial how Chavez Abarca provided him with explosive material, detonators and showed him how to make bombs. Chavez Abarca also recruited Otto Rene Rodriguez Llerena, who traveled to Havana on August 3, 1997 with 1519 kilograms of plastic explosive C-4, and placed a bomb in the lobby of the Hotel Melia Cohiba. He was captured upon arrival in Havana on June 10, 1998, from Guatemala.

VENEZUELA
On Wednesday, Francisco Chavez Abarca was deported to Cuba, after days of interrogation conducted by Venezuela’s intelligence agency, Sebin. The Salvadoran revealed details of how he was scheduled to meet with two Venezuelans, who would provide him with instructions regarding where to place bombs in the Venezuelan capital. The objective was to provoke an atmosphere of panic and fear during the upcoming campaign for legislative elections set to take place in September.

Before his deportation, Chavez Abarca also confessed that he was paid “a lot of money” by his Venezuelan counterparts, and was going to help them plan “attacks against political parties” to create conflicts and divisions and disrupt the electoral process. He spoke of “burning tires in the streets”, “setting off explosives” at different installations throughout the country and creating a “wave of terror” in the country that would impede and discredit the upcoming elections as well as portray the Venezuelan government as “incapable of defending its territory”.

The Central American terrorist admitted he was acting on orders from his boss, Luis Posada Carriles, currently residing freely in Miami despite the criminal processes and extradition request against him in Venezuela. He said he communicated with Posada Carriles via “Daniel”, a third party who relayed the message to go to Venezuela, where he would meet with “two Venezuelans at a restaurant near the airport, in Catia la Mar”.

Last week, the US Department of Justice sent its first response to the Venezuelan government in the Posada case, requesting further evidence of his “terrorist activity”. Declassified FBI documents list the Cuban-born Posada as a “terrorist”, but also reveal his former work with the CIA, which many speculate is the reason for his protected status in the US.

US ARRESTS 10 "RUSSIAN SPIES", A US JOURNALIST AMONGST THEM

Vicky Peláez caught in U.S. dragnet

Vicky Peláez was the only Spanish language journalist in New York worth a damn. So naturally something had to be done about her. She and her husband are the sore thumbs in this story and you have to wonder if the mighty U.S. Justice Department wasn’t running a twofer (or in this case a ten-fer) that swept Vicky off the press desk at El Diario/La Prensa so that even if she is ultimately exonerated, her career will be destroyed. Eva Golinger has the story.

BREAKING NEWS: United States Arrests Ten Supposed “Russian Spies,” a Journalist Among Them - español

Eva Golinger

English translation: Machetera (thanks!!)

Caracas, June 28, 2010 – Last week, President Barack Obama shared a typical “American” meal with the President of the Russian Federation, Dmitri Medvedev. Between hamburgers and Coca-Colas, the two heads of state smiled and proclaimed their relationship “stable” and “better than ever.” Medvedev even sent photos via Twitter of his pleasant meal with his U.S. counterpart. He didn’t expect that just a few days later, the Cold War would be resuscitated.

Today the U.S. Justice Department announced the arrest of ten presumed “Russian Spies,” the majority of whom are U.S. citizens accused of receiving financing from the Russian government to carry out “intelligence” operations. Their main violation is that of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which regulates and monitors every citizen or U.S. resident who receives financing from a foreign government for political or propagandistic ends within the country.

Until now, the 10 under arrest have not been accused of espionage, but of having “conspired to act as foreign agents without being registered under the FARA law.” Among those detained is a journalist in New York, of Peruvian origin. Vicky Peláez wrote for El Diario/La Prensa, the most widely read Spanish language newspaper in the Big Apple. She was one of the few Hispanic journalists to criticize Washington’s policies toward Latin America, and who sought balance in her reports on Venezuela and other countries of the region that are normally extremely criticized in the U.S. press.

Until today, no international organization that defends journalists and freedom of expression, such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA – English/SIP – Spanish), or Reporters Without Borders (RSF – French/Spanish) has made a statement about her arrest.

Peláez was arrested along with her husband, Juan Lázaro, a Uruguayan native, on Sunday in their house in Yonkers, on the outskirts of New York City. According to the Department of Justice, Peláez is accused of having received money from a representative of the Russian government on January 14, 2000, while she was in a South American country. Presumably, her spouse received another packet of money from a Russian agent on August 25, 2007. According to the warrant, “just days after returning to New York, almost $8,000 in taxes owed to the U.S. government were paid.”

So, money was received from Russia to pay taxes in the United States?

The warrant delivered by the Justice Department reveals that the head of Russian intelligence in Moscow had sent a message to two of the detainees. The message said that their main mission was to “search and develop ties in policymaking circles in the U.S.” and “send reports” later on. High level espionage?

FBI agents arrested Richard and Cynthia Murphy at their home in Montclair, New Jersey, last Sunday. Anna Chapman was arrested in Manhattan, Michael Zottoli and Patricia Mills in Arlington, Virginia; Mikhail Semenko in Alexandria, Virginia; and Donald Howard Heathfield and Tracey Lee Ann Foley in their house in Boston. Christopher R. Metsos is another suspect who has apparently escaped. Nine of the 10 arrested were charged with “money laundering.”

Last week a document published with financing from a U.S. agency, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) revealed that between $40 and $50 million dollars in financing went to political groups in Venezuela who oppose the government of President Hugo Chávez. According to reports declassified since 2002, various U.S. and European agencies such as USAID, NED, Freedom House, the State Department, the European Commission and others, have financed political parties and groups in Venezuela to “end the Chávez government,” including an attempted coup d’etat in April, 2002.

Nevertheless, when the Venezuelan government has accused (not arrested) groups and individuals receiving these funds of being “foreign agents,” the U.S. government and international human rights “defenders” accuse it of being “dictatorial,” “repressive,” and a “violator” of basic rights.

Last week, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales also accused USAID of financing destabilization activities in his country, alerting Washington that its embassy could be expelled from the Andean nation.

In Cuba, Alan Gross, an employee of a USAID contractor, Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), was arrested in December 2009 and accused of espionage and subversion. He brought satellite and other high technology equipment to the Caribbean country to be delivered to counter-revolutionary groups.

In Venezuela, international agencies appear to be involved in huge money laundering networks, along with their Venezuelan “associates.” Millions of dollars in cash are brought into the country without being reported, in order to avoid Venezuelan controls on foreign currency exchange which exist to prevent illegal activities and capital flight.

Venezuela’s electoral laws prohibit the external financing of political campaigns in the country. Nevertheless, Washington violates the same laws that it insists be respected on its own territory.

EEUU detiene 10 supuestos “espías rusos”; entre ellos, una periodista

Por Eva Golinger

Caracas, 28 de junio de 2010 - La semana pasada, el Presidente Barack Obama compartía una típica comida “americana” con el Presidente de la Federación Rusa, Dmitri Medvedev. Entre hamburguesas y coca colas, los dos jefes de Estado sonreían y proclamaban su relación “estable” y “mejor que nunca”. Hasta Medvedev envió por Twitter las fotos de su agradable comida con su par estadounidense. No esperaba que días después, la Guerra Fría sería resucitada.

El Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos anunció hoy la detención de 10 presuntos “espías rusos”, la mayoría de los cuales son estadounidenses acusados de recibir financiamiento del gobierno ruso para ejecutar operaciones de “inteligencia”. Su principal violación es de la ley FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act – Ley de Registro de Agentes Extranjeros), que regula y monitorea todo ciudadano o residente estadounidense que recibe financiamiento de un gobierno extranjero para fines políticos o propagandísticos en el país.

Hasta el momento, los 10 detenidos no han sido acusados de espionaje, sino de haber “conspirado para actuar como agentes extranjeros sin estar registrados bajo la ley FARA”.

Entre los detenidos, hay una periodista de Nueva York, de orígen peruano. Vicky Peláez escribía para El Diario/La Prensa, el periódico en idioma español más leído en la Gran Manzana. Era una de pocos periodistas hispanos que criticaba las políticas de Washington hacia América Latina, y que buscaba balance en sus reportajes sobre Venezuela y otros países de la región que normalmente son muy criticados en la prensa estadounidense.

Hasta hoy, ninguna organización internacional que defiende a los periodistas y la libertad de expresión, como el Comité de Proteger a los Periodistas (CPJ), la Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa (SIP), o Reporteros sin Fronteras (RSF) ha declarado sobre su detención.

Peláez fue arrestada junto con su esposo, Juan Lázaro, nativo de Uruguay, el domingo en su casa en Yonkers, en las afueras de la ciudad de Nueva York. Según el Departamento de Justicia, Peláez es acusada de haber recibido dinero de un representante del gobierno ruso el 14 de enero del 2000, mientras estaba en un país de Sur América. Presuntamente, su esposo recibió otro paquete de dinero de un agente ruso el 25 de agosto de 2007. Según el expediente, “apenás días después de regresar a Nueva York, pagó casi 8 mil dólares en impuestos que debía” al gobierno estadounidense.

Entonces, ¿recibió dinero de Rusia para pagar sus impuestos en Estados Unidos?

El expediente entregado por el Departamento de Justicia revela que la sede de inteligencia rusa en Moscú había enviado un mensaje a dos de los detenidos. El mensaje decía que su misión principal era “buscar y desarrollar vínculos con los círculos políticos en EEUU”, y luego “enviar informes”. ¿Alto espionaje?

Agentes de la FBI detuvieron a Richard Murphy y Cynthia Murphy en su residencia en Montclair, Nueva Jersey el domingo pasado. También fueron arrestados Anna Chapman en Manhattan; Michael Zottoli y Patricia Mills en Arlington, Virginia; Mikhail Semenko en Alexandria, Virginia; y Donald Howard Heathfield y Tracey Lee Ann Foley en su casa en Boston. Están buscando un sospechoso adicional, Christopher R. Metsos, que parece haberse escapado.
Nueve de los 10 detenidos también fueron imputados por “lavado de dinero”.

La semana pasada, un documento publicado con financiamiento de una agencia estadounidense, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), reveló entre 40 a 50 millones de dólares en financiamiento a grupos políticos en Venezuela que se oponen al gobierno del Presidente Hugo Chávez. Según informes desclasificados desde el 2002, distintas agencias estadounidenses y europeas, como la USAID, NED, Freedom House, Departamento de Estado, Comisión Europea y otras, han financiado partidos y grupos políticos en Venezuela para “salir del gobierno de Chávez”, incluyendo un intento de golpe de Estado en abril 2002.

No obstante, cuando el gobierno venezolano ha acusado (y no arrestado) los grupos e indivíduos que reciben estos fondos, de ser “agentes extranjeros”, el gobierno estadounidense y las “defensoras” internacionales de derechos humanos lo acusan de ser “dictatorial”, “represor” y “violador” de los derechos básicos.

La semana pasada, el Presidente Evo Morales de Bolivia también acusó a la USAID de financiar actividades de desestabilización en su país, alertando a Washington que su agencia estatal podría ser expulsado del país andino.

En Cuba, Alan Gross, un empleado de una contratista de la USAID, Development Alternatives Inc (DAI), fue detenido en diciembre 2009 y acusado de espionaje y subversión. Traía equipos satelitales y de alta tecnología al país caribeño para ser entregados a grupos de la contrarrevolución.

En Venezuela, las agencias internacionales parecen estar involucradas en grandes redes de lavado de dinero, junto a sus “socios” venezolanos. Ingresan los millones de dólares en efectivo al país, sin fiscalizarlos, para evitar los controles sobre el cambio de moneda extranjera que existen en Venezuela para evitar actos ilícitos y fuga de capital.

Las leyes electorales en Venezuela prohiben el financiamiento externo a campañas políticas en el país. No obstante, Washington viola las mismas leyes que hace respetar en su propio territorio.

NED Report: International Agencies fund Venezuelan opposition with $40-50 million annually

NED Report: International Agencies fund Venezuelan opposition with $40-50 million annually
Eva Golinger

A revealing report published in May 2010 by the FRIDE Institute, a Spanish think tank, prepared with funding from the World Movement for Democracy (a project of the National Endowment for Democracy “NED”), has disclosed that international agencies are funding the Venezuelan opposition with a whopping $40-50 million USD annually.

This exhorbitant amount of financing well exceeds the approximately $15 million USD previously believed to have been channeled to Venezuelan opposition groups via the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the NED.
According to the FRIDE report, which analyzes the impact of this funding in Venezuela, and concludes that more donations are necessary to support the “democratic opposition” to President Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, the multi-million dollar funds are exclusively directed towards political activities in the polarized South American nation. A large majority of the $40-50 million USD, donated by US and European agencies and foundations, is given to the right wing opposition political parties, Primero Justicia (First Justice), Un Nuevo Tiempo (A New Time) and COPEI (Christian Democrat ultra-conservative party), as well as to a dozen or so NGOs, student groups and media organizations.

In the FRIDE report, the Venezuelan government is classified as “semi-authoritarian”, which is a term used frequently by the NED and another US donor to Venezuelan opposition groups, Freedom House, to describe the Chavez administration. The report even goes so far as to indicate that in Venezuela, “Elections are the main link between democracy and dictatorship”. As a result, the international funds provided to political groups in Venezuela are destined to fight against the government of Hugo Chavez in order to “restore representative democracy” and return a more US-friendly government to power.

The authors of the revealing report recognize that “international assistance” for political groups in Venezuela did not begin until 2002, after the Chavez government began implementing a series of major reforms. “The presence of large international donors engaged in democracy promotion, particularly the donors based in the US (including the Carter Center, the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Open Society Institute (OSI), the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF), USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and multilateral institutions (OAS and EC) is closely linked to the Chavez presidency…Their political engagement began in the aftermath of the new Bolivarian Constitution, approved by popular consultation in 1999, which was the starting point of Chavez’s Revolution and Socialism of the 21st Century…Many civil society organizations emerged in 2002 – the year of the attempted coup…”

According to the FRIDE document, “Foreign democracy assistance is mainly channelled through 10-12 small institutions, all of them with offices in Caracas. New political actors, such as the students’ movement or other groups, have rather sporadically been addressed by donors, mainly from the US”. In recent years, an opposition movement has emerged from the universities, backed by Washington primarily, but also by some European foundations, particularly from Spain. These student and youth groups have attempted to project a “fresh” image of the tarred traditional political parties that ruled the country throughout the latter half of the twentieth century and were largely viewed as corrupt and elitist.

But by receiving mass amounts of foreign funding and aid for their anti-Chavez political activities, the student and youth groups have demonstrated that their priorities and actions are directed by external forces, which in turn has caused for a loss of their credibility and has confirmed accusations that they are “agents” of the US government.

US: MAIN DONOR

US agencies are the principal donors to political groups in Venezuela, with annual funds of about $6 million USD. The FRIDE report confirms that this multi-million dollar aid is a result of US efforts to undermine the Chavez presidency. “Until very recently, the United States did not have a prominent role in democracy assistance to Venezuela. When US engagement began under the Chavez government, its political profile consisted of supporting democratic NGOs and opposition parties”.

US funds are channeled to opposition groups in Venezuela through the following organizations, Development Alternatives, Inc DAI (since 2002), the Pan-American Development Foundation PADF (since 2005), the International Republican Institute IRI (since 2002), the National Democratic Institute NDI (since 2002), Freedom House (since 2004), USAID (since 2002), NED and the Open Society Institute (since 2006).

Declassified documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding the activities of these agencies in Venezuela have revealed that their multi-million dollar funding has largely gone towards promoting anti-democratic activities, such as the April 2002 coup d’etat against the Chavez government, and subsequent strikes, destabilization attempts and economic sabotage. The foreign funding has also gone to support the opposition electoral campaigns over the past eight years, including in-kind aid to train and strengthen political parties, help design elections and communications strategies and even to develop political platforms and agendas for opposition groups. This level of support goes well beyond mere donations and evidences a direct meddling in Venezuela’s domestic affairs.

EUROPE

But, not only are US agencies providing the millions to keep the Venezuelan opposition alive and feed the political conflict in Venezuela. The FRIDE report reveals that the European Commission is channelling between 6-7 million Euros annually to opposition political parties and NGOs in the South American nation. Although some of the EC’s work is done with Venezuelan government entities on a local level (infrastructure development), the majority is going to “civil society organizations” and “human rights” NGOs.

Additionally, the FRIDE report exposes the EC for serving as a “channel” for the “triangularization” of US funding to groups in Venezuela, in order to avoid the stain of Washington on the Venezuelan organizations receiving foreign aid for political activities.

Several German foundations, including the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS) and Friedrich Ebert Foundation (ILDIS-FES) are providing direct funding to political parties in Venezuela. Konrad Adenauer invests about 500,000 Euros annually in projects with the right-wing parties COPEI and Primero Justicia, and has a 70,000 Euros annual commitment to fund programs at the conservative Catholic University Andrés Bello (UCAB), a hotbed of opposition student groups.

The governments of Canada and Spain are also funding political opposition groups and programs in Venezuela, though with a much lower profile, so as not to affect diplomatic relations.

The FRIDE report, which admits that a majority of the NGO’s receiving the multi-million dollar funding are actually “virtual organizations with no offices or staff”, also reveals that the international funders are evading and violating Venezuelan laws.
Because Venezuela has currency controls, so as to prevent large amounts of capital flight, there are restrictions on the flow of foreign currency in and out of the country. Additionally, the Venezuelan currency, the Bolívar has a fixed rate set by the State, although a large parallel, or “black market” exists for illegal trading. The FRIDE report confirms that several international agencies, particularly those from the US, are exchanging currency on the illegal market, in clear violation of Venezuelan law. “…An additional problem for civil society organizations has been the ‘double currency’: even after the devaluation of the Bolívar, the unofficial exchange rate is higher than the official one…Some donors have solved this problem by paying in hard currency, by using foreign bank accounts, or by applying a semi-official exchange rate…”

The FRIDE report, titled, “Assessing Democracy Assistance: Venezuela”, is part of a series of studies conducted in 14 nations where international agencies are actively involved in funding political groups favorable to US policies. In addition to Venezuela, other case studies were conducted in Belarus, China, Georgia, Egypt, Ukraine, Nigeria, Bosnia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Mysteriously, the report on Venezuela, and any evidence of its existence, disappeared from the FRIDE website after this author referred to it in a prior Spanish-language article. Nonetheless, it can now be viewed at:
http://centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificados/fride_report_on_funding_in_.pdf

Eva Golinger, winner of Mexico’s 2009 International Journalism Award, is a Venezuela-based attorney and author. Her first book, The Chavez Code, which exposes US involvement in the 2002 coup in Venezuela, has been published in six languages and is currently being made into a feature film.