Spin and facts about Venezuela and the USA
By Aleksander Boyd
London 14 Nov. 04 | Not long ago an acquaintance of mine draw my attention upon declarations by Venezuela’s Misinformation Minister, whereby he affirmed that ‘independent US attorney’ Eva Golinger have ‘uncovered’ classified US documents that demonstrate that the US government has been funnelling millions of dollars to Venezuela’s opposition to unseat neofascist Chavez. The allegations in that regard of Andres Izarra and those appeared at a latter date in Panorama –chavista newspaper of Maracaibo- have been disproved by Eva Golinger herself. Quite frankly I am disgusted by the practices of the inanity propagating machine of the regime and I hereby challenge publicly each and everyone of the unpaid / paid advocates of Chavez to disprove with verifiable evidence the following facts.
Spin and Facts
1) The opposition gave a coup to Hugo Chavez on April 11 2.002 [spin]. The justices of the Supreme Court of Venezuela (highest court / judiciary entity in the land) sentenced that what took place on April 11 2.002 was not a coup but a vacuum of power [fact]. This was caused by the resignation from office of Hugo Chavez, event that was announced in nationwide broadcast by then head of the military command General Lucas Rincon Romero [fact]. There exist various variations of the aforesaid theme, the most notorious and favourite among which that the opposition gave a coup to a democratically elected president. Another is that “Chavez was taken prisoner to an unknown destination…” Read the decision here in Spanish.
2) The US was involved in the coup [spin]. What is the basis for these allegations apart from Chavez’ own verbal diarrhoea?
3) Opposition groups have illegally tried to oust Hugo Chavez [spin]. Please refer to art. 72 of Venezuela’s constitution [fact].
4) The US has illegally financed opposition groups in Venezuela bent on ousting Chavez [spin]. The Constitution approved by Chavez and his minion in 1.999 admitted for elected officials to be removed from office, provided certain requisites were met. Article 72 of the constitution cites:
All magistrates and other offices filled by popular vote are subject to revocation. Once half of the term of office to which an official has been elected has elapsed, a number of voters constituting at least 20% of the voters registered in the pertinent circumscription may extend a petition for the calling of a referendum to revoke such official's mandate.
When a number of voters equal to or greater than the number of those who elected the official vote in favour of revocation, provided that a number of voters equal to or greater than 25% of the total number of registered voters* have voted in the revocation election, the official’s mandate shall be deemed revoked, and immediate action shall be taken to fill the permanent vacancy in accordance with the provided for in this Constitution and by law.
The revocation of the mandate for the collegiate bodies shall be performed in accordance with the law. During the term to which the official was elected, only one petition to recall may be filed.
How on earth can then be alleged that trying to exercise a constitutional right is illegal? Secondly, Venezuela’s legislation contains not provisions or explicit prohibitions for political parties or NGOs to accept foreign monies. The acceptance of the said funds, in the case of political parties or political candidates running for office, has to be declared to the authorities of the Electoral Power, more specifically to the National Electoral Council (CNE) [fact]. Therefore Sumate and other NGOs can receive all the money that the international entities deem appropriate to grant them. Again I challenge anyone to provide actual Venezuelan legislation proving me wrong.
5) The media is viciously opposed to Chavez [spin]. Where is the crime there? Where is the violation to laws? Is it not true that the tabloids in Britain are equally vicious against Blair’s administration? How about the NYT and Michael Moore against Bush? Pathetic argument this one…
The whole issue of the US involvement in the ‘coup’ is built upon the funds that the National Endowment for Democracy and other US entities have granted to political groups and NGOs such as Sumate. Eva Golinger’s ‘discoveries’ are constantly cited in media outlets, however whatever documents she brings to the public fora do not change the fact that acceptance of foreign funds is not illegal in Venezuela today. Thus if the activity reported is legal, why the ‘denouncement’?
On my part I have also gathered some documents that show the lobby activities of the Chavez regime in Washington, which need be stressed are legal. Would it be not correct to assume that Eva Golinger’s activities in the US, trying to influence foreign policy by prompting people to write to Congressmen and Senators and constantly hassling the media with documents that only show legal stuff, are in fact very similar indeed to what Maria Corina Machado is doing in Venezuela? Will she be prosecuted in the US? Sigh, one can only dream…
6) Hugo Chavez was relegitimised by 5.8 million votes [spin]. The fact is that no one will ever know how many votes he actually got in the recall referendum for the cronies at the CNE did not permit for the opposition to count the ballots; the results were rigged, counting with the seal of approval of the OAS and Jimmy Carter. The most absurd argument of them all is that the same people who said then that exit polls were not to be trusted would like to con the world now with the maxim that John Kerry won the US election according to exit polls!!
send this article to a friend >>