I've just arrived in Caracas for the South American premiere of my new documentary South of the Border. I've arrived as a media war is heating up in Venezuela, spurred on by national elections in the fall and widespread reports in the international press that President Hugo Chávez is cracking down on the political opposition and the country's financial institutions. Some are even alleging that he is a sponsor of terrorism.
President Chávez is a polarizing figure to be sure, widely demonized by U.S. reporters and cable news anchors who have broadcast claims that he is more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden. But is there any truth to these extreme assertions?
I was first invited to Venezuela to meet President Hugo Chávez during his aborted rescue mission of Colombian hostages, held by FARC, during Christmas of 2007. As is often the case, the man I met was not the man I'd read and heard about in the U.S. media. In the US I kept hearing he was a dictator, a bad guy and a menace. But I found him to be a charismatic and dynamic figure, bent on helping his country emerge from the crushing weight of US political interests.
So in January 2009 I returned to Caracas and spent three days speaking with him. Our interviews were relaxed and informal. We sat around and talked, or ventured into the countryside touring agricultural areas, housing projects and factories that have flourished since he took office. And a side of the man emerged that has rarely if ever been glimpsed in the U.S. media.
I then set out across South America to interview his allies in the region -- President Evo Morales of Bolivia, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Cristina Kirchner of Argentina, as well as her husband and ex-President Nestor Kirchner, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Raúl Castro of Cuba. Leader after leader seemed to be saying the same thing. They wanted to control their own resources, strengthen regional ties, be treated as equals with the U.S., and pursue their own national economic and foreign policies. Out of these interviews emerged South of the Border, a political road movie that offers a portrait of a continent at the cross-roads of change and a new generation of political leaders with a collective determination to set their own political course.
Over the course of the next week, we'll premiere the film in public venues across the continent, including the Plaza Bolivar in Caracas, and the first ever film premiere in the Cochabamba region of Bolivia -- making good on the promise we made to the leaders in the film: to return to all of these countries to screen the film for their people.
So is President Chávez really the anti-American pariah we've read about for years? Is he really all that different from the other democratic, left-of-center leaders who now govern most of the region? I don't believe so, but I encourage you to see South of the Border when it comes out in the US in June and make up your own mind.
For more information, you can go to www.southoftheborderdoc.com
This will be the first in a series of 'dispatches from South of the Border' that will be filed over the next eight days by the filmmaking team providing insights and color as Oliver fulfills a promise he made to the leaders featured in the film that he would return to share "South of the Border" with the people.
The website venezuelanalysis.com is looking for a hard-working journalist interested in spreading word about what is happening in Venezuela.
They are both extremist liars that have absolute disregard for logic, ethics and the right of people to think and act for themselves without coercion.
My point is -actively- worry about the US instead of using someone else's misery to help you "make points" out of thin air . Volunteer -here- to increase literacy levels, sponsor a child in need, bring food to the elderly.
People from Latin America often cannot believe their government is doing anything GOOD, when they are.
There is very low social trust in Latin America, for good reason. That means that people may trust family members but not the broader society including government and politicians.
I know this but even I was surprise to hear Colombians saying things about the presidential candidate, Íngrid Betancourt, who'd been held by the FARC for 6 1/2 years after she was released like "She is a lying politician like all them" and "She deserved to be kidnapped." Really incredible.
I found myself wondering if some Latin Americans aren't so cynical that even if they had Jesus Christ as president they wouldn't say "Well he deserves to be crucified."
This is not to say Chavez, or any other of the presidents mentioned, are messiahs. Just saying that if you ask those Latin Americans who say their own president is a demon, who was not, which president wasn't a demon, I bet they can't name one or can only name one.
It is just a matter of perspective. Who is the worst leader? More often than not it is the one you, yourself, have to put up with.
Further: Chavez is doing some short term good. But he is not giving tools for anyone -poor- to stop being poor and dependant.
So his "good" is scraps- to keep the people happy.
Hey, that government is the natural consequence of the 50 previous years as well. I clearly concede to that So that poverty-manipulation story is not new. But now it is worst.
That is not a democratic movement, it is the return to feudalism.
there's your perspective
I guess I have annoyed you with too much reality.
I guess it's time for more of your Kool aid.
There has to be a bridge between the two states.
Clinton was just speaking on this. He said we need to help countries build [productive] capacity and ensure all the people share in the bounty created by that capacity.
He said the Haitians in need, the Americans who bring guns to town meetings and the people who have elected populist leaders in Latin America feel they have been left out of the bounty, that they don't have control over their lives. And until we build capacity and share the prosperity, they will continue to elect more and more radical leaders. They'll continue to behave more and more irrationally as in the US running around with guns in the public forum.
If the US conservatives get their way, you'll be longing for the days of Chavez. Surely they'll install a military dictatorship. You won't have to worry about the poor getting scraps, no Venezuelan will get anything. The entire point is to exploit Venezuelans and take their wealth, by force if need be. So, don't give your enemy any aid or comfort by sharing in the demonization of Chavez. It is a pretext. They don't care about democracy anywhere.
You don't object to communism (China) or totalitarianism (Saudi Arabia) around the world as long as they have people you can exploit or resources you want. And you don't object to people being killed or starved either if they have no natural resources you want that is.
So, you really have simple values. Natural resources should be exploited to benefit the US and the people should exploited to benefit the US. And Chavez thumbs his nose at you. That is your real problem with him.
democracy is: ----------not american idol-----------
it is not -an election- it is not a popularity contest.
Democracy is a ---------------System---------------------
Not a person.
I rest my case- the rest I assume, is beyond your means to comprehend.
But, you know what? I don't get to pick. Only the Venezuela people get to do that.
My big objection to the demonization of Chavez by US conservatives is b/c the only purpose is to subvert the will of the Venezuelan people. And the reason US conservatives want to subvert the will of the Venezuelan people is so that they can put into place a government, probably a military dictatorship, that will allow them to take the natural resource of Venezuela and exploit the people.
Only the Venezuelans have a right to replace Chavez. No one in the US or nor in multinational corporations.
Isn't Chavez trying to change the rules there so he can be in office forever and not have any more elections....
Oh yes...the U.S. wants to subvert the will of the people that has apparently already been subverted and exploit people who seem to already be exploited.
I agree with you about intervention - up to limit. But should the current food shortages turn into famine, and should Chavez block international aid, the international community will face the options of intervention or mass deaths.
One difference is recognizing real short-comings (left) vs. exaggerating those short-comings and inventing new ones (right).
Another difference is the motivation. The right has consistently advocated the overthrow of democratic regimes whereas the left has no.
I am Venezuelan, hey! Why don't I take you to for a night in caucaguita, no police escort, no cameras, to live in a Rancho? better, I'll ask you how you feel as you walk up the stairs for the first half an hour, carryibng buckets of water to your shack to drink, defecate, bath and prepare pasta with sardines at dinner time? why don't I leave you alone to leave the slums at three AM? [you wont last one block --whitie--, a racist-government-backed-revolution is what's going on there- you are the enemy]. Your client... your "John"... Chavez, has been in power for 10 years and those conditions are worse than the way he found them, on the other hand he has gotten the highest historical oil revenues in history. Mr. Green,go home. take your condescendencing tourist mentality and go pros--ti--t-te your self to get some cr-a --q somehwere else. Venezuela has enough degradation without people like you.
How nice that all this praise is being given to Chavez.
Anybody making or appearing in a movie, is sure to put their
best foot forward....
Sometimes if you read between the lines you find that same foot in the mouth.
Maybe it is time for some of the Hollywood bleeding hearts to move to Venezuela since they seem to like it so much.
Funny how many people have praise for some countries that seem to be very restrictive, but choose to spend their time in the
U.S. Wonder why that is....Could it be freedom of speech...
No matter what kind of speech it happens to be....
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/44305
Why am I afraid? Because some of the greatest famines of the 20'th century -- China, Russia, North Korea -- were caused or enormously aggravated by the collectivization of food production.
I wonder if Stone fully realizes the import of his politics.
That is why I oppose "collectivization" of food production by agribusiness.
He is the democratically elected president, not a dictator.
Unfortunately, when I research Hugo, I find out that he has killed a lot of people (just like Fidel, Raul and Che), created food shortages, shut down free press and is arming himself to the teeth - even building an AK-47 factory.
US conservatives oppose democratic states and their democratically elected leaders while supporting Communist China (at least by buying their products every week) and totalitarian theocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia (at least by buying their gas every week).
Of course all the democratic regimes they oppose really are bad according to them, they've committed crimes (as though US conservatives have not), and need to be taken over.
The problem is that US conservatives have cried "Wolf!" so many times on this topic, it is impossible to take you seriously, even if you have legitimate concerns.
However, I'm not a fan of theocracies and Israel is far to close to a theocratic state for my tastes.
Israel is defined in several of its laws as a "Jewish and democratic state" (medina yehudit ve-demokratit).
As of 2010, there is no civil marriage in Israel. If you are a secular state, why not have secular marriage? Freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom FROM religion.
In 1961, Israeli legislation gave Muslim Shari'a courts exclusive jurisdiction in matters of personal status. I strongly oppose the use of "religious" laws in lieu of secular laws, more so where the "religious" laws provide no justice for women.
I presume you support democratic regimes in Latin America, even if they are populist.