De Nuance van de NRC 37

Het stigmatiseren van mensen die in de woorden van Marcel Haenen 'ongebruikelijke standpunten... verkondigen' is een oude en beproefde propagandamethode. En als als in de ogen van Haenen die persoon 'echt te doldriest' wordt door bijvoorbeeld erop te wijzen dat het Amerikaans imperialisme een ramp is geweest voor de armen in de wereld, dan moet zo'n radicaal individu meteen gestereotypeerd worden als een onverantwoordelijke 'doldrieste' gek met volgens zijn 'buren' een veel te 'grote mond.' En dat kan natuurlijk niet, omdat dan de westerse belangen in het gedrang komen, en van journalisten als Marcel Haenen wordt verwacht dat hij dit gevaar probeert te bezweren door de persoon met die 'grote mond' te criminaliseren als een 'echt te doldrieste' gek. Wiens brood men eet, diens woord men spreekt. Zo niet,dan wordt de journalist gemarginaliseerd omdat hij weigert de regels van het spel te spelen. Zo is het uiteindelijk altijd geweest en ondanks de parlementaire democratie en de zogeheten vrije pers is daarin tot op de dag van vandaag geen wezenlijke verandering gekomen, zoals ik van nabij heb mogen meemaken.

Maar om te kunnen meedraaien in dit bestel moet een journalist als Haenen heel veel verzwijgen en voorkomen dat zijn informatie in een zinnige context wordt geplaatst, of voorzien wordt van een op feiten gebaseerde historische achtergrond. En aangezien Heanen de werkelijkheid vertekent door de feiten te verzwijgen, publiceer ik hier een fragment van de Amerikaanse dissident Noam Chomsky uit zijn boek: 'Year 501. The Conquest Continues.' 'Daar gaan we:

'In a major scholarly study of US-Venezuelan relations, Stephen Rabe writes that after World War II, the US "actively supported the vicious and venal regime of Juan Vicente Gómez," who opened the country wide to foreign exploitation. The State Department shelved the "Open Door" policy in the usual way, recognizing the possibility of "U.S. economic hegemony in Venezuela," hence pressuring its government to bar British concessions (while continuing to demand -- and secure -- US oil rights in the Middle East, where the British and French were in the lead). By 1928, Venezuela had become the world's leading oil exporter, with US companies in charge. During World War II, the US agreed to a Venezuelan demand for 50-50 profit-sharing. The effect, as predicted, was a vast expansion of oil production and "substantial profits for the [US] oil industry," which took control over the country's economy and "major economic decisions" in all areas. During the 1949-1958 dictatorship of the murderous thug Pérez Jiménez, "U.S. relations with Venezuela were harmonious and economically beneficial to U.S. businessmen"; torture, terror, and general repression passed without notice on the usual Cold War pretexts. In 1954, the dictator was awarded the Legion of Merit by President Eisenhower. The citation noted that "his wholesome policy in economic and financial matters has facilitated the expansion of foreign investment, his Administration thus contributing to the greater well-being of the country and the rapid development of its immense natural resources" -- and, incidentally, huge profits for the US corporations that ran the country, including by then steel companies and others. About half of Standard Oil of New Jersey's profits came from its Venezuelan subsidiary, to cite just one example.
From World War II, in Venezuela the US followed the standard policy of taking total control of the military "to expand U.S. political and military influence in the Western Hemisphere and perhaps help keep the U.S. arms industry vigorous" (Rabe). As later explained by Kennedy's Ambassador Allan Stewart, "U.S.-oriented and anti-Communist armed forces are vital instruments to maintain our security interests." He illustrated the point with the case of Cuba, where the "armed forces disintegrated" while elsewhere they "remained intact and able to defend themselves and others from Communists," as demonstrated by the wave of National Security States that swept over the hemisphere. The Kennedy Administration increased its assistance to the Venezuelan security forces for "internal security and counterinsurgency operations against the political left," Rabe comments, also assigning personnel to advise in combat operations, as in Vietnam. Stewart urged the government to "dramatize" its arrests of radicals, which would make a good impression in Washington as well as among Venezuelans (those who matter, that is).
In 1970, Venezuela lost its position as world's leading oil exporter to Saudi Arabia and Iran. As in the Middle East, Venezuela nationalized its oil (and iron ore) in a manner quite satisfactory to Washington and US investors, who "found a newly rich Venezuela hospitable," Rabe writes, "one of the most unique markets in the world," in the words of a Commerce Department official.15
The return to office of social democrat Carlos Andrés Pérez in 1988 aroused some concerns, but they dissipated as he launched an IMF-approved structural readjustment program, resolutely maintained despite thousands of protests, many violent, including one in February 1989 in which 300 people were killed by security forces in the capital city of Caracas.
Though rarely reported in the US, protests continued along with strike waves severe enough to lead to fear that the country was headed towards "anarchy." Among other cases, three students were killed by police who attacked peaceful demonstrations in late November 1991; and two weeks later, police used tear gas to break up a peaceful march of 15,000 people in Caracas protesting Pérez's economic policies. In January 1992, the main trade union confederation predicted serious difficulties and conflicts as a result of the neoliberal programs, which had caused "massive impoverishment" including a 60 percent drop in workers' buying power in 3 years, while enriching financial groups and transnational corporations.16
By then, another "economic miracle" was in place: "a treasury brimming with foreign reserves, inflation at its lowest rate in five years, and an economy growing at the fastest rate in the Americas, 9.2 percent in 1991," Times correspondent James Brooke reported, noting also some familiar flaws, among them a fall in the real minimum wage in Caracas to 44 percent of the 1987 level, a decline in nutritional levels, and a "scandalous concentration of wealth," according to a right-wing Congressman he quotes. Other flaws were to come to light (in the US) a few weeks later after a coup attempt, among them, the government's admission that only 57 percent of Venezuelans could afford more than one meal a day in this country of enormous wealth. Other flaws in the miracle had been revealed in the report of an August 1991 Presidential Commission for the Rights of Children, not previously noticed, which found that "critical poverty, defined as the inability to meet at least one half of basic nutritional requirements," had tripled from 11 percent of the population in 1984 to 33 percent in 1991; and that real per capita income fell 55 percent from 1988 to 1991, falling at double the rate of 1980-1988.17'

Lees verder: http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/year/year-c07-s08.html

Zoals u aan de cijfers kunt zien, zijn al deze feiten voorzien van te controleren voetnoten, dit in tegenstelling tot het stigmatiserende artikel van Marcel Haenen in de NRC, de krant die de 'nunance' zegt te zoeken en bovendien ook nog eens 'slijpsteen voor de geest' meent te zijn, die wel iets meer van hun lezers vragen.

Desondanks een propagandistisch stukje zonder context, zonder historische achtergrond, en een geweldige vertekening van de kapitalistische werkelijkheid. Dit is journalistiek in dienst van de neoliberale machthebbers. Onverbloemd en schaamteloos schreef Haenen zijn stuk, in de verwachting dat het als zoete koek wordt geslikt. En zonder ook maar een woord te besteden aan het feit dat in een land, rijk aan olie, tot voor kort 57 procent van de inwoners zich niet meer dan 1 maaltijd per dag kon veroorloven, terwijl 'the report of an August 1991 Presidential Commission for the Rights of Children... found that "critical poverty, defined as the inability to meet at least one half of basic nutritional requirements," had tripled from 11 percent of the population in 1984 to 33 percent in 1991; and that real per capita income fell 55 percent from 1988 to 1991, falling at double the rate of 1980-1988.' Het directe gevolg van de neoliberale economie was dat de kindersterfte in de arme wijken omhoogschoot, met evengrote snelheid als de prijzen van onroerend goed, waarin de rijke Venezolaanse elite de oliewinsten investeerde uit speculatieve overwegingen.

Dankzij de veel geroemde zegeningen van dit neoliberale geloof en zijn bewakers, de immer gedienstige westerse commerciele pers kan deze werkelijkheid genegeerd worden. Sterker nog, kunnen politici die hiertegen in woord en daad in verzet komen, afgeschilderd worden als 'echt te doldriest'. Ziehier het heroische werk van de Paul Haenens op aarde.