NationStates Jolt Archive

By Kelly Hearn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

BUENOS AIRES -- A Venezuelan-backed TV network modeled after Al Jazeera is set to begin broadcasts throughout South America.
Critics fear it could become a pulpit for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Telesur, short for "Television of the South," is billed as a commercial-free, hemispherewide counterbalance to North American media. It is slated to begin broadcasts within a few weeks.
"Soon we will have Telesur, a channel with information for South American countries, because is not possible that Venezuela and the other southern countries depend only on information from CNN," Mr. Chavez said during a March press conference in Paris, according to a report on a Venezuelan government Web site.
Mr. Chavez has aggressively promoted the network in recent months and landed varying degrees of support from left-leaning governments in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, as well as Cuba.
Telesur's arrival comes amid claims by a ranking Venezuelan official that Al Jazeera is expanding its news coverage from Latin America and planning to establish a regional bureau in Caracas.
Like Al Jazeera, which receives state funding from Qatar's oil revenues, Telesur will rely in large part on government largess from Venezuela, a major global oil supplier.

To counterbalance American news?

That's going to have to be fairly heavily weighted...

The main difference being, Al-Jazeera doesn't have any local competition. There's LOTS of local competition in S. and Central America. Chavez is spitting in the wind on this-no matter how hard he tries, the U.S. is not going to give him what he wants and provide a credible military threat to justify 'emergency powers' and a lifetime Presidency.
The main reason the U.S. isn't going to, is because after he's imploded Venezuela's economy and left it open to "Liberation movements" like Sendero Luminoso, we'll just invoke Monroe to keep Beijing from sending in troops, let Venezuela collapse under his regime, then come in, after he's totally discredited himself, and pick up the pieces.

The current policy is to go after people we PUT into positions they then abused. Saddam, Noriega, the Taliban, all got into power through the graces of American Cold War policies. You'll note, none of those three are now in power, and it wasn't the U.N. that removed their corrupt asses.

Chavez was Elected by his own people-and no matter how much fuss he makes, the U.S. has no dog in Venezuela (it would be cheaper to renew the expired leases if we really get short of oil-a lot of domestic small-wells were capped and concreted in the Carter and early Reagan years) worth invading them. Better to just wait him out and deal with whoever takes over after he's gone...we can afford to wait.
Since we didn't put him into office, we have no real moral or economic reasons to use force to remove him. Chavez, like many typical leftists, doesn't 'get that'. In the last twenty years, the U.S. has only pulled three military operations to remove hostile leaders from foreign lands. All three times, the U.S. either put the bastard into power in the first place (Noriega, The Taliban), or provided significant aid/sponsorship to said bastard (Saddam) prior to deciding he had to go.

By contrast, the U.S. did provide money to Chavez's opponents in Venezuela. Much the way that China provided significant moneys to the Gore and Clinton Campaigns. It's how the game is played.

His new Teevee network will put a fair amount of strain on already-overextended oil-revenues being used to finance his social agenda domestically, and it will face fair to stiff competition from local networks that already have both entrenched viewership, and a hostile-to-yanquis tone. He's playing to a saturated market, in other words. Which, if you're a Yank, is good news-because Mr. Chavez will have to either increase export-production to pay for this and other little political games, or go into debt and collapse his economy.

The main difference being, Al-Jazeera doesn't have any local competition. There's LOTS of local competition in S. and Central America. This is good to point out, especially to us North Americans who so often have incredible homogeneity in terms of media coverage and bias (at the most, we might have two opposing views, but rarely more). In South America, people are VERY aware of the political biases of all the news outlets, and take that into account. You don't flip the channel in Chile and see twenty similar news stories. You see the right wing coverage, the moderate coverage, the left wing coverage, the coverage from various competing universities...etc.etc...there are so many agendas out there that it makes your head spin. It's great fun as long as you know what to filter out. So yeah, this station will have its bias...but people aren't stupid. They may AGREE with the bias, and like what it has to say...but that's a different issue altogether.

I still say Chavez is absolutely off his rocker.

I still say Chavez is absolutely off his rocker.

He maybe but having actually been to Venezuela i would sugges that the guy is doing a pretty good job of using oil to educate and mobilize his people.

This TV station will be great, currently so much of the news in south America (i spent a lot of time there) is either CNN or Foz hardly the best in the world.

The main difference being, Al-Jazeera doesn't have any local competition. There's LOTS of local competition in S. and Central America. Chavez is spitting in the wind on this-no matter how hard he tries, the U.S. is not going to give him what he wants and provide a credible military threat to justify 'emergency powers' and a lifetime Presidency.
The main reason the U.S. isn't going to, is because after he's imploded Venezuela's economy and left it open to "Liberation movements" like Sendero Luminoso, we'll just invoke Monroe to keep Beijing from sending in troops, let Venezuela collapse under his regime, then come in, after he's totally discredited himself, and pick up the pieces.

The current policy is to go after people we PUT into positions they then abused. Saddam, Noriega, the Taliban, all got into power through the graces of American Cold War policies. You'll note, none of those three are now in power, and it wasn't the U.N. that removed their corrupt asses.

Chavez was Elected by his own people-and no matter how much fuss he makes, the U.S. has no dog in Venezuela (it would be cheaper to renew the expired leases if we really get short of oil-a lot of domestic small-wells were capped and concreted in the Carter and early Reagan years) worth invading them. Better to just wait him out and deal with whoever takes over after he's gone...we can afford to wait.
Since we didn't put him into office, we have no real moral or economic reasons to use force to remove him. Chavez, like many typical leftists, doesn't 'get that'. In the last twenty years, the U.S. has only pulled three military operations to remove hostile leaders from foreign lands. All three times, the U.S. either put the bastard into power in the first place (Noriega, The Taliban), or provided significant aid/sponsorship to said bastard (Saddam) prior to deciding he had to go.

By contrast, the U.S. did provide money to Chavez's opponents in Venezuela. Much the way that China provided significant moneys to the Gore and Clinton Campaigns. It's how the game is played.

His new Teevee network will put a fair amount of strain on already-overextended oil-revenues being used to finance his social agenda domestically, and it will face fair to stiff competition from local networks that already have both entrenched viewership, and a hostile-to-yanquis tone. He's playing to a saturated market, in other words. Which, if you're a Yank, is good news-because Mr. Chavez will have to either increase export-production to pay for this and other little political games, or go into debt and collapse his economy.
I couldn't agree more. I like your post.

...we'll just invoke Monroe to keep Beijing from sending in troops... say what???

Sounds like Orwellian-style propaganda to me

Hurray for regionalism? :)

... He's playing to a saturated market, in other words. Which, if you're a Yank, is good news-because...saturated Just like AlJazeera.
good news Just like AlJazeera.

Great...

Fox: Iraqi insurgants kill several Americans!

Al-Jazeera: Freedom Fighters overcome! Pictures at 11!

Telesur: *at 60 mph*
La concesión de ESTADOS UNIDOS vino en medio de cólera cada vez mayor en Colombia sobre la denegación de Washington permitir que intenten a los sospechosos en Colombia. Pero embajador Guillermo Wood de ESTADOS UNIDOS dijo que una corte de los militares de ESTADOS UNIDOS castigarán a los soldados seriamente si están encontrados culpable. la "inmunidad no significa impunidad," él dijo. La madera hizo los comentarios durante una visita al estado occidental de Tolima donde arrestaron martes en un estado de lujo y fueron acusado al oficial Allan N. Tanquary y sargento Jesús Hernandez de la autorización de trazar entregar 40.000 redondos de munición a una milicia paramilitary. Turned.over a las autoridades de ESTADOS UNIDOS el jueves a pesar de llamadas extensas de legisladores y de altos funcionarios para que hagan frente a ensayo en Colombia. El caso ha desconcertado profundamente Washington, viniendo menos de dos meses después de que cinco ESTADOS UNIDOS mantienen detuvieron a los miembros para la cocaína alegado que pasaba de contrabando a bordo de un avión militar a los Estados Unidos. La madera eliminó la elevación de la inmunidad diplomática dada a los soldados bajo tratado 1974 entre las dos naciones. Sin embargo, él dijo: "si Colombia desea cambiar nuestro acuerdo, estamos preparados siempre para recibir su oferta." A le los investigadores colombianos dichos se permitirá preguntar a los sospechosos en la embajada de ESTADOS UNIDOS antes de que los vuelen a los Estados Unidos dentro de los días que vienen.


*gasp* Don't bother translating that. I pulled it off of CNN.com ;)

This is going to be fun. We speak Portuguese, and have about 200 million people. The rest of South America including Venezuela speaks Spanish and has about 200 million people. Telesur will broadcast in what Portuñol?

(I know that French Guiana and Suriname do not speak Spanish, but they don't count much)

Can we then assume Mister Chavez's network will follow the Fox News model?

He maybe but having actually been to Venezuela i would sugges that the guy is doing a pretty good job of using oil to educate and mobilize his people.

This TV station will be great, currently so much of the news in south America (i spent a lot of time there) is either CNN or Foz hardly the best in the world.
So, Hitler educated and mobilized his people, and he was clearly nuts. No, my point is his driveling on about a US invasion that isn't going to happen, and to any sane human being is not in anyone's line of thought until he brings it up is one of the key factors.

That and believing in a thousand-and-one conspiracies.

Can we then assume Mister Chavez's network will follow the Fox News model?
Yes.

..having actually been to Venezuela i would suggest that the guy is doing a pretty good job of using oil to educate and mobilize his people..and he will be reelected...the people will vote for him.

If I not mistaken the media in Venezuela is very right wing biased, that they for example showed in a movie that covered the cuop. But so it could be understandiable that Chavez want to balance it a bit.And maybee the same thing is true in some other countries in south america, just a guess. Even if I glad to hear from this thread that you have very diffrent kinds of opinions in the medias in some south american countries.

Who cares? A country gets it own tv channel, big deal

I didn't see anyone "driveling on" about the US invading Venezuela, in fact I didn't see anyone mention it at all. Personally I don't think it's impossible, purely due to the way that America seems to now conduct itself as an Empire these days. Compare "bringing democracy" with "civilising the savages". In this light it seems very unlikely that America will limit itself to intervene with the sovreignty of national leaders they've chosen themselves. Why would they?

say what???

"the Monroe Doctrine"-it's been core U.S. foreign policy since President Monroe (a very, very, early American Prez). Basically, if you interpret it strictly, it involves not letting powers from outside the Western Hemisphere establish new colonial presence. It was one of the main legal supports for Kennedy's stand against Russian missiles on Cuba, and it's been used by most U.S. Presidents to keep other colonial and Imperial powers out of the Americas (or limit the presence they DO have.)

Chavez' positioning appears to be in preparation for extending an invitation to the second-most-powerful national Military (Single nation) in the world: China. See, I actually believe He believes the U.S. is going to invade. There was some rumbling that the new Panamanian government was going to contract the Chinese Army to secure the Canal Zone-this was in late 2000/early 2001, it is not beyond possibility that the PRC might be contracted by the Chavez government to provide additional security-especially if he sincerely believes the U.S. is a threat, and isn't just using anti-US sentiments to generate foreign political capital in a cynical bid to get on the cover of Time Magazine.

Under the Monroe doctrine, the U.S. could be pushed into a war-stance by such an invitation, since the basic premise is to keep "Great Powers" of the old world out of the western hemisphere. given the militancy of the current administration, and the nervousness of most sane people to losing the "big moat" formed by the Pacific and Atlantic (yeah, they can bomb us, but a land-invasion's just not doable without a ready-made beachead...), such a possibility is not outside the realm of reason, and is one of the few motivators that could actually generate an American Invasion of a fairly-developed South or Central American Nation.

Or, to put it another way, if Chavez offers to let China, North Korea, Russia, France, Germany, etc. establish a significant military presence, he could touch off the war he's been ranting is coming. The U.S. generally holds a pretty intolerant view of letting other first-world superpowers establish significant bases here in the western hemisphere.

"the Monroe Doctrine"-it's been core
[...blah blah blah...]


The problem with your posts on this topic is that you assume you have a profound insight into the brain of an individual (Chavez). Unless you are a mind reader/psychic, you are assuming WAY too much. Oh, and I dont believe in psychics.

I didn't see anyone "driveling on" about the US invading Venezuela, in fact I didn't see anyone mention it at all. Personally I don't think it's impossible, purely due to the way that America seems to now conduct itself as an Empire these days. Compare "bringing democracy" with "civilising the savages". In this light it seems very unlikely that America will limit itself to intervene with the sovreignty of national leaders they've chosen themselves. Why would they?

Look again at what the U.S. has sent forces to overturn. In every case, the Leaders we've stepped in and "relieved with bullets" have been current or former U.S. foreign-policy sock-puppets. Chavez isn't one of those. It's a simple cost-benefit relationship, when you get down to it. It costs the U.S. less to let Chavez rant and screw up than it does to send forces. The only way to really shift that balance is to change the balance-of-power militarily to create a threat, Chavez signing a mutual-defense pact with Red China, or North Korea could do it, whereas a pact with, say, Peru would barely generate a ripple.
Economically, Chavez' programmes are reliant on Oil-Revenues, since Oil is sold on an Open Market basis, it's in American interests for him to need to sell as much as he can. Since Supply determines pricing, Chavez has to sell at what the Market will bear per unit. Thus, there is no economic driver to put that supply at risk in order to secure direct-control of it. In other economic fronts, Chavez is driving the wealthy out of his country, and they are taking their money with them. Eventually, he'll reach the 'break point' where local investment is outweighed by local expenses. He will, (so the reasoning goes) need to then either alter his policies, or face collapse. The U.S. stands to benefit either way, so there is no motivation there, either.

The only wild-card in this, is whether Mr. Chavez will use a fabricated crisis to secure additional power and possible aid from the Enemies of the United States. An alliance with the PRC that involves significant Military assistance to Venezuela would probably tip things towards an armed intervention based on the Monroe doctrine. Likewise sponsorship of "Progressive Revolutionary Elements" in adjoining countries. The latter is unlikely in the extreme-even Chavez has no love for Sendero Luminoso, M-19, or the other local terrorists-he's smarter than that.

Further, Bush (and you can hate him if you want to for this) knows that the 'red threat' is hollow now-there is no continental-spanning empire that exports 'Revolution' to contend with/worry about. If the Venezuelan wants to make points with the European Union and the PRC, fine-as long as it remains rhetoric, and international business runs as usual, American troops won't likely find themselves intervening.

Finally, there's an attitude in the States that South American countries change their governments the way that some folks change their socks. With the exception of King Castro of Cuba, this has proven correct-so the general attitude makes it prohibitively difficult to justify a war in South America to the American Electorate. Bush is a 'Party man', he's not going to screw the chances of his successor being electable by playing into the hands of America's critics. Invading Venezuela without a damn-good-reason is the political equivalent to putting a gun to the head of the Republican Party and pulling the trigger.

The problem with your posts on this topic is that you assume you have a profound insight into the brain of an individual (Chavez). Unless you are a mind reader/psychic, you are assuming WAY too much. Oh, and I dont believe in psychics.

No, I'm just playing "Most likelies" here. Chavez is rattling the threat of a U.S. invasion/attack on Venezuela's sovereignty. This is a good way to generate sympathy in many parts of the world, and a good way to motivate certain elements at home. It's also one of the early warning signs of paranoia-seeing threats where they are unlikely to be, and taking provocative actions while screaming "I'm under attack" is a classic chestnut for most "Lifetime" presidents, going back to before Castro, and it's a card played by both dictators on the Right, and on the Left. (Castro on the left is a prime example, while Pinochet holds the easily-identified right in this case.)

Based on his statements, charges, and announcements, Chavez is either very paranoid (without good reason), or he's cynically playing up hostilities and fears to cover a power-grab (or to cover things if his ideas don't pan-out long term).

Similarly, LIkely-alliances on the Left are few, if he genuinely believes in the Yankee-bogeyman. Most of South America is either militarily too weak, or politically too "Neutral/Pro-US" to be viable. In the rest of the world, the Soviets are no more, and the EU won't send soldiers.
That leaves limited options for a military alliance (since he appears to consider the one with the U.S. terminated), and Venezuela really doesn't have the military capital to take on the U.S. should his apparent fears prove grounded.
That leaves few options, and the only one with an obvious capability to make the U.S. back down is... the People's Republic of China.

If he's just playing cynical political games, then it's a moot point, things will eventually revert or change without U.S. involvement (and accompanying expenses). Unless he intends to become a dictator, Chavez will, eventually, leave office while still upright and alive, his successor may prove more reasonable/palatable/malleable-and the United States can afford to wait him out.

I would personally not say that American channels such as 'Fox News' display any more impartial news reporting than 'Al Jazeera'.

This appears to be a classic American "oh dear, a news channel might be about to exist that doesn't explicitly support USA, thus it must be propaganda". I would imagine the present American government would close down the BBC World Service if it had a way to do so.

-Snipity do da, Snipity day-

Hmm...Well done. In all of your posts on this thread you displayed considerable insight. Good summation and analysis. I can see few flaws in this reasoning of the problem.

Tell me, where did you come by this excellent insight?

Tell me, where did you come by this excellent insight?the China bit?

he is Psichic :D ...what else is new?

...attack on Venezuela's sovereignty.what you call the Monroe Doctrine IS an illegal attack on Venezuela's sovereignity.

the US is illegaly attacking a (3rdWorld) country's sovereignity...what else is new?