The Caracas-based correspondent Phil Gunson (left) and Donald A. Lamont, formerly the United Kingdom's ambassador to Venezuela, at a party sponsored by the Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional in Caracas in 2005.By Justin Delacour
Latin America News Review
June 12, 2010
About three weeks ago, I posted a short blurb about a curious NPR interview with the prominent freelance correspondent Phil Gunson during Venezuela's failed coup of April 2002. I noted that it was "grossly contradictory" for Mr. Gunson to describe the coup leader Pedro Carmona "as a conciliator, as a man of consensus" immediately after having explained that Carmona had just dissolved Venezuela's Congress and Supreme Court. I wrote, "one wonders if Mr. Gunson will ever be called upon to explain the words that he used to describe Carmona at the failed coup leader's moment of infamy."
I checked my blog today and noticed that Mr. Gunson appears to have responded. Thus, I must first thank Mr. Gunson for providing me the opportunity to once again call upon him to explain the words that he used to describe Carmona on that fateful day. Below is Mr. Gunson's initial response to me, followed by my rejoinders.
Hello Justin. Considering that we disagree on just about everything that has happened in Venezuela in the past ten years, I'm a little surprised that you want to pick a fight over something we actually agree on. As you know, because you have read plenty of the articles I have written about the 2002 coup, I condemn the dictatorial behaviour that triggered the well-deserved overthrow of the brief regime of Pedro Carmona. Why don't we have an argument about something more interesting, and relevant to today's Venezuela, such as the ongoing coup against the 1999 constitution by the present regime?
As to whether Mr. Gunson and I "disagree on just about everything that has happened in Venezuela in the past ten years," I doubt that's really true. People can draw quite different lessons from contemporary history without necessarily disagreeing on "just about everything that has happened." Although I'm sure that Mr. Gunson and I have some disagreements with regard to what we think the facts are, I would submit that the primary differences between Mr. Gunson and myself have more to do with the lessons we draw from contemporary Venezuelan history.
To illustrate the point, let us revisit Mr. Gunson's NPR interview of April 12, 2002. Mr. Gunson stated that, by shutting down Venezuela's National Assembly and Supreme Court, the coup leaders were effectively "dispensing with the need to deal with any remaining opposition on the part of Chavez's supporters." Here, Mr. Gunson and I can agree that his statement is a factual one. What is in question, however, is whether Mr. Gunson is fully capable of drawing conclusions that logically follow from the facts that he himself presents. I would submit that Mr. Gunson's simultaneous description of Carmona "as a conciliator, as a man of consensus" did not logically follow from the facts that he himself had just presented.
With the benefits of hindsight, Mr. Gunson is probably telling the truth when he says that he did not sympathize with Carmona after the coup failed, but I would submit that Mr. Gunson's glowing words about Carmona on April 12, 2002 clearly indicate that he sympathized with the coup leader at the time (and that he might very well have continued sympathizing with Carmona if the failed coup leader had succeeded in overthrowing Chavez).
The point here is not to "pick a fight" with Mr. Gunson. The point here is to demonstrate that the mainstream U.S. media will tend to favor correspondents whose interpretations don't always logically follow from the facts. The reason that the mainstream media will tend to favor correspondents of this sort is simple: Interpretations that logically follow from the facts do not always coincide with the interests of the media establishment, meaning that sometimes the media establishment wants journalists whose interpretations don't logically follow from the facts.
As to whether there is an "ongoing coup against the 1999 constitution by the present regime" (in Venezuela), I would first ask that Mr. Gunson specify what he means by "coup." To accuse a government of carrying out an "ongoing coup" is a very serious charge that requires explanation before it can be considered a topic worthy of debate. One hopes that Mr. Gunson does not proffer the charge for the simple purpose of trying to justify extra-legal activities on the part of certain segments of the Venezuelan opposition.
19 comments:
Gunson, and most of the intellectual, managerial, and journalist functionaries in capitalist nations are simply lackies for class oppression and imperialism.
That the guy would actually google and search out criticisms is a bit surprising--must be slow in the work area.
The US is simply the biggest purveyor of terrorism on the planet. This point is beyond dispute.
Capitalism is a failed model that is slowly immiserating the world's population and diminishing the health of the planet.
This is beyond dispute. The apologists have the force of the means of information and violent force--so they can create a narrative, a mythos, that keeps things relatively stable.
But those nasty contradictions don't stop--and mother nature is a mo'fo.
Good job drudging this old shit up. Al Giordano did a nice job at the time --but now he is in Obama apology mode. Too bad.
Let's try this. You tell me what I believe, and I'll tell you what you believe. Then we can sling mud at each other until we get tired of playing silly games.
Or we could have a civilized debate, starting from the assumption that each of us is defending an honest set of beliefs.
Bit of an innovation, it's true, but who knows? it might work.
Fortunately, Carmona was only in power for 47 hours or so. Chavez has been in power for 11 years, and counting. There's barely an article of the 1999 constitution he hasn't violated, many of them repeatedly. That's what I meant by 'an ongoing coup'.
Let's try this. You tell me what I believe, and I'll tell you what you believe. Then we can sling mud at each other until we get tired of playing silly games.
So your defense is that I'm slinging mud by simply quoting your own words of April 12, 2002? That strikes me as an attempt to sidestep the issue in question. If you can't defend the statements that you made on April 12, 2002, why don't you just come out and admit as much, Mr. Gunson?
The issue here is not about what you believe in the present tense. The issue here is about what you said on April 12, 2002. Allow me to reiterate what you said on NPR. Immediately after explaining that Carmona and company had just dissolved Venezuela's Congress and Supreme Court, you had these words to say about Carmona:
"He has a reputation as a conciliator, as a man of consensus--if you like, the polar opposite to his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, who had a distinct talent for dividing rather than uniting."
Now, I ask that you answer me one simple question, Mr. Gunson. Based on the statement you made on April 12, 2002, can you understand why some would suspect not only that you sympathized with Carmona at the time but also that you might very well have continued sympathizing with him in the event that he had succeeded in overthrowing Chavez? In other words, can you comprehend why some would logically deduce that you sympathized with Carmona on the basis of your own statements of April 12, 2002?
There's barely an article of the 1999 constitution he hasn't violated, many of them repeatedly. That's what I meant by 'an ongoing coup'.
But there are two problems here. The first is that you refuse to specify the violations of which you speak. The second is that, even if we are to assume that some such violations have taken place, you've yet to establish how such violations constitute a "coup." If the Chavez government were to get rid of elections or to arbitrarily shut down the Congress and Supreme Court (like Carmona or Fujimori did), one could make a case that a coup was under way. In the absence of such measures, however, I don't find the argument persuasive.
Of course, that's not to say that any violations of the constitution would be good. Rather, it's simply to say that your use of the term "coup" in this case strikes me as a cavalier form of hyperbole.
Actually, if you read carefully, you'll see that at no point did I say you were slinging mud. I said we could go down that route if you wished. It strikes me as a waste of everyone's time.
In over 30 years of writing and broadcasting on Latin America, I have never, to the best of my recollection, said or written anything that could be interpreted as an apology for dictatorship.
Your entire argument to the contrary hinges on a sentence in a live interview, in which I was not expressing my opinion of Carmona (whom I have never, to this day, met) but referring to the opinion of others, to whom I spoke while researching his past.
That he had a reputation as a conciliator (prior to 12 April 2002) can be confirmed by any other journalist who researched his background in those days.
You can certainly argue that I ought to have said 'had', rather than 'has'. I repeat - it was a live interview, amid a rather chaotic situation.
I was not the only one to be misled by his prior reputation.
In that same interview I referred to Carmona's actions as amounting to a coup d'etat, which they certainly did.
As for the issue of violations of the 1999 constitution, I have not 'refused to specify the violations', and I'm not surprised you weren't persuaded by my argument, since there wasn't one.
I would note, though, that there's really no need to shut down parliament or the supreme court if you can turn them - as Chavez has done - into mere rubber-stamps.
If you want an example (among many) of flagrant violation of the constitution, let's take Article 328, on the armed forces.
The nub of it says that the military, 'is exclusively at the service of the Nation, and in no case that of any person or political cause (parcialidad politica).'
Chavez has changed their name to the 'Bolivarian' armed forces (in reference to his own political movement, and forced them to adopt the slogan 'Patria, Socialismo o Muerte'. Last time I checked, 'socialismo' was a political cause, and one - moreover - to which millions of Venezuelans do not subscribe.
If the armed forces are supposed to defend 'socialism', rather than the nation, or the constitution, then clearly they could regard it as their duty to prevent a non-socialist government coming to power.
That, I submit, constitutes an important element in an ongoing coup against the plural, multiparty, democratic, decentralised state described in the 1999 constitution.
Hyperbole? Maybe when looked at from the comfort of US academia. Just imagine Bush ordering the US armed forces to chant 'patria, republicanismo o muerte' and you might get the idea.
In over 30 years of writing and broadcasting on Latin America, I have never, to the best of my recollection, said or written anything that could be interpreted as an apology for dictatorship.
Well, I guess that's a matter of interpretation. Some might argue that to refer to a coup leader who has just dissolved a country's Congress and Supreme Court "as a conciliator, as a man of consensus" amounts to "an apology for dictatorship."
Your entire argument to the contrary hinges on a sentence in a live interview, in which I was not expressing my opinion of Carmona
Well, the NPR host's question to you was, "What do you know about [Carmona]?" By deferring to the view of some that Carmona "has a reputation as a conciliator, as a man of consensus," you were not only expressing a favorable opinion of Carmona but were also expressing an opinion that would seem completely contrary to the facts that you yourself had just acknowledged. It is mind-boggling to me that you did not take the simple logical step of pointing out that to dissolve the Congress and the Supreme Court is not befitting of a "conciliator" or "man of consensus."
I was not the only one to be misled by his prior reputation.
But it wasn't just a matter of you being "misled." The fact that Carmona had just dissolved the Congress and Supreme Court was right in front of your face, and yet, in the NPR interview of April 12, 2002, you deferred once again to the position that Carmona "has a reputation as a conciliator, as a man of consensus."
Something is wrong with this picture.
I would note, though, that there's really no need to shut down parliament or the supreme court if you can turn them - as Chavez has done - into mere rubber-stamps.
Winning an outright parliamentary majority doesn't constitute a "coup," Mr. Gunson. It happens all the time in democracies the world over.
Chavez did not "turn" the Venezuelan National Assembly into a Chavista-controlled body. The Venezuelan people did that by voting en masse for Chavista candidates.
Now, as for the Supreme Court, it's one thing to suggest there is insufficient separation of powers in Venezuela and quite another thing to claim there's been an out-and-out "coup." If insufficiently independent judicial branches were grounds for accusing governments of coups, most Latin American governments throughout history would have to be considered coup governments. I don't think such a claim would make a lot of sense, though.
If the armed forces are supposed to defend 'socialism', rather than the nation, or the constitution, then clearly they could regard it as their duty to prevent a non-socialist government coming to power.
While I agree with you that "Patria, Socialismo o Muerte" is not an appropriate slogan for an impartial military, the existence of such a slogan is not grounds for claiming that the Venezuelan government and/or armed forces have any intention of obstructing the electoral process. Thus, I would suggest, once again, that the examples to which you point are not grounds for accusing the Chavez government of an "ongoing coup."
The pure arrogance of US reporters never ceases to amaze me.
Phil Gunson has made a total ass out of himself here simply because he refuses to admit any fallacy, in 30 plus years of reporting. All he would have had to say, is that he made a mistake calling Carmona a "conciliator" in what he characterized as a "a live interview, amid a rather chaotic situation". But instead has dragged himself into a very public dress down by Justin.
Well Justin, I just give Gunson and his capitalist, pro-imperialist ilk the Honduras or Haiti test: find their consistant and abiding repuke of the US and the capitalist world's role in rubber-stamping and enforcing those real coups, and I will eat this crappy mini-lap-top that I am typing this on.
Gunson's well documented apologetics for anti-democratic policies and governments speaks for itself. There is a treasure trove to delve into. One could write a book. But
Gunson isn't an important enough figure to make it worth the time.
Just another flunkie for capitalist/imperialst journalism.
He wouldn't know 'democracy' if it shoved its finger up his ass--or arse. Whatever.
Giordano's communications from the time of the coup are illustrative, and worth researching. Gunson is a total fake-ass, paid-for whore for crapitalist journalism.
Well, perhaps we should give Mr. Gunson a wee bit more credit for at least showing up here to briefly discuss the matter.
All that I can hope for is that Mr. Gunson won't allow himself to be taken in by shady sectors of the Venezuelan opposition again. If it happens again, Mr. Gunson should be forewarned that we won't hesitate to remind people of Mr. Gunson's own history of being "misled" by leading sectors of the opposition.
Just as Mr. Gunson approaches the Venezuelan government with great skepticism, so too should he approach the leading sectors of the opposition with a critical eye.
Well, if we tAke Gunson's comments about Chavez being a 'dictator' om these comments here as indicative, I wouldn't hold my breath.
This type always engages apologetics for imperialist state terrorism.
Again, the record speaks for itself.
Read Chomsky's essay about the usual role of intellectuals in societies marked by huge inequality. Gunson's intellectual dishonesty and demeanor fit like a bloody condom....I mean glove :)
‘Well, perhaps we should give Mr. Gunson a wee bit more credit for at least showing up here to briefly discuss the matter.’
Thankyou, Justin, for introducing a touch of civilization. As for Slave Revolt – what can I say? Toilet language is no substitute for reasoned argument. ‘Intellectually dishonest’? You’re the one who put words in my mouth (‘dictator’), taking me to task for something I didn’t say.
When Chavez becomes a dictator I will say so. Let’s not get ahead of the story.
El Duderino – I’m not a ‘US reporter’. I am a British citizen and write mostly for a British publication. See how easy it is to make mistakes, even when you’re not live on-air?
If it’s all about admitting I made a mistake in describing Carmona as a ‘conciliator’ in that context, I have no problem at all with that.
I made a mistake in describing Carmona as a ‘conciliator’. I should have made it clear what I thought of his coup, rather than quoting other people’s opinion.
Of course, NPR wasn’t asking me for my opinion, but I should probably have offered it anyway.
Here’s where I think the nub of the issue lies:
Hugo Chavez is an unrepentant coup leader, who in February every year celebrates the anniversary of his unsuccessful attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government.
He and his allies inserted into the 1999 constitution a clause -
Art. 350 - which states that the Venezuelan people ‘will withdraw recognition from any regime, legislation or authority which contradicts democratic values, principles and guarantees or undermines human rights’.
Sounds fine and dandy, except that it amounts to an unworkable invitation to anyone (including the military) to remove from power a government they believe is in violation of the constitution.
As members of the constituent assembly admitted at the time, this was a bid to justify retrospectively the coup attempts of 1992.
Chavez has politicised the armed forces, not only by forcing them to chant socialist slogans but by incorporating leading officers into his political party and creating a political militia under his direct control.
This is particularly grave in an electoral context, since under Venezuelan law the military are responsible for security at election time – and they are blatantly partisan.
Chavez’s closest allies and the political leaders he most admires are almost exclusively drawn from the ranks of the world’s autocrats: Castro, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Lukashenko, Ortega and so on.
I could go on. But the point is that – despite all of this evidence – it is your view that the greater threat to Venezuelan democracy comes not from Chavez but from - yes - foreign reporters.
You think it is us, rather than Chavez, who are engaging in ‘apology for dictatorship’. That is what I find mind-boggling.
I don’t harbour the slightest hope of changing your mind on this, and you are entitled to your opinion. But in my opinion you are the one with a slender grasp of logic. Perhaps after all you have a great future working for the bourgeois media!
Chavez’s closest allies and the political leaders he most admires are almost exclusively drawn from the ranks of the world’s autocrats: Castro, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Lukashenko, Ortega and so on.
Completely misleading. Chavez's closest allies are of many sorts. Evo Morales is not an autocrat. Neither is Rafael Correa. Neither are the Kirchners. Neither is Lula. And neither is Manuel Zelaya.
Now, as for Chavez's relationship with some less-than-democratic leaders, you're only seeing the issue though a First World lens (which is unfortunate for a journalist who has spent so much time in Latin America). Chavez is by no means the only Latin American leader who has worked to end the isolation of a regime like Iran's. From the perspective of significant segments of the developing world, the "cure" of having more U.S.-led wars against "pariah" states would be much worse than the disease. Thus, the Latin American left will seek to counter-balance against the United States and Europe on these questions so as to try to dissuade the West from engaging in more wars.
Moreover, Chavez has a tendency to doubt Western accounts of "pariah" states because his own government is routinely maligned in a way that is completely disproportionate to the facts (by the likes of people like you and your fellow correspondents in Caracas). In my dissertation research, I've compared U.S. media coverage of different Latin American countries and found that the level of repetition of claims that Chavez is "authoritarian" is completely disproportionate to conventional measures of the state of democracy in Venezuela. I show this statistically.
The point is that, because Chavez himself is so maligned by Western media in a completely exaggerated fashion, he has a tendency to doubt some Western accounts of "pariah" states. In essence, he's extrapolating from his own experience. He may well be wrong at times, but we ought to be able to understand why he thinks what he thinks.
You seem to think you're raising the flag of "democracy" whenever you stir up hysteria about Chavez, but the reality is that, by doing that, you're actually just fueling the flames of the old reactionary right (in both Latin America and the United States), who are more than happy to try to turn back the "pink tide" by means of violence and coups. The right feeds on the hysteria that the media provide it, using such hysteria to claim that they're drawing some kind of line in the sand against Chavez and "dictatorship" whenever they use extra-legal violence against left-of-center governments. That's exactly the rationale that the American right used in supporting the violent and repressive coup in Honduras. Suddenly, the narrative became all about Chavez (instead of Honduras' own politics). You and many of your fellow correspondents are contributing to the right's narrative by routinely raising the level of hysteria about Chavez.
In sum, I believe that journalists such as yourself are essentially doing the bidding of the recalcitrant right, which is not a pro-democratic force in the region (and never has been).
A BBC interview to Chavez that you will never see in this blog, because it shows the real Chavez and because Delacour is a propagandist:
http://tinyurl.com/2bpuqnv
Keep talking about the past coup Delacour, keep avoiding the present coup, keep being a propagandist.
Keep talking about the past coup Delacour, keep avoiding the present coup, keep being a propagandist.
Well, perhaps if you actually read the exchange, you would see that we're talking about more than just the past coup.
and you haven't watched the interview. Please man, open your eyes. This is the guy you defend:
http://tinyurl.com/2bpuqnv
Only a propagandist can support this guys
酒店經紀 酒店打工 酒店工作 酒店上班 酒店兼差 酒店兼職 打工兼差 打工兼職 台北酒店 酒店應徵 禮服酒店 酒店 經紀 打工 兼差
Gunson: Truly a pleasure (but of course, ultimately a waste of time) seeing you call out Justin on his vapid blogger-cum-armchair theories on Chavez, Venezuela, the american Imperialist pigs, etc, etc.
I look forward to reading your columns on the Guardian in the future.
Cheers!
Well I've just popped my blog cherry reading the back and forth.....thank you boy's, you were great. A question for Justin and Phil. Justin, what do you think of the Chavez regime beyond the uplifting effects for the poor and disenfranchised of Venezuela? Also how would you define Venezuela as a state? I know there is all the chatter of Socialism, but it is a Socialist state in practice? Phil, what do you think is in Venezuela's interest as a country? What do you think they lose by not having Chavez? Do you see his being elected as Democratic? Thanks!
You Moron Gunson
I wonder if you ever questioned your conscience, your morality and mentality? Alas, you sound diffident, hence I urge you to find where you left your heart, if you don't have heart you are a coward and if you are a coward you are callous. Is it fair to say that you can not buy braveness from the store but to have by nature, and why do I argue or concern your heart if you born not being GENTLEMAN, but a human excrement
Just noticed this Justin.
Hilarious that Gunson's defence boils down to saying
"Hey I wasn't expressing my own opinion about Carnona, I just uncritically repeated the indefensible opinon of others."
The poor guy obviously miscalcualted that the coup would succeed.
Post a Comment