Hugo Chavez and Oliver Stone
|
In what can only be considered the view of a misguided dupe, Oliver Stone has released his pro-Hugo Chavez film, "South of the Border." The Socialist International (SI), not exactly the precinct of Milton Friedman, reports that the oil-rich Chavez is suppressing dissent, interfering with press freedom, mismanaging the economy, and destabilizing the region.
One might assume that SI would defend the Venezuelan ruler, but instead this organization argues Chavez is hurting the very poor people he vowed to represent. Chavez does have his American supporters, e.g. Mark Floyd at the F.C.C., and Mark Weisbrot of the Soros supported Center for Economic and Policy Studies. None, however, is as devoted to Chavez as Stone.
Stone has directed a celebration that has only a passing relationship to the truth. He relies on the husband of a Chavez government employee, who misrepresents many of the facts surrounding the Chavez government. Stone neglects to point out either the 30% inflation rate, the highest on the continent, or the deepening recession, brought about by Chavez's incompetent management. Chavez has even abandoned thousands of tons of food in shipping containers, despite widespread food scarcity. Most noteworthy is the suppression of dissent and the intimidation of minorities such as the centuries old Jewish community.
Caracas is characterized by a climate of insecurity and fear, conditions that Stone chose to ignore.
Chavez has subverted democratic procedures while seizing control of the oil industry, electrical production, steel and construction industries, agriculture, telecommunications and banking. He exercises his power through the take-over of private businesses and the manipulation of the election laws, unaffected by modulated criticism.
On the foreign policy front, Chavez is just as confrontational. He has been a leading supporter of FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and has signed several pacts for the exchange of military materiel with Iran. At an event for Syrian president Bashar Assad, Chavez denounced Israel as a genocidal government that is "a common enemy," a murderous arm of the Yankee empire. Statements of this kind, and continual harassment, forced the head of the Jewish community, Rabbi Brenner, to leave Venezuela.
Yet despite all evidence and the arguments of eyewitnesses, Stone and his collaborator, Mark Weisbrot, who co-wrote the screenplay, insist the charges against Chavez are "nonsense." They contend that U.S. media have unfairly depicted Chavez as a dictator, oligarch and friend of terrorists, even through Chavez himself defended ties to FARC and military agreements with Iran.
Asked by the New York Times to explain factual inconsistencies in the film and the failure to acknowledge fair criticism of Chavez's human rights record, Tariq Ali, another script writer, said, "It's hardly a secret that we support the other side. It's an opinionated documentary." Of course, he could have said it is a propaganda vehicle designed to sanitize the actions of the dictatorial Chavez regime.
This new Stone feature comes on the heels of Stone's usual anti-American refrain in film after film. According to Stone, Wall Street is filled with amoral, greedy entrepreneurs, the CIA plotted to kill JFK and, the U.S. deserves to be defeated in war. Never mind that Stone has enjoyed wealth beyond the imagining, undeserved fame and status for his obsessive conspiracy theories. He is an exemplar of a new breed: the critic who achieves fame and fortune for attacking the government that affords him freedom to attack it.
If Stone were ever successful in achieving his goals, he would put himself in the position of irrelevance. It is a good thing for him that America remains resilient. If that were not the case, Stone would soon be out of work.
Related Topics: Herbert I. London receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list
Subscribe to the Mailing List
Enter your email address:
Latest Articles
Most Viewed