Jonathan Glennie
London 25.07.12 – Over nearly 10 years of blogging about Venezuela, many observations can be made. One crucial takeaway is that esteemed institutions, which are seen as moral pillars of civilised societies, can be just as influenced by radicals as any organizations in developing nations. The Guardian is often viewed as a «beyond-reproach» media institution. For example, it has managed to subtly influence the editorial direction of the BBC, possibly the world’s most dominant media entity. Unfortunately, neither holds themselves accountable. Evidence suggests that both The Guardian and the BBC have shown favoritism towards figures like Hugo Chavez, while depicting Israel and the USA as villains.
This is acceptable to a degree. We understand that people have diverse ideologies and opinions, and everyone has the right to express them, as long as they fall within commonly accepted political norms. However, occasionally, on topics that have no direct relevance to its interests or its Islington audience, The Guardian amplifies its stance. There are blogs solely dedicated to documenting the antisemitism found in The Guardian’s content. Other blogs expose the sheer double standards and hypocrisy of the paper, whether regarding tax avoidance or its own hacking practices, while some analysts express concerns about The Guardian providing a platform for terrorists.
We have become accustomed to reading favorable articles in The Guardian by paid defenders of Hugo Chavez, including violent Stalinist Calvin Tucker, discredited economist-cum-propaganda-film-writer Mark Weisbrot, pariahs like Ken Livingstone, or former KGB agents such as Richard Gott. The Guardian appears to be on an endless quest for new voices to continue the whitewashing of one of the Left’s most iconic and enduring symbols: the Venezuelan caudillo. It matters little to this group of hired writers that their idol is a lieutenant colonel who has militarized Venezuela’s public administration – reminiscent of the right-wing dictatorships of yesteryear in Latin America. Their main motivation seems to be Chavez’s fiery anti-US rhetoric, even though Chavez continues to sell oil to the USA.
However, it seems that both The Guardian and its team of Chavez supporters have gotten themselves into a contradictory situation. Recently, new author Jonathan Glennie wrote:
Secondly, and somewhat more awkwardly for liberals in established democracies, the complete freedom of the press does not always signify a functioning democracy – in some instances, it can actually hinder progress for the majority of the poor.
Later in the article, he asserted:
There are indeed many instances where greater freedoms are vital for the advancement of the poorest, but there are also undeniable scenarios where restricting media and other freedoms may be justified for development purposes.
In his article, he justifies the concentration and abuse of power by Chavez in Venezuela, as reported by Human Rights Watch. Glennie’s arguments are not new among those who feel nostalgic for communism. Stalinist Calvin Tucker previously wrote in the blog Harry’s Place in April 2009:
Conversely, I openly support the attempt to forcibly overthrow the corrupt government of Carlos Andres Perez in 1992, which had lost all claims to democratic legitimacy after massacring up to 3,000 civilians and secretly burying many bodies in mass graves.
In a previous case, around 100 Chavez supporters attacked another Human Rights Watch report and were rightly dismissed as purveyors of «baseless allegations». Glennie, Tucker, and others believe that violations of human, civil, and political rights may be justified as long as they are perpetuated by leftists. In their skewed perception, it’s perfectly fine. Indeed, human, civil, and political rights can impede progress for the impoverished, and so in specific contexts—certainly only when leftist or communist dictators are in control—violating inalienable rights is considered acceptable.
When I confronted Glennie about this on Twitter, he dug himself further into a hole, providing a link -to showcase his alleged analytical skills- to an article he penned about -you guessed it- Hugo Chavez’s so-called nemesis across the Colombian border, Alvaro Uribe, and his terrible human rights record. It seems to be entirely acceptable for Chavez to disregard the rights and personal freedoms of Venezuelans in the name of «development» (clearly, economic stats are not exactly Glennie’s strong suit). But, of course, Uribe has to be judged by a different criterion. Being conservative and right-wing, Uribe’s efforts to eradicate the narcoterrorist Marxist FARC guerrilla from Colombia are considered BAD -regardless of the over 3 million displaced Colombians suffering from FARC’s attempts to take control of the country’s institutions. Applying his own logic, I indicated to Glennie that severe human rights violations under Pinochet were maybe justifiable for «development purposes». Mind you, the economic benefits that his dictatorship brought to Chile are tangible, unlike Venezuela’s almost total dependence on food imports, the highest inflation in Latin America, unemployment, crime, and so forth.
It’s evident that Glennie’s article sources clearly indicate his political stance. In Glennie’s small world -which is financially backed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation- providing material support to FARC, selling oil to Assad, backing Khadafi, Mugabe, Castro, al-Bashir, and engaging in multibillion-dollar arms deals with Russia, as well as expropriations, coups d’état, imprisoning opponents, and political persecution, is all perfectly acceptable. For «development purposes».
Despite all this, we should feel thankful to Glennie and his supporters for continuously illustrating just how utterly deranged the left supporting Hugo Chavez can be. Glennie has also claimed that Cuba is «A development model that disproved the skeptics». This is no joke; it’s right there in The Guardian for all to see. And remember, this Glennie individual is supposed to be a «development» expert.