This page is an edited transcript of a question and answer session with Greg Palast at the Think Twice Conference in Cambridge, on 23 March 2002. The session followed Greg's talk Democracy for Sale.
You spoke about the "four-stage programme", and mentioned Venezuela. Do you have anything to say about what's going on there right now?
I wanted to go down to Venezuela — I was trying to talk Newsnight into it. They missed the Argentine story: I said "Argentina's going to be in flames." They waited until the day I was leaving on my vacation, and then they said "It's in flames, get down there!" I said "I'm on vacation." They said "OK, where's the next place?" "Venezuela," I said, "February 27th," because I had been given information on the date when a coup attempt would be made. But then the coup was delayed and they set up instead a one-day general strike against Hugo Chavez, the elected president. And at Newsnight the producer said to me, "You were wrong about February 27th!"
I'll try to get down there, but when I spoke to Hugo Chavez's aide she said, "Do you really want to be next to Hugo Chavez? They're probably going to assassinate him within the next couple of weeks." So I said, "We can do a phone interview." One thing that's kept me in this business is that I'm a strategic coward. Anyone who wants to be known brags "I wear white suits and stand up to be shot at."
What happened with Venezuela is that Hugo Chavez took Joe Stiglitz's advice as opposed to the World Bank's advice. Chavez passed two laws that were suggested by Stiglitz. Firsly, he changed the terms of trade. Venezuela was the biggest seller of oil to the United States, so he doubled the royalties — not the price to be paid by final consumers, but the royalties to be paid by the oil companies, mainly British Petroleum and Chevron — from 16 percent to thirty-something percent. To oil-man George W Bush, that was virtually an act of war. They're talking about going after Saddam Hussein, but the real war's against Hugo Chavez, for doubling the price of oil.
The second thing he did was what Stiglitz called "putting an end to landlordism". He said, "The Thatcherites talk about excessive taxes being a drain and discouraging businesses. The worst tax on this planet, which is driving it economically into the ground, the reason why millions are in poverty, is landlordism: the fact that most productive property on this planet is owned by people who are not the tillers. They take 50% of the crops — that's the worst, most horrendous tax on the planet." So Chavez decided that any land which is left fallow for two years — and there's lots of that in Venezuela, there's giant plantations where properties are not touched — that unused land goes to the landless. It's a simple law.
Two laws is all that Chavez has been able to pass on being elected president, even though he has control of Congress. And those two laws, land for the landless and higher taxes on foreign oil companies, mean that he's in economic war with America, Britain and his own elite. And so they decided to kill him. I'm not kidding: that's where it's heading right now.
I was ready to lose my lunch when I read the headlines about Hugo Chavez in my own paper, The Guardian. The line has been put out that he's a dictator. George W Bush was elected by computer in Florida, but the "dictator" is Hugo Chavez, elected by 70% of the popular vote — and no one questions the validity of that election. This is a popularly elected president with a popularly elected congress, and yet they keep talking about "the dictator". I was stunned and sickened that The Guardian would repeat this stuff, would swallow it whole.
The IMF has said such shaded things as "We're not going to get involved in the politics of Venezuela, we don't touch local politics. But if there were a transition government we would be willing to fund its operation." Basically the IMF is saying they'll pay for the coup d'état! No one is covering this. I understand John Pilger wrote an article saying, "Jeez, no-one's covering this!" Well I was trying to cover it, but I can't be everywhere at once.
Chavez himself invited me down. That was a bit of a problem — as a reporter I can't have some subject pay for me to go down. But I'm very concerned about what's happening there. Concerned, not only with what's happening, but with the lack of coverage. And with what we read in The Guardian, let alone the other papers: the false, phoney, fake, propagandistic bullshit coverage. Also I'm very concerned that because of this we're not getting the kind of support from progressive forces worldwide that we normally would see.
One reason that I think that the left worldwide has not been a big fan of Hugo Chavez is that he's not a Sandinista, he's not Allende, he's not a Marxist, he's just a guy from the streets, a reformer. He says "Let's help out the poor people", but without any big plans or giant ideology — no red flags, none of that. He's just a guy who says: the poor people in our nation have been fucked too long.
Chavez is not necessarily a lovable character, a good character, a sophisticated character. It's not a question of him — it's a question of supporting the poor who finally, through democratic means, said: "We'd like to have some of our economy. We are an oil exporting nation, why are we poor? We are a gigantic nation several times the size of Britain, with extraordinarily productive land. Why are we landless? Why are we hungry?" Chavez said: there's no reason. And basically for that the international financial community in Europe and America is at economic war with him.
We're talking about Iraq but we really should be talking about Venezuela, because I actually don't think there's going to be an attack on Iraq. I think that's just sabre-rattling bullshit to keep you away from where the action is. We'll see what happens.
You spoke about the coup being delayed. Do you think the work that you and others have done, putting them in the journalistic spotlight as it were, has an effect of telling them to back off?
It's not enough of a spotlight. A little article by Pilger, a couple of statements by me and virtually nothing anywhere else. I've been ashamed of my own contribution: I wouldn't have given a shit if my wife hadn't pushed me. While I'm running around doing all this other goofy stuff she's saying, "You should be writing about Venezuela."
Chavez is organising against the rich, so they have to decide: do they want to take over the country, which will then be burnt to the ground? I think that is still up in the air, but it looks very, very grim. People close to him don't think he will last, and they say here and in Argentina, "It's not our time." Part of that is the lack of international solidarity and the spotlight. I know you can't do everything, but I wish that I could get more attention on this.