VENEZUELA TAKES OUT SURINAMESE NEWSPAPER AD TO DEFEND RCTV

UNCLAS PARAMARIBO 000287 SIPDIS SIPDIS SENSITIVE DEPT FOR WHA - Deborah McCarthy, WHA/AND, WHA/CAR - Laura Luftig, and WHA/PDA Audrey Pruitt E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PREL NS VE SUBJECT: VENEZUELA TAKES OUT SURINAMESE NEWSPAPER AD TO DEFEND RCTV SHUTDOWN ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: In an ironic bid to influence public opinion, on June 2 the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs took out a page long advertisement in Suriname's leading daily, De Ware Tijd, to explain the May 27 closure of Venezuela's most popular television station and outlet for political opposition, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). According to the ad, the closure of RCTV supports democracy and freedom of speech rather than trampling these principles, as media giants have a "communications monopoly" and don't air programs vital to the public welfare. A second Surinamese newspaper, De West, responded with disdain for Venezuela's "explanation." END SUMMARY ¶2. (U) The ad in the June 2 edition of Suriname's leading daily, De Ware Tijd, is in question-and-answer format, and says that Chavez aims to promote openness and diversity within the Venezuelan media. It claims RCTV violated democracy and freedom of speech numerous times, for instance in 2002, when the channel broadcast anti-Chavez content during the airing of two children's movies. The ad also defends the government of Venezuela (GOV) with comparison to the U.S., noting a fine of U.S. $24 million imposed by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on an American TV network, Univision, for failing to comply with federal regulations. The ad further notes that the international community didn't characterize the fine of Univision as a violation of free speech, but rather responded with a "noteworthy silence." ¶3. (U) The ad also says that RCTV, the country's oldest television channel, was shut down not only because of its subversive activities, but because elements of Venezuelan civil society had called protesting that the television station aired programs not conducive to good citizenship. The ad states that Chavez is not violating the right of free speech, but has instead stimulated and promoted free speech in Venezuela, as evidenced by the growth in media companies in the country and the approval of a Law on Social Responsibility for the media. ¶4. (SBU) OBSERVATION AND COMMENT: Only one Surinamese newspaper, De West, reacted to the Venezuelan ad. This newspaper, which is very watchful regarding the right to free speech, lashed out at Chavez, saying that "we are not interested in the explanations given by anti-democrats who violate human rights and press freedom." Besides this strong reaction from De West, however, the Surinamese media have been silent on the issue, and Post does not expect that there will be any GOS reaction or further statements by civil society. The public posturing of the ad is more likely to add further embarrassment to the situation than improve the public image of the GOV. Or, more likely, the ads will be widely ignored by most Surinamers. Whatever their private judgments of Venezuela, if any, Surinamers tend to be self-consumed and conflict-averse. A few advertisements from Hugo Chavez are not likely to change their perspective. Schreiber Hughes