freelanceintellectual.com

At the end of this film, about half the audience at the Glasgow Film Theatre applauded; I didn’t join in. I knew more or less what to expect, since the film was written by John Pilger, a long-time critic of American foreign policy. Since Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine, there’s been quite a fashion for politically-engaged documentaries – and that’s a development I’m absolutely in favour of. Yes, it means we’ll see partisan, committed opinion pieces taking definite political stands, very different from the impartial reporting we’re given by broadcasters, as required by law in the UK at least. We won’t agree with them all, nor should we. The new popularity of the polemical documentary film is an opportunity for robust debate and an energising clash of ideas: bring it on. And given his thoroughly earned and well-deserved reputation as a campaigning journalist, it’s not surprising John Pilger should want a piece of that action. I’m glad he’s there, because he’s always bound to challenge my prejudices, and because I expect his work to be more coherent a critique of western policies, and more challenging, than Michael Moore’s. Do you sense a ‘but’ coming?

Well, no and – well okay, yes. It’s a good film, this, in terms of the way it’s made, certainly. Compelling, sticking to the argument, apparently concerned about backing its argument with decent evidence (which I don’t mean cynically – it’s simply that it’s not easy to tell, when you emerge from any film like this, the extent to which the evidence it presents is partial or incomplete).

But it didn’t convince me. The thrust of the film’s argument is that the policy of the United States since 1945 has consistently been to try to control the economics and politics of Latin America, ensuring markets are open for American firms and that the Red Menace is kept out of its back yard. It cites a coup in Guatemala in the 1950s which it suggests was instigated by the US, and of course the coup that overthrew Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973, which, it’s widely accepted, was also backed by the US. Fair enough. And fair enough to remind us of the human rights abuses committed by General Pinochet’s regime, which were undoubtedly many, and awful. Pilger traces a consistent history including Cuba, where Castro overthrew America’s man and has paid the price ever after for defying the White House, through Nicaragua, where America backed the ‘contra’ rebels after the Sandinista regime overthrew the dictator Somoza, and El Salvador, right through to today. Pilger sees the emergence of Hugo Chavez as an inevitable and welcome challenge to US dominance in the region. He argues in effect that Chavez is the saviour of the poor people of Venezuela, and that the privately-owned media, the rich Venezuelan business elite and the White House are all engaged in what’s in effect a black operation to oust him from power - he argues by implication, from evidence that the State Department knew in advance about preparations, that the US backed an attempted coup against Chavez in 2002, for instance. The only thing that prevented them getting their way is the love and adoration Chavez has earned from the poorest of the poor, because of the wonderful things he does. Oh, and by the way, the relatively new Morales regime in Bolivia is another part of this wave of true people’s democracy, rebelling against the imperialist gringo and striking a blow for freedom.

It’s difficult to avoid letting my tone drift towards the satirical, I admit. I can buy Pilger’s argument up to a point – I’ve no doubt American policy towards South America has often been cynical, too often unprincipled, and repeatedly disastrous. And I certainly agree that many Latin American societies are far too unequal, and desperately need democracy and social democratic reforms to ensure the prosperity grows and is spread widely; and that basic services like health and education are improved. Where I’m not prepared to go with Pilger is to a position of uncritical support for Hugo Chavez – yes, the film does go that far –  and an essentially anti-American analysis of global affairs.  

Maybe Hugo Chavez is bringing hope to the barrios of Caracas, as the film argues. I’m prepared to admit that I don’t know, although this film will make me take a greater interest in what’s going on there from now on. I’m willing to take it on trust that Chavez replaced something worse, and that some of his policies are good. If, as the film argues, he’s improving education and health in Venezuela, then good luck to him. But I’m not at all sure it’s so simple. At the heart of the film is an interview with Hugo Chavez, which is possibly the softest, mimsiest, most supportive interview I’ve ever seen conducted with any politician. Even a film avowedly supporting Chavez should have at least put to him the main complaints that have been made by the Venezuelan opposition, and by his international critics. Any journalist, interviewing any head of government, should require him or her to justify their policies to that extent. But there was none of that – none at all. Chavez was given completely patsy questions. Or rather, the one actually pointed question Pilger asked – why is there still such poverty in Venezuela? – Chavez was allowed to get away without answering. He did not say why he thought there was poverty; merely allowed to express his ever stronger commitment to helping the poor. Well, almost every politician says that, and some of those whose rhetoric has been most ‘pro-poor’ have been among the nastiest ever to have played the game. So we actually learned nothing about Chavez himself. Yes, the film shows he has support among community activists and others, but that’s not surprising. What we didn’t hear, except in caricature form, was the view of the Venezuelan opposition. Perhaps they’re wrong-headed, right-wing, corrupt, lying, in hock to multinationals, or simply lackeys of the USA. I don’t know. But I certainly learned nothing about them from this film, except, arguably, the implication that they’re all in league with George Bush to overthrow Chavez by any means.

What I do know is that Chavez threatened, at least, to withdraw the broadcasting licence from a popular TV channel that’s often said to support the opposition; I also know that there were large demonstrations opposing that decision. Well, maybe it is a bad and biased station – again, I don’t know. Maybe Chavez’s decision was reasonable. But this film skated over all that, and implied that airing views critical of the government was in itself a kind of treason. The excerpts shown of political discussion on ‘opposition’ TV stations was also highly selective and – who knows? – possibly atypical. No context was given. What confirmed my misgivings about Pilger’s attitude was the short sequence about Cuba, in which he did, admittedly, mention the loss of democratic freedom there – but blamed America entirely, not Fidel Castro at all. So, frankly, can you blame me for being suspicious of his attitude towards Chavez? I suspect John Pilger of being a sucker for any demagogic tough-guy with left-wing rhetoric and a hatred of America. The film ridicules the Dulles brothers for believing, in the 1950s, that communism was a work of the devil; but it fails to mention that Hugo Chavez calls America a devil, even in speeches to the United Nations. Maybe there’s diabolical craziness on both sides; but Pilger knows whose side he’s on. Or perhaps more importantly, who he’s against.

And that’s my second major caveat about the film. It’s all America’s fault, in Pilger’s analysis. Everything. The absence of democracy in Cuba? America’s fault. The unpopularity of the Goni regime in Bolivia? America’s fault. Inequality in Latin America? Yes, that’s right, you’ve got the idea. I’m not going to try to argue that the US has no responsibility for anything that’s happened in its back yard in the recent past – that would be ridiculous. But it’s equally ridiculous to blame it for everything, in the way I think John Pilger does, and set America up by selecting for interview an excessively cynical ex-CIA man to give the worst possible justification of US policy, then editing his answers so as to give the least favourable impression possible even of those answers, and on top of that, by making sarcastic noises as he speaks. No defence of American policy is ever heard in this film, except from this most extreme, unsympathetic caricature. No distinctions are made between administrations, or between regions of the world. Pilger in his final oration indiscriminately brings in Iran and even Iraq – as though the US invasion of Iraq and the continuing, UN-authorised occupation were in any way an overthrow of democracy. And there’s even, in the part of the film about Chile, a chilling reference to the fact that Pinochet’s men attacked a building on September 11, 1973, suggesting that this somehow became ironic in 2001. What is Pilger insinuating? That the United States deserved 9/11, somehow, because of what happened to Allende? That Al Qaeda is part of a global rainbow resistance movement joining the poor of Caracas to the anti-semites and misogynists of Helmand?

A last thought: the Glasgow audience who applauded this film were also delighted to laugh warmly at the very mildly amusing remarks Hugo Chavez made in the interview about coffee, and his first English lessons. I found something slightly scary about the way he said this, actually; but perhaps that’s just me. Anyway, they were exactly the sort of thing I can imagine George Bush might have said about his first Spanish lessons; but if it had been George Bush, the audience would have thought them the remarks of a fool.