Should we be worried?

Dear David Usborne,

In “The Big Question: Should we be worried by the rise of the populist left in South America?” (the Independent, 4 May 2006) you ask many questions and give these questions your own answers.

While I’m not impressed by your answers, I am very interested in the questions you chose to build your article.

YOUR “BIG QUESTION”: “Should we be worried by the rise of the populist left in South America?”

YOUR FIRST QUESTION: “How far-reaching is the populist left tilt in Latin America?”

YOUR SECOND QUESTION: “How much can this disrupt the world's energy supplies?”

YOUR THIRD QUESTION: “Are the populist policies of Chavez and Morales economically sustainable?”

YOUR FOURTH QUESTION: “With leaders such as these, is Latin America heading towards collapse?”

YOUR FIFTH QUESTION: “Is the rise of the popular left Bush's fault, and what should be done?”

From “your questions” you then easily reach “your conclusion”:

“Additionally, however, there is a sense across Latin America that George Bush, distracted by terrorism and Iraq, has failed to pay sufficient attention to his neighbours to the south. Washington now finds itself largely powerless to halt the shift to the left in these countries. Indeed, if it tried, the backlash would surely only get worst.

At least, however, the US and Europe might be expected to demonstrate a greater willingness to bolster those Latin governments that may be leftist in their roots but not populist in their policies.”

Since the first half of the XIX Century, the United States regards Central and South America as its own backyard. Since President Monroe and even more with President Roosevelt and his successors, the United States - to use your words – did “pay sufficient attention to his neighbours to the south.” So much so that in 1986 the International Court of Justice condemned the United States for illegal use of force against Nicaragua. What happened after that International Court of Justice’s ruling shows even better the US’ “attention to his neighbours to the south.” It’s publicly available information and there are very detailed history books; it wouldn’t be too difficult to take a look if one decided to tell the truth.

I don’t need to go back to the coups, military dictatorships, tortures, rapes, mass killings, desaparecidos and much more (like the first ‘September 11’, much cruel and ‘evil’ but not that notorious on the pages of the Western press). Just take a look at the Western hemisphere’s map. Each country in Central and South America shares a history of US’ benevolence, in your words “attention to his neighbours to the south.”

And every time on the Western liberal press there has always been an article, a comment, an editorial or some other piece of propaganda, “The Big Question: Should we be worried by the rise of the populist left in ...........................?”

Mountains of corpses, misery and unspeakable human sufferance is still there, replying your rhetorical question: NO, WE SHOULD NOT!

But we should be, and indeed are much worried by just another example of travesty of journalism.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Dear David Usborne,

I have read on Media Lens’ message board your replies to Media Len’s co-editor David Cromwell.

I am curious about one point.

In the first reply you write:

“I had a torrent of mostly angry letters this morning about the Big Question piece.”

In your second reply, you write:

“What is odd here, I realize, is that all the emails sent to me today posed almost exactly the same challenges to the piece, as if this was a coordinated response. I hope that's not the case, because that would make things much less interesting.”

I sent you too an email about that article. As you could read, there is no anger at all in it. Was really that torrent made “mostly [by] angry letters” ? Or did you use the words “angry letters” simply to describe disagreement with the arguments in your article? You could simply ignore the angry letters and to kindly reply those with rational arguments and polite tone.

What I find very interesting is that many people took the time to write to you about your article. Also interesting is that apparently so many people (the “torrent”) disagree with what you wrote and – as I did in my email – send you their thoughts and comments. Shouldn’t this interaction please you and make you glad that your readers take you seriously enough to engage in honest, rational and polite discussion?

I find this quite extraordinary, much more so because of what we read on the pages of sophisticated newspapers where every other day someone laments the social and political apathy of the population.

A few months ago the Guardian’s Readers’ Editor, Ian Mayes, described Media lens as an “electronic lobby group”. (If interested you may read my correspondence with Mr Mayes here)

Now you write about a “coordinated response... that would make things much less interesting”.

I wonder why for some people the idea of democracy is so difficult to understand, acknowledge, accept and respect.

I would be very interested in your views on this subject and of course I would still appreciate if you could reply my first email (underneath) about your article.

Thank you for your time and kindness.

Best regards,
Gabriele Zamparini