VZCZCXRO7609
RR RUEHGR
DE RUEHPO #0287 1571918
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 061918Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY PARAMARIBO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9412
INFO RUCNCOM/EC CARICOM COLLECTIVE
RUEHAO/AMCONSUL CURACAO 1131
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 1615
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 1595

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