Check this out from Media Len about Hugo Chavez:
...unlike so many US and UK leaders of recent times, ChÃ¡vez did not invade nations, overthrow governments, commit mass murder, mass torture, or mass starvation through sanctions. Indeed, in his years as president from 1999-2013 he was not credibly accused of a single political murder.
If it is to be considered fair, condemnation of ChÃ¡vez should be proportionate to the extent of his alleged crimes and consistent with the level of condemnation directed at US-UK leaders' far worse crimes. If ChÃ¡vez gets much more for doing far less, we are in the realm of propaganda, not journalism.
In discussing ChÃ¡vez, Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, summed up the reality:
'He applied the huge increase in revenues to massively successful poverty alleviation via social programmes, housing and education.
'The western states of course do everything to stop developing countries doing this, on behalf of the multinationals who control the politicians. They threaten (and I am an eye-witness) aid cancellation, disinvestment and trade sanctions. They work to make you a political pariah (just watch the media on ChÃ¡vez today). They secretly sponsor, bankroll and train your opponents. The death of such "dangerous" leaders is a good outcome for them, as in Allende or Lumumba.
'ChÃ¡vez faced them down. There are millions of people in Venezuela whose hard lives are a bit better and have hope for the future because of ChÃ¡vez. There are billionaires in London and New York who have a few hundred million less each because of ChÃ¡vez. Nobody can deny the truth of both those statements.'