Victory: Inter-American Court Rules Against Venezuela in the Case of Francisco Usón, HRF’s First Prisoner of Conscience
NEW YORK (December 17, 2009) - On November 20, 2009, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) found the Venezuelan government responsible of violating the human rights of Francisco Usón Ramirez, a former Venezuelan army general convicted of slander and imprisoned in 2004 for expressing concern about human rights violations in Venezuela. His was the first case taken by the Human Rights Foundation (HRF), in December of 2006.
The IACHR, the only jurisdictional body of the Organization of American States, ruled in a unanimous decision that Usón had been denied his rights to freedom of expression, due process, judicial protection, personal liberty, and that the principle of legality had been violated in his arrest, trial, and imprisonment five years ago. The court condemned Venezuela for its violation of both the American Convention on Human Rights and its own constitution.
“This is a long overdue vindication for an innocent man who was tried and convicted purely for political reasons,” said HRF founder Thor Halvorssen. “It is a victory for justice and a message of hope for other victims of political persecution.”
The IACHR ordered the Venezuelan government to nullify the military trial against Usón within a year and to compensate him for $90,000 worth of damages. The ruling also called for stricter limits on the jurisdiction of military justice in the future, reasoning that only active duty soldiers accused of military crimes should be tried in military courts. These decisions are binding and final, and therefore not subject to appeal.
On May 22, 2004, Usón was arrested by the Venezuelan National Guard on orders from military intelligence and held, without bail, pending trial. On October 8, 2004, he was sentenced to serve five and a half years in a military prison for allegedly slandering the armed forces on a morning television show which aired on April 16, 2004, when he commented about the instances surrounding a deadly fire at a Venezuelan military base.
Despite the fact that Usón never disclosed any military secrets nor spoke disrespectfully of any person, he was arrested and charged with “defamation” against the National Armed Forces. Further, he was tried in a military court, even though he was a civilian. Usón was released on Christmas Eve 2007, but he has remained confined to the strict restrictions of the Venezuelan parole system.
Usón, formerly a cabinet member under President Hugo Chávez, resigned his post in protest of the government’s use of violence against unarmed civilian demonstrators. After HRF began campaigning for Usón’s freedom, President Chávez offered him a presidential pardon, which Usón rejected, declaring, “...as an innocent man, I need no such pardon.”
“Auspiciously, the IACHR has granted Usón the exoneration he deserves. The clearing of his name is a triumph not only for him, his family and his lawyers, but for all institutions and individuals dedicated to defending human rights and freedom,” added Halvorssen, “Usón’s case is a monumental victory; for over a year, HRF fought for his rights, having established that his arrest, trial, and imprisonment represented violations of numerous international conventions to which Venezuela is a signatory. Justice has been served.”
HRF is an international nonpartisan organization devoted to defending human rights in the Americas. It centers its work on the twin concepts of freedom of self-determination and freedom from tyranny. These ideals include the belief that all human beings have the rights to speak freely, to associate with those of like mind, and to leave and enter their countries. Individuals in a free society must be accorded equal treatment and due process under law, and must have the opportunity to participate in the governments of their countries; HRF’s ideals likewise find expression in the conviction that all human beings have the right to be free from arbitrary detainment or exile and from interference and coercion in matters of conscience. HRF does not support nor condone violence. HRF’s International Council includes former prisoners of conscience Václav Havel, Vladimir Bukovsky, Palden Gyatso, Ramón J. Velásquez, Elie Wiesel, and Harry Wu.
Read the IACHR judgment on Francisco Usón’s case here (Spanish only).
Read the executive summary on Francisco Usón’s case here.
Read the report on Francisco Usón’s case here.
Contact: Thor Halvorssen, Human Rights Foundation, (+212)246.8486, info@thehrf.org
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
PROVOCACIÓN by Adolfo R. Taylhardat
EL UNIVERSAL
Opinión – Miércoles 25 de noviembre de 2009
PROVOCACIÓN Adolfo R. Taylhardat
La voladura de los dos puentes fronterizos no tiene en el Derechos Internacional otro calificativo que el de acto deliberado de provocación. Cuando entre dos países existe una situación de tensión que pudiera desembocar en un conflicto, si en ambos países gobiernan personas serias y responsables, conscientes de lo que significaría un conflicto entre vecinos, los gobernantes de esos Estados se abstienen de llevar a cabo cualquier tipo de acto que pudiera profundizar las fricciones.
En el caso presente está claro que uno de los dos gobernantes, el de nuestro país, lejos de buscar atenuar las tensiones, lo que persigue es aumentarlas para provocar un incidente y crear condiciones para generar un conflicto armado.
Hasta ahora las provocaciones se habían mantenido en el marco de la retórica y la diatriba. Los insultos sin precedentes que el teniente coronel presidente de este país ha dirigido a su par colombiano obviamente perseguían provocar una reacción que a su vez pudiera servir de justificación para desatar el conflicto. Los improperios que el inquilino de Miraflores le ha enfilado al Presidente Uribe no tienen precedente en la historia diplomática. Ni en los momentos más críticos de la confrontación Este–Oeste se escucharon agresiones verbales como las que emplea el gerifalte. Ni siquiera Fidel Castro ha llegado a emplear un lenguaje tan vejatorio y agresivo como el que utiliza el mandante venezolano.
Pero la retórica cede ahora el paso a las vías de hecho. Estamos en presencia de un primer acto de provocación deliberadamente planificado para exacerbar la paciencia del gobierno colombiano e inducirlo a reaccionar como normalmente lo haría un país enardecido por una instigación de esa naturaleza.
Sin embargo el gobernante colombiano, dando una vez más demostración de serenidad, cordura y paciencia, sigue sin dejarse arrastrar por las provocaciones. El carácter de acto de provocación de la destrucción de los dos puentes lo ha confirmado el propio mandante venezolano cuando se mofa del hecho diciendo que no se trató del puente de Brooklyn ni del Golden Gate, sino de unas simples “pasarelas” que eran utilizadas para pasar contrabando, transportar droga y permitir el tránsito de “paramilitares”.
El hecho mismo de que se trataba de simples “pasarelas”, puentes colgantes de fabricación artesanal, pone en evidencia la desproporción de la acción llevada a cabo por el ejército venezolano cumpliendo instrucciones del jefe del Estado. Esto último es así porque difícilmente un jefe militar habría tomado por su cuenta una iniciativa de esa naturaleza. La acción tiene que haber sido ordenada o autorizada desde Miraflores, lo que convierte al jefe del Estado en responsable directo del hecho y de sus consecuencias.
Es posible que efectivamente ese puente sirviera para lo que ahora se pretende esgrimir como excusa para destruirlo (contrabando, tráfico de droga, paso de paramilitares ¿y los otros irregulares colombianos qué?) Pero ¿había necesidad de dinamitarlo? ¿No fue el empleo de dinamita una manera de hacer más espectacular la provocación cuando esa frágil estructura pudo haber sido derribada a fuerza de mandarriazos? ¿O es que los soldados venezolanos son tan débiles que no pueden levantar una mandarria? ¿Por qué durante los 20 o 30 años que tenían de existencia no se impidió el paso de contrabandistas, traficantes de drogas e irregulares colombianos?
Lo ocurrido no tiene otra explicación que un irracional propósito de provocar un conflicto con el hermano país.
www.adolfotaylhardat.net
Opinión – Miércoles 25 de noviembre de 2009
PROVOCACIÓN Adolfo R. Taylhardat
La voladura de los dos puentes fronterizos no tiene en el Derechos Internacional otro calificativo que el de acto deliberado de provocación. Cuando entre dos países existe una situación de tensión que pudiera desembocar en un conflicto, si en ambos países gobiernan personas serias y responsables, conscientes de lo que significaría un conflicto entre vecinos, los gobernantes de esos Estados se abstienen de llevar a cabo cualquier tipo de acto que pudiera profundizar las fricciones.
En el caso presente está claro que uno de los dos gobernantes, el de nuestro país, lejos de buscar atenuar las tensiones, lo que persigue es aumentarlas para provocar un incidente y crear condiciones para generar un conflicto armado.
Hasta ahora las provocaciones se habían mantenido en el marco de la retórica y la diatriba. Los insultos sin precedentes que el teniente coronel presidente de este país ha dirigido a su par colombiano obviamente perseguían provocar una reacción que a su vez pudiera servir de justificación para desatar el conflicto. Los improperios que el inquilino de Miraflores le ha enfilado al Presidente Uribe no tienen precedente en la historia diplomática. Ni en los momentos más críticos de la confrontación Este–Oeste se escucharon agresiones verbales como las que emplea el gerifalte. Ni siquiera Fidel Castro ha llegado a emplear un lenguaje tan vejatorio y agresivo como el que utiliza el mandante venezolano.
Pero la retórica cede ahora el paso a las vías de hecho. Estamos en presencia de un primer acto de provocación deliberadamente planificado para exacerbar la paciencia del gobierno colombiano e inducirlo a reaccionar como normalmente lo haría un país enardecido por una instigación de esa naturaleza.
Sin embargo el gobernante colombiano, dando una vez más demostración de serenidad, cordura y paciencia, sigue sin dejarse arrastrar por las provocaciones. El carácter de acto de provocación de la destrucción de los dos puentes lo ha confirmado el propio mandante venezolano cuando se mofa del hecho diciendo que no se trató del puente de Brooklyn ni del Golden Gate, sino de unas simples “pasarelas” que eran utilizadas para pasar contrabando, transportar droga y permitir el tránsito de “paramilitares”.
El hecho mismo de que se trataba de simples “pasarelas”, puentes colgantes de fabricación artesanal, pone en evidencia la desproporción de la acción llevada a cabo por el ejército venezolano cumpliendo instrucciones del jefe del Estado. Esto último es así porque difícilmente un jefe militar habría tomado por su cuenta una iniciativa de esa naturaleza. La acción tiene que haber sido ordenada o autorizada desde Miraflores, lo que convierte al jefe del Estado en responsable directo del hecho y de sus consecuencias.
Es posible que efectivamente ese puente sirviera para lo que ahora se pretende esgrimir como excusa para destruirlo (contrabando, tráfico de droga, paso de paramilitares ¿y los otros irregulares colombianos qué?) Pero ¿había necesidad de dinamitarlo? ¿No fue el empleo de dinamita una manera de hacer más espectacular la provocación cuando esa frágil estructura pudo haber sido derribada a fuerza de mandarriazos? ¿O es que los soldados venezolanos son tan débiles que no pueden levantar una mandarria? ¿Por qué durante los 20 o 30 años que tenían de existencia no se impidió el paso de contrabandistas, traficantes de drogas e irregulares colombianos?
Lo ocurrido no tiene otra explicación que un irracional propósito de provocar un conflicto con el hermano país.
www.adolfotaylhardat.net
LA TORTILLA VOLTEADA by Adolfo R. Taylhardat
EL UNIVERSAL
Opinión – Miércoles 18 de noviembre de 2009
LA TORTILLA VOLTEADA por Adolfo R. Taylhardat
Es público y notorio que el teniente coronel presidente aplica constantemente la estrategia de “voltear la tortilla”. Atribuye a los demás todo aquello de lo cual él mismo es el autor o el responsable.
Los culpables de los apagones y de los cortes de energía eléctrica somos los “oligarcas”. Los culpables de la escases de agua y del racionamiento de ese elemento esencial somos los “escuálidos”. El odio y la polarización que hoy existe en nuestro país es obra de los partidos y de los líderes políticos de la oposición. Lleva once años de permanencia arbitraria e ininterrumpida en el poder, pero la culpa del deterioro general del país no es de su “quinta República” sino de la “cuarta”, como llama al período democrático que precedió a su dictadura, durante el país registró el avance más firme y constante hacia el progreso y el desarrollo. Acusa a los medios de atribuirle intenciones guerreristas quien desde que asumió la presidencia no ha hecho sino hablar de guerra y amenazar a la disidencia con sus advertencias de que su revolución está armada, tiene cañones y está lista para proteger su dictadura.
Dice que el presidente Uribe es un “lacayo” de los Estados Unidos, que ha sacrificado la soberanía colombiana sometiendo su país al “imperio” cuando es él quien ha entregado la soberanía venezolana a Cuba, recibe instrucciones de “papá Fidel Castro” y trae mercenarios cubanos para que manejen el país en todos los ámbitos, desde su propia seguridad, pasando por la fuerza armada, los cuerpos de seguridad e inteligencia, la educación, el deporte, la asistencia médica, las comunicaciones, la administración de puertos y aeropuertos, el turismo, los sistemas de registros civiles, comerciales y electorales, las comunicaciones, hasta el control de la inmigración.
Dice que “es el colmo del cinismo” que lo acusen de expansionista cuando vemos que ha
convertido a Bolivia, Ecuador y Nicaragua en simples satélites suyos y no cesa en su empeño por implantar en el resto de Latinoamérica, comenzando por Colombia, su comunismo del siglo XXI.
Pero el colmo de esa estrategia de voltear la tortilla es el cinismo y el descaro con el cual, después de haber amenazado con emprender una guerra con Colombia, pretende hacer ver que son Colombia y los Estados Unidos los que amenazan con agredir a Venezuela. En este caso no es una simple tortilla sino una auténtica y gigantesca torta que ha puesto y ahora quiere hacer creer que el repostero es el presidente Uribe.
En todo el continente y en el resto del mundo se vio y se escuchó al teniente coronel presidente ordenando a la fuerza armada prepararse para la guerra contra Colombia y los Estados Unidos. “Compañeros militares, no perdamos ni un día en el cumplimiento de nuestra misión: prepararnos para la guerra y ayudar al pueblo a prepararse para la guerra porque es una responsabilidad de todos”. “A formar cuerpos de milicianos, adiestrarlos, los estudiantes, que son la mayoría, los trabajadores, las mujeres, todos listos a defender esta patria sagrada que se llama Venezuela.” “Si al imperio yanqui se le ocurre utilizar a Colombia para agredir a Venezuela aquí comenzará la guerra de los 100 años que se extenderá por todo el continente”.
¿Quien puede dudar que esa arenga constituye una amenaza de guerra abierta y descarada? Sin embargo, todavía no había dejado de retumbar esa amenaza en los oídos de venezolanos y colombianos cuando el mismo personaje, con el cinismo y el desparpajo que le caracteriza, trató una vez más de voltear la tortilla. “Somos una sola patria. Aprovecho para ratificar nuestro amor eterno por Colombia. No nos dejemos conducir a una nueva guerra fratricida” (¿Cuál fue la anterior?). “Estoy seguro de que ambos pueblos derrotaremos la pretensión yanqui y de la oligarquía colombiana de ponernos a pelear entre nosotros”.
Como no hay mal que por bien no venga, todo esto ha servido para, una vez más, poner en evidencia al estrafalario personaje y echar definitivamente por tierra la imagen que a fuerza de dinero de los venezolanos ha venido tratando de construirse en la opinión pública internacional.
www.adolfotaylhardat.net
Opinión – Miércoles 18 de noviembre de 2009
LA TORTILLA VOLTEADA por Adolfo R. Taylhardat
Es público y notorio que el teniente coronel presidente aplica constantemente la estrategia de “voltear la tortilla”. Atribuye a los demás todo aquello de lo cual él mismo es el autor o el responsable.
Los culpables de los apagones y de los cortes de energía eléctrica somos los “oligarcas”. Los culpables de la escases de agua y del racionamiento de ese elemento esencial somos los “escuálidos”. El odio y la polarización que hoy existe en nuestro país es obra de los partidos y de los líderes políticos de la oposición. Lleva once años de permanencia arbitraria e ininterrumpida en el poder, pero la culpa del deterioro general del país no es de su “quinta República” sino de la “cuarta”, como llama al período democrático que precedió a su dictadura, durante el país registró el avance más firme y constante hacia el progreso y el desarrollo. Acusa a los medios de atribuirle intenciones guerreristas quien desde que asumió la presidencia no ha hecho sino hablar de guerra y amenazar a la disidencia con sus advertencias de que su revolución está armada, tiene cañones y está lista para proteger su dictadura.
Dice que el presidente Uribe es un “lacayo” de los Estados Unidos, que ha sacrificado la soberanía colombiana sometiendo su país al “imperio” cuando es él quien ha entregado la soberanía venezolana a Cuba, recibe instrucciones de “papá Fidel Castro” y trae mercenarios cubanos para que manejen el país en todos los ámbitos, desde su propia seguridad, pasando por la fuerza armada, los cuerpos de seguridad e inteligencia, la educación, el deporte, la asistencia médica, las comunicaciones, la administración de puertos y aeropuertos, el turismo, los sistemas de registros civiles, comerciales y electorales, las comunicaciones, hasta el control de la inmigración.
Dice que “es el colmo del cinismo” que lo acusen de expansionista cuando vemos que ha
convertido a Bolivia, Ecuador y Nicaragua en simples satélites suyos y no cesa en su empeño por implantar en el resto de Latinoamérica, comenzando por Colombia, su comunismo del siglo XXI.
Pero el colmo de esa estrategia de voltear la tortilla es el cinismo y el descaro con el cual, después de haber amenazado con emprender una guerra con Colombia, pretende hacer ver que son Colombia y los Estados Unidos los que amenazan con agredir a Venezuela. En este caso no es una simple tortilla sino una auténtica y gigantesca torta que ha puesto y ahora quiere hacer creer que el repostero es el presidente Uribe.
En todo el continente y en el resto del mundo se vio y se escuchó al teniente coronel presidente ordenando a la fuerza armada prepararse para la guerra contra Colombia y los Estados Unidos. “Compañeros militares, no perdamos ni un día en el cumplimiento de nuestra misión: prepararnos para la guerra y ayudar al pueblo a prepararse para la guerra porque es una responsabilidad de todos”. “A formar cuerpos de milicianos, adiestrarlos, los estudiantes, que son la mayoría, los trabajadores, las mujeres, todos listos a defender esta patria sagrada que se llama Venezuela.” “Si al imperio yanqui se le ocurre utilizar a Colombia para agredir a Venezuela aquí comenzará la guerra de los 100 años que se extenderá por todo el continente”.
¿Quien puede dudar que esa arenga constituye una amenaza de guerra abierta y descarada? Sin embargo, todavía no había dejado de retumbar esa amenaza en los oídos de venezolanos y colombianos cuando el mismo personaje, con el cinismo y el desparpajo que le caracteriza, trató una vez más de voltear la tortilla. “Somos una sola patria. Aprovecho para ratificar nuestro amor eterno por Colombia. No nos dejemos conducir a una nueva guerra fratricida” (¿Cuál fue la anterior?). “Estoy seguro de que ambos pueblos derrotaremos la pretensión yanqui y de la oligarquía colombiana de ponernos a pelear entre nosotros”.
Como no hay mal que por bien no venga, todo esto ha servido para, una vez más, poner en evidencia al estrafalario personaje y echar definitivamente por tierra la imagen que a fuerza de dinero de los venezolanos ha venido tratando de construirse en la opinión pública internacional.
www.adolfotaylhardat.net
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The Deception
The Deception by Maru Angarita
Maria Corina Machado, President of Sumate, a non-profit organization in Venezuela presented at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC, facts about the current political and financial situation in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez’s rule.
Pictures of Maria Corina Machado:
http://news.webshots.com/photo/2929162370099752410uDRGWj
http://news.webshots.com/photo/2084843490099752410oXKors
As an observer of the political disaster in Venezuela for the last decade and more I left the conference saddened and angry. In the last few days started to figure out how to write this message for my blog, and the best way I guess is to list the items that it my opinion have happened in the abused nation:
Hugo Chavez decided to implement his idea of better government by force non-stopping to election losses, and manipulating everything and everyone around him to do so. This, of course, includes buying out potential investors like Brazil, Spain, and Iran providing the best of Venezuela to them while blocking citizens of quality of life.
While Hugo Chavez seems completely undefeatable and established there are important issues that may end his rule in a few hours: his relationship with the terrorist groups, his alleged substance abuse, his own security forces, citizens complete awareness of the deception that he represents, and last by not least, the fact that as folks in Venezuela will agree more each day is that Chavez is the cause of their misfortune (e.g. Chavez es pavoso).
At this time in Venezuela there are major power outages, and no water for millions of citizens, and as Chavez has said no foreign currency in the nation (please read report from the Comision Administrative de Divisas). Could it be that this is just a farse in order to implement more pressure on citizens to enforce his rule?
I hope that President Obama gets to read this posting, that is, that his political advisors do not block him from reading it. Expert Venezuelan citizens have presented at the National Press Club, Georgetown University, Cato Institute, and U.S. State Department. I have reported on this blog: The Bolivarian Rule of Lawlessness, a white paper by Robert Amsterdam, Gonzalo Santomé and Antonio Rosich. www.robertamsterdam.com, www.eligiocedeno.com
Cato Institute has publication “Corruption, Mismanagement, and Abuse of Power in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela” by Gustavo Coronel. Where have the US$800 billions gone in the last three years, that there are no dollars in Venezuela to allow citizens to travel abroad?
If you were to pay close attention to the situation in Venezuela there are many possible violations of democracy, human rights, and criminal acts that have gone unpunished. The worst is the destruction of Venezuelan values, and culture, and implementation of hatred by Hugo Chavez among Venezuelan citizens.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Resources:
http://www.sumate.org/democracia-retroceso/cap5_en_5.htm
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.cadivi.gov.ve
Maria Corina Machado, President of Sumate, a non-profit organization in Venezuela presented at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC, facts about the current political and financial situation in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez’s rule.
Pictures of Maria Corina Machado:
http://news.webshots.com/photo/2929162370099752410uDRGWj
http://news.webshots.com/photo/2084843490099752410oXKors
As an observer of the political disaster in Venezuela for the last decade and more I left the conference saddened and angry. In the last few days started to figure out how to write this message for my blog, and the best way I guess is to list the items that it my opinion have happened in the abused nation:
Hugo Chavez decided to implement his idea of better government by force non-stopping to election losses, and manipulating everything and everyone around him to do so. This, of course, includes buying out potential investors like Brazil, Spain, and Iran providing the best of Venezuela to them while blocking citizens of quality of life.
While Hugo Chavez seems completely undefeatable and established there are important issues that may end his rule in a few hours: his relationship with the terrorist groups, his alleged substance abuse, his own security forces, citizens complete awareness of the deception that he represents, and last by not least, the fact that as folks in Venezuela will agree more each day is that Chavez is the cause of their misfortune (e.g. Chavez es pavoso).
At this time in Venezuela there are major power outages, and no water for millions of citizens, and as Chavez has said no foreign currency in the nation (please read report from the Comision Administrative de Divisas). Could it be that this is just a farse in order to implement more pressure on citizens to enforce his rule?
I hope that President Obama gets to read this posting, that is, that his political advisors do not block him from reading it. Expert Venezuelan citizens have presented at the National Press Club, Georgetown University, Cato Institute, and U.S. State Department. I have reported on this blog: The Bolivarian Rule of Lawlessness, a white paper by Robert Amsterdam, Gonzalo Santomé and Antonio Rosich. www.robertamsterdam.com, www.eligiocedeno.com
Cato Institute has publication “Corruption, Mismanagement, and Abuse of Power in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela” by Gustavo Coronel. Where have the US$800 billions gone in the last three years, that there are no dollars in Venezuela to allow citizens to travel abroad?
If you were to pay close attention to the situation in Venezuela there are many possible violations of democracy, human rights, and criminal acts that have gone unpunished. The worst is the destruction of Venezuelan values, and culture, and implementation of hatred by Hugo Chavez among Venezuelan citizens.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Resources:
http://www.sumate.org/democracia-retroceso/cap5_en_5.htm
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.cadivi.gov.ve
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Reflexiones por Raul A. Leoni
Reflexiones
Por: Raul A. Leoni
El tema del uso de bases militares colombianas por parte de efectivos regulares del ejército de los Estados Unidos ha venido ocupando las páginas de los periódicos de muchos países latinoamericanos pero muy especialmente –por coincidencia seguramente- de los países miembros del ALBA que son los mismos embarcados en este disparate del Socialismo del Siglo XXI.
Entiendo que el tratado Colombia-USA pueda generar malestar en los vecinos de nuestro hermano país, sobre todo porque los términos del acuerdo no se han dado a conocer totalmente. Se ha dicho que el mismo no es más que la ampliación de un acuerdo ya existente que tiene como finalidad el combate de los grupos narco traficantes y a la narco guerrilla. Esta explicación, sumada a la soberanía de Colombia, debería ser suficiente argumento para tranquilizar a sus vecinos, pero por razones muy ajenas al referido acuerdo esto no ha sido de esta manera.
Ahora bien, yo me hago las siguientes preguntas:
Venezuela ha firmado un acuerdo se suministro de armamento con Rusia. Es de suponer que este acuerdo traiga consigo la presencia de personal militar ruso en nuestro país pues hay que entrenar al personal militar venezolano en el uso de estos equipos y en su mantenimiento. Estoy seguro que en los actuales momentos hay personal militar ruso en Venezuela ejerciendo esas funciones ya que el gobierno, como todos sabemos, ha venido adquiriendo material bélico de ese país por bastante tiempo y con un costo muy elevado. Estos equipos que se han adquirido –aviones supersónicos, helicópteros, fusiles, etc.- requieren, como mencionamos antes, de entrenamiento y mantenimiento para su correcto uso y funcionamiento.
Ahora bien, de acuerdo con lo aparecido en los medios de comunicación, el gobierno venezolano ha declarado que los acuerdos en el campo militar con Rusia son de carácter “SECRETO” y hasta el momento no he oído ni leído que ningún país le haya pedido explicaciones al nuestro sobre dicho acuerdo que bien puede contener la presencia de personal militar ruso en bases militares venezolanas. Esto suena bastante parecido a lo que esta haciendo Colombia con los Estados Unidos, ¿no les parece? En vista de esto, ¿tiene Colombia del derecho a pedirle a Venezuela que revele el contenido de estos acuerdos con Rusia? ¿No seria esto la intromisión de Colombia en asuntos que son de exclusiva competencia del Estado Venezolano?
En segundo lugar, desde hace ya más de diez años existe en Venezuela la presencia de un contingente de cubanos que por diferentes vías se calcula en más de ochenta mil personas. ¿Cuantos de estos son personal militar cubano? Nadie lo sabe con exactitud pero todos sabemos que hay muchos y que ocupan cargos importantes no solo en la Fuerza Armada de nuestro país sino también en los órganos de inteligencia, de seguridad, en las notarias, en las oficinas de identificación, en el INTI y pare usted de contar. ¡Esto si que es una verdadera invasión de una potencia extranjera!
No creen ustedes que Colombia tendría derecho a protestar por la presencia de tan numeroso número de cubanos en nuestro país cuando todos sabemos cual es la posición y la relación del régimen castro comunista con las FARC y el ELN? ¿No puede alegar Colombia que la presencia de este alto numero de cubanos castro comunistas en Venezuela es una amenaza a su estabilidad y a su soberanía? De paso, confieso que yo no entiendo como no lo han hecho hasta ahora.
Dos reflexiones. Primera: ¿Creen ustedes que los Estados Unidos necesiten de la ayuda de Colombia si deciden invadir a Venezuela? Segunda: ¿Contara Chávez con la mayoría de los venezolanos para su hipotética guerra con Colombia? Respóndanse ustedes mismos.
Raúl Leoni has a Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Economics degree from Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Mr. Leoni served as Representative in the Venezuelan Congress in 1984 - 1989. Mr. Leoni is the son of Venezuelan former President Raúl Leoni.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Por: Raul A. Leoni
El tema del uso de bases militares colombianas por parte de efectivos regulares del ejército de los Estados Unidos ha venido ocupando las páginas de los periódicos de muchos países latinoamericanos pero muy especialmente –por coincidencia seguramente- de los países miembros del ALBA que son los mismos embarcados en este disparate del Socialismo del Siglo XXI.
Entiendo que el tratado Colombia-USA pueda generar malestar en los vecinos de nuestro hermano país, sobre todo porque los términos del acuerdo no se han dado a conocer totalmente. Se ha dicho que el mismo no es más que la ampliación de un acuerdo ya existente que tiene como finalidad el combate de los grupos narco traficantes y a la narco guerrilla. Esta explicación, sumada a la soberanía de Colombia, debería ser suficiente argumento para tranquilizar a sus vecinos, pero por razones muy ajenas al referido acuerdo esto no ha sido de esta manera.
Ahora bien, yo me hago las siguientes preguntas:
Venezuela ha firmado un acuerdo se suministro de armamento con Rusia. Es de suponer que este acuerdo traiga consigo la presencia de personal militar ruso en nuestro país pues hay que entrenar al personal militar venezolano en el uso de estos equipos y en su mantenimiento. Estoy seguro que en los actuales momentos hay personal militar ruso en Venezuela ejerciendo esas funciones ya que el gobierno, como todos sabemos, ha venido adquiriendo material bélico de ese país por bastante tiempo y con un costo muy elevado. Estos equipos que se han adquirido –aviones supersónicos, helicópteros, fusiles, etc.- requieren, como mencionamos antes, de entrenamiento y mantenimiento para su correcto uso y funcionamiento.
Ahora bien, de acuerdo con lo aparecido en los medios de comunicación, el gobierno venezolano ha declarado que los acuerdos en el campo militar con Rusia son de carácter “SECRETO” y hasta el momento no he oído ni leído que ningún país le haya pedido explicaciones al nuestro sobre dicho acuerdo que bien puede contener la presencia de personal militar ruso en bases militares venezolanas. Esto suena bastante parecido a lo que esta haciendo Colombia con los Estados Unidos, ¿no les parece? En vista de esto, ¿tiene Colombia del derecho a pedirle a Venezuela que revele el contenido de estos acuerdos con Rusia? ¿No seria esto la intromisión de Colombia en asuntos que son de exclusiva competencia del Estado Venezolano?
En segundo lugar, desde hace ya más de diez años existe en Venezuela la presencia de un contingente de cubanos que por diferentes vías se calcula en más de ochenta mil personas. ¿Cuantos de estos son personal militar cubano? Nadie lo sabe con exactitud pero todos sabemos que hay muchos y que ocupan cargos importantes no solo en la Fuerza Armada de nuestro país sino también en los órganos de inteligencia, de seguridad, en las notarias, en las oficinas de identificación, en el INTI y pare usted de contar. ¡Esto si que es una verdadera invasión de una potencia extranjera!
No creen ustedes que Colombia tendría derecho a protestar por la presencia de tan numeroso número de cubanos en nuestro país cuando todos sabemos cual es la posición y la relación del régimen castro comunista con las FARC y el ELN? ¿No puede alegar Colombia que la presencia de este alto numero de cubanos castro comunistas en Venezuela es una amenaza a su estabilidad y a su soberanía? De paso, confieso que yo no entiendo como no lo han hecho hasta ahora.
Dos reflexiones. Primera: ¿Creen ustedes que los Estados Unidos necesiten de la ayuda de Colombia si deciden invadir a Venezuela? Segunda: ¿Contara Chávez con la mayoría de los venezolanos para su hipotética guerra con Colombia? Respóndanse ustedes mismos.
Raúl Leoni has a Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Economics degree from Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Mr. Leoni served as Representative in the Venezuelan Congress in 1984 - 1989. Mr. Leoni is the son of Venezuelan former President Raúl Leoni.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Sunday, October 4, 2009
World gang up by Amb. Adolfo Taylhardat
World gang up
http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/10/01/en_opi_esp_adolfo-r.-taylhardat_01A2820971.shtml
President Micheletti does the right thing by standing his ground, keeping calm and ignoring those who purport to reinstate Manuel Zelaya. Within two months, the Honduras people will speak up at the ballots and gangsters will have to swallow their threats.
Opinion For my readers outside Venezuela, who do not know the meaning of "cayapa," a Venezuelan idiom, I will give you the following definition by renowned Venezuelan philologist and professor Alexis Márquez Rodríguez. "The word 'cayapa' (gang up) means a group of individuals ganging up on one or more persons in disadvantage. The term applies both to the group of assailants and the action. The attack may be either physical –punches or armed- or moral. In a debate or discussion, when several individuals who share the same view or opinion lash out at somebody who is alone in his stance, it is said that they ganged up on him."
The Honduras case fits in this definition. Many countries have ganged up on the small nation to make it reverse its sovereign decision of dismissing Manuel Zelaya when he tried to take his government to the way of Chavezism-21st century communism. Two days before Zelaya's sudden removal, the Lieutenant Colonel (Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez) had started to form perceptions by claiming that a "coup" was being schemed in Honduras. This was the starting point for the governments in the region and some others outside the region to form a chorus that terms coup the decision of the public branches of the Honduras government and the Honduras society to stop the presidential office of Mr. Zelaya.
World gangsters have not pondered on the reasons for such decision. Astoundingly unreasonable, governments supposed to be serious and dependable have been involved in a campaign headed by the Venezuelan gyrfalcon, which refuses to miss the prey that escaped when he virtually caught it in complicity with the deposed president. Ignoring the sovereign right of the Honduras people to decide their own destiny, i.e., violating the sacred right to free determination enshrined both in the Charter of the Organization of American States and the Charter of the United Nations, these countries, claiming to be representatives of the international community, have even threatened not to acknowledge the results of the election for president that will be held next November 29th.
Still worse, they have collaborated and acted in complicity to support the openly criminal action taken by Zelaya when he clandestinely came in Honduras to seek refuge in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa. One wonders about the attitude of any of these governments if a similar situation were to arise in their countries. Shame on these governments which act in solidarity with a subject charged in his country with innumerable violations to the Honduras National Constitution. Their double moral has even made them indulgent towards the actions of the Lieutenant Colonel, the Venezuelan president, who provided Zelaya with the airplane that took him to Honduras. He fuels subversion by urging Honduras troops to disavow President Micheletti and organizes rallies in front of the Brazilian embassy. President Micheletti does the right thing by standing his ground, keeping calm and ignoring those who purport to reinstate Manuel Zelaya. Within two months, the Honduras people will speak up at the ballots and gangsters will have to swallow their threats.
www.adolfotaylhardat.net
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/10/01/en_opi_esp_adolfo-r.-taylhardat_01A2820971.shtml
President Micheletti does the right thing by standing his ground, keeping calm and ignoring those who purport to reinstate Manuel Zelaya. Within two months, the Honduras people will speak up at the ballots and gangsters will have to swallow their threats.
Opinion For my readers outside Venezuela, who do not know the meaning of "cayapa," a Venezuelan idiom, I will give you the following definition by renowned Venezuelan philologist and professor Alexis Márquez Rodríguez. "The word 'cayapa' (gang up) means a group of individuals ganging up on one or more persons in disadvantage. The term applies both to the group of assailants and the action. The attack may be either physical –punches or armed- or moral. In a debate or discussion, when several individuals who share the same view or opinion lash out at somebody who is alone in his stance, it is said that they ganged up on him."
The Honduras case fits in this definition. Many countries have ganged up on the small nation to make it reverse its sovereign decision of dismissing Manuel Zelaya when he tried to take his government to the way of Chavezism-21st century communism. Two days before Zelaya's sudden removal, the Lieutenant Colonel (Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez) had started to form perceptions by claiming that a "coup" was being schemed in Honduras. This was the starting point for the governments in the region and some others outside the region to form a chorus that terms coup the decision of the public branches of the Honduras government and the Honduras society to stop the presidential office of Mr. Zelaya.
World gangsters have not pondered on the reasons for such decision. Astoundingly unreasonable, governments supposed to be serious and dependable have been involved in a campaign headed by the Venezuelan gyrfalcon, which refuses to miss the prey that escaped when he virtually caught it in complicity with the deposed president. Ignoring the sovereign right of the Honduras people to decide their own destiny, i.e., violating the sacred right to free determination enshrined both in the Charter of the Organization of American States and the Charter of the United Nations, these countries, claiming to be representatives of the international community, have even threatened not to acknowledge the results of the election for president that will be held next November 29th.
Still worse, they have collaborated and acted in complicity to support the openly criminal action taken by Zelaya when he clandestinely came in Honduras to seek refuge in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa. One wonders about the attitude of any of these governments if a similar situation were to arise in their countries. Shame on these governments which act in solidarity with a subject charged in his country with innumerable violations to the Honduras National Constitution. Their double moral has even made them indulgent towards the actions of the Lieutenant Colonel, the Venezuelan president, who provided Zelaya with the airplane that took him to Honduras. He fuels subversion by urging Honduras troops to disavow President Micheletti and organizes rallies in front of the Brazilian embassy. President Micheletti does the right thing by standing his ground, keeping calm and ignoring those who purport to reinstate Manuel Zelaya. Within two months, the Honduras people will speak up at the ballots and gangsters will have to swallow their threats.
www.adolfotaylhardat.net
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Manifest from Students on Hunger Strike
We, students from different Venezuelan universities, in the spirit of freedom, democracy, solidarity and humanism, want to say to the citizens of Venezuela and other nations the following:
Whereas Over the last few years, and specially over the last few months, Venezuelans have witnessed an escalation of repression through police harassment, tax audits, and tainted judicial procedures directed against political opponents of the government, despite their constitutional right to express political views and denounce government abuses and poor performance.
Wehereas: As a consequence of the government undemocratic abuse of power hundreds of citizens have been persecuted and face criminal charges with scores of them in jail with no charges and in violation of Venezuelan law. Among the detainees are businessmen, police officers, officers of the armed forces, workers, union representatives, political leaders, elected officials, students, and youth organizers. Their "crime" has been to denounce government abuses and corruption.
Whereas: We have come to the conclusion that the government intends to criminalize all opposition and has closed off democratic dialog as a means to resolve social conflicts. The government uses fear tactics to intimidate the citizenry. Such tactics include the unlawful use of government resources, the manipulation of justice, and lack of respect for the rights of citizens in flagrant violation of the Venezuelan constitution, particularly the rights enshrined in Article 2.
We Resolve: To denounce to the world community the existence of a Venezuelan government policy, widely spread and systematic to persecute political opponents using and abusing the judicial system, now under the control of the executive branch of government. This abuse borders on tyranny and renders legal and democratic opposition void or extremely risky. International organizations concerned with democracy and human rights must verify what is happening in Venezuela today, and if they agree that democracy and human rights are under serious threat, that said organizations take necessary measures so that the government cease and desist harassing its citizens.
Hereby We Decide: First: Express our solidarity with all Venezuelan political prisoners and those that suffer government persecution for political causes.
Second: Petition the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the Organization of American States so that they approve an official inspection, In Loco, to verify what we here denounce. Having verified the government's abuses, the international organizations should intervene to unmask the illegal persecution of political opponents and bring such persecutions to a complete stop.
Third: We inform that we continue our hunger strike taking place in front of the local office of the OAS. We further declare that we will engage in other legal acts of civil disobedience in order to obtain:
1. National and international awareness that the Venezuelan government is dedicated to the criminalization of political opposition;
2: National and international awareness concerning the existence of a large number of political prisoners in Venezuela as well and the existence of a large number of people facing fraudulent criminal charges because of their political beliefs;
3. Immediate freedom for Julio Rivas, Carlos Lozada, Nixon Moreno, and other students now in jail facing a corrupt and unjust judicial system.We Reaffirm the peaceful expression of ideas, the right to decide according to our consciousness, the right to manifest opinions, and the preeminence of dialog as the main tool of the democratic process.
We Demand from national and international institutions the fulfillment of their obligations as agreed upon in international treaties, as established in the Venezuelan Constitution, and as stated in universal laws and declarations that protect freedom and dignity.
Amigos, por favor, hacer llegar a todos aquellos que tengan poder de
decisión en el mundo.
*AL PUEBLO DE VENEZUELA*
*A LOS CIUDADANOS Y CIUDADANAS DEL MUNDO*
*A LOS PRESOS Y PERSEGUIDOS POLÍTICOS*
*NOSOTROS, * los abajo firmantes, estudiantes de diferentes universidades
del país, ciudadanos y ciudadanas libres, demócratas, solidarios y
humanistas, expresamos formalmente a los ciudadanos y ciudadanas de
Venezuela y del mundo cuánto sigue:
*CONSIDERANDO:* Que en los últimos años, pero especialmente en los últimos
meses, se ha desencadenado en Venezuela una escalada de injusta represión
judicial, fiscal y policial contra quienes son identificados como disidentes
u opositores por el simple hecho de ejercer válidamente sus derechos
Constitucionales a pensar diferente y a manifestar su desacuerdo con
cualquier expresión o acto arbitrario del poder y por ejercer legítimamente
su derecho a expresar libremente sus opiniones e ideas;
*CONSIDERANDO:* Que a consecuencia de lo anterior han resultado perseguidos
y sometidos a procesos penales injustos cientos de ciudadanos, y que incluso
muchos de ellos han sido privados de su libertad sin base de legitimidad
alguna, entre los que podemos contar a empresarios, funcionarios policiales,
miembros de las Fuerzas Armadas Nacionales, trabajadores, sindicalistas,
representantes de partidos políticos, líderes democráticamente electos y, lo
más grave, *estudiantes universitarios y líderes juveniles* por el simple
hecho de expresarse contra los abusos del poder o cuestionar el desempeño
gubernamental;
*CONSIDERANDO:* Que hemos determinado que ello responde a una política
formal del Estado destinada a la criminalización de la disidencia y de la
oposición que está dirigida a desconocer la legitimidad del opuesto y al
diálogo como forma de resolución de los conflictos políticos y sociales, y a
sembrar el miedo en la población en general a través del uso indebido de las
instituciones que conforman el sistema de justicia y del irrespeto los
derechos civiles, al pluralismo político como uno de los valores superiores
de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico, a las más elementales reglas de
convivencia pacífica y a las normas que regulan el desempeño del poder en el
Estado Democrático y Social, de Derecho y de Justicia en los términos en que
se pauta en el Art. 2º de nuestra Carta Magna;
*ACORDAMOS*: Denunciar la existencia en Venezuela de una política
generalizada y sistemática de persecución por motivos políticos, ejercida
contra la disidencia y la oposición a través de las instituciones del
sistema de justicia nacional que amerita que los organismos internacionales
tutelares de la democracia y de los derechos humanos registren los eventos
que lo demuestran y, dentro de sus atribuciones, tomen las medidas
necesarias para hacer cesar tales atentados contra los derechos de la
ciudadanía;
*EN CONSECUENCIA, HEMOS DECIDIDO:*
*PRIMERO:* Solidarizarnos decididamente con los perseguidos y presos
políticos de nuestra nación;
*SEGUNDO:* Reclamar de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y de
la OEA su decidida intervención, a través de un a visita *In Loco* a nuestro
país, para hacer constar los hechos aquí denunciados y hacer cesar toda
persecución ilegítima que, disfrazada de procedimiento legal, se esté
instruyendo o haya sido instruida injustamente contra todos los perseguidos
y, especialmente, contra todos los presos políticos de nuestro país;
*TERCERO:* Informar que continuamos la huelga de hambre ante la
representación en Venezuela de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA),
y que implementaremos cuántos medios de protesta, pacíficos pero
contundentes, sean necesarios:
1. *Al reconocimiento expreso, nacional e internacional,* de la existencia
de una sistemática política gubernamental orientada a la criminalización de
las expresiones disidentes u opositoras;
2. *Al reconocimiento expreso, nacional e internacional,* de la existencia
de presos y perseguidos políticos en nuestra nación;
3. *Al cese inmediato de toda persecución judicial, fiscal o policial*contra
quienes, como nuestro compañero Julio Rivas y otros, hayan sido sujetos a
procedimientos criminales injustos o a persecuciones de cualquier índole por
el simple hecho de ejercer válidamente sus derechos constitucionales.
*REIVINDICAMOS* formalmente a la expresión pacífica de nuestras ideas, a
nuestro derecho a la libertad de conciencia, a nuestro derecho a la
manifestación pacífica de nuestras opiniones y al diálogo como nuestras
herramientas de lucha democrática;
*EXIGIMOS* de las instituciones nacionales e internacionales que, *sin sesgo
ideológico distinto al del humanismo pleno,* y *respetando al pluralismo
político y a la tolerancia* como valores esenciales para la pacífica
convivencia, *que cumplan los deberes* que les han sido asignados por los
Tratados Internacionales, la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de
Venezuela y las leyes vigentes * con estricto apego a la consideración del
ser humano, libre y solidario, como destinatario último de todas sus
actuaciones por encima de las pretensiones personalistas, belicistas o
desconocedoras desde el poder de la Dignidad Humana.*
En Caracas, a los Veintisiete (27) días del mes de Septiembre de Dos Mil
Nueve (2009) * *
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Whereas Over the last few years, and specially over the last few months, Venezuelans have witnessed an escalation of repression through police harassment, tax audits, and tainted judicial procedures directed against political opponents of the government, despite their constitutional right to express political views and denounce government abuses and poor performance.
Wehereas: As a consequence of the government undemocratic abuse of power hundreds of citizens have been persecuted and face criminal charges with scores of them in jail with no charges and in violation of Venezuelan law. Among the detainees are businessmen, police officers, officers of the armed forces, workers, union representatives, political leaders, elected officials, students, and youth organizers. Their "crime" has been to denounce government abuses and corruption.
Whereas: We have come to the conclusion that the government intends to criminalize all opposition and has closed off democratic dialog as a means to resolve social conflicts. The government uses fear tactics to intimidate the citizenry. Such tactics include the unlawful use of government resources, the manipulation of justice, and lack of respect for the rights of citizens in flagrant violation of the Venezuelan constitution, particularly the rights enshrined in Article 2.
We Resolve: To denounce to the world community the existence of a Venezuelan government policy, widely spread and systematic to persecute political opponents using and abusing the judicial system, now under the control of the executive branch of government. This abuse borders on tyranny and renders legal and democratic opposition void or extremely risky. International organizations concerned with democracy and human rights must verify what is happening in Venezuela today, and if they agree that democracy and human rights are under serious threat, that said organizations take necessary measures so that the government cease and desist harassing its citizens.
Hereby We Decide: First: Express our solidarity with all Venezuelan political prisoners and those that suffer government persecution for political causes.
Second: Petition the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the Organization of American States so that they approve an official inspection, In Loco, to verify what we here denounce. Having verified the government's abuses, the international organizations should intervene to unmask the illegal persecution of political opponents and bring such persecutions to a complete stop.
Third: We inform that we continue our hunger strike taking place in front of the local office of the OAS. We further declare that we will engage in other legal acts of civil disobedience in order to obtain:
1. National and international awareness that the Venezuelan government is dedicated to the criminalization of political opposition;
2: National and international awareness concerning the existence of a large number of political prisoners in Venezuela as well and the existence of a large number of people facing fraudulent criminal charges because of their political beliefs;
3. Immediate freedom for Julio Rivas, Carlos Lozada, Nixon Moreno, and other students now in jail facing a corrupt and unjust judicial system.We Reaffirm the peaceful expression of ideas, the right to decide according to our consciousness, the right to manifest opinions, and the preeminence of dialog as the main tool of the democratic process.
We Demand from national and international institutions the fulfillment of their obligations as agreed upon in international treaties, as established in the Venezuelan Constitution, and as stated in universal laws and declarations that protect freedom and dignity.
Amigos, por favor, hacer llegar a todos aquellos que tengan poder de
decisión en el mundo.
*AL PUEBLO DE VENEZUELA*
*A LOS CIUDADANOS Y CIUDADANAS DEL MUNDO*
*A LOS PRESOS Y PERSEGUIDOS POLÍTICOS*
*NOSOTROS, * los abajo firmantes, estudiantes de diferentes universidades
del país, ciudadanos y ciudadanas libres, demócratas, solidarios y
humanistas, expresamos formalmente a los ciudadanos y ciudadanas de
Venezuela y del mundo cuánto sigue:
*CONSIDERANDO:* Que en los últimos años, pero especialmente en los últimos
meses, se ha desencadenado en Venezuela una escalada de injusta represión
judicial, fiscal y policial contra quienes son identificados como disidentes
u opositores por el simple hecho de ejercer válidamente sus derechos
Constitucionales a pensar diferente y a manifestar su desacuerdo con
cualquier expresión o acto arbitrario del poder y por ejercer legítimamente
su derecho a expresar libremente sus opiniones e ideas;
*CONSIDERANDO:* Que a consecuencia de lo anterior han resultado perseguidos
y sometidos a procesos penales injustos cientos de ciudadanos, y que incluso
muchos de ellos han sido privados de su libertad sin base de legitimidad
alguna, entre los que podemos contar a empresarios, funcionarios policiales,
miembros de las Fuerzas Armadas Nacionales, trabajadores, sindicalistas,
representantes de partidos políticos, líderes democráticamente electos y, lo
más grave, *estudiantes universitarios y líderes juveniles* por el simple
hecho de expresarse contra los abusos del poder o cuestionar el desempeño
gubernamental;
*CONSIDERANDO:* Que hemos determinado que ello responde a una política
formal del Estado destinada a la criminalización de la disidencia y de la
oposición que está dirigida a desconocer la legitimidad del opuesto y al
diálogo como forma de resolución de los conflictos políticos y sociales, y a
sembrar el miedo en la población en general a través del uso indebido de las
instituciones que conforman el sistema de justicia y del irrespeto los
derechos civiles, al pluralismo político como uno de los valores superiores
de nuestro ordenamiento jurídico, a las más elementales reglas de
convivencia pacífica y a las normas que regulan el desempeño del poder en el
Estado Democrático y Social, de Derecho y de Justicia en los términos en que
se pauta en el Art. 2º de nuestra Carta Magna;
*ACORDAMOS*: Denunciar la existencia en Venezuela de una política
generalizada y sistemática de persecución por motivos políticos, ejercida
contra la disidencia y la oposición a través de las instituciones del
sistema de justicia nacional que amerita que los organismos internacionales
tutelares de la democracia y de los derechos humanos registren los eventos
que lo demuestran y, dentro de sus atribuciones, tomen las medidas
necesarias para hacer cesar tales atentados contra los derechos de la
ciudadanía;
*EN CONSECUENCIA, HEMOS DECIDIDO:*
*PRIMERO:* Solidarizarnos decididamente con los perseguidos y presos
políticos de nuestra nación;
*SEGUNDO:* Reclamar de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y de
la OEA su decidida intervención, a través de un a visita *In Loco* a nuestro
país, para hacer constar los hechos aquí denunciados y hacer cesar toda
persecución ilegítima que, disfrazada de procedimiento legal, se esté
instruyendo o haya sido instruida injustamente contra todos los perseguidos
y, especialmente, contra todos los presos políticos de nuestro país;
*TERCERO:* Informar que continuamos la huelga de hambre ante la
representación en Venezuela de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA),
y que implementaremos cuántos medios de protesta, pacíficos pero
contundentes, sean necesarios:
1. *Al reconocimiento expreso, nacional e internacional,* de la existencia
de una sistemática política gubernamental orientada a la criminalización de
las expresiones disidentes u opositoras;
2. *Al reconocimiento expreso, nacional e internacional,* de la existencia
de presos y perseguidos políticos en nuestra nación;
3. *Al cese inmediato de toda persecución judicial, fiscal o policial*contra
quienes, como nuestro compañero Julio Rivas y otros, hayan sido sujetos a
procedimientos criminales injustos o a persecuciones de cualquier índole por
el simple hecho de ejercer válidamente sus derechos constitucionales.
*REIVINDICAMOS* formalmente a la expresión pacífica de nuestras ideas, a
nuestro derecho a la libertad de conciencia, a nuestro derecho a la
manifestación pacífica de nuestras opiniones y al diálogo como nuestras
herramientas de lucha democrática;
*EXIGIMOS* de las instituciones nacionales e internacionales que, *sin sesgo
ideológico distinto al del humanismo pleno,* y *respetando al pluralismo
político y a la tolerancia* como valores esenciales para la pacífica
convivencia, *que cumplan los deberes* que les han sido asignados por los
Tratados Internacionales, la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de
Venezuela y las leyes vigentes * con estricto apego a la consideración del
ser humano, libre y solidario, como destinatario último de todas sus
actuaciones por encima de las pretensiones personalistas, belicistas o
desconocedoras desde el poder de la Dignidad Humana.*
En Caracas, a los Veintisiete (27) días del mes de Septiembre de Dos Mil
Nueve (2009) * *
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Saturday, September 26, 2009
ALERTA - from Marcel Granier
El mundo está oficialmente notificado
Notificación de Marcel Granier en el foro de emergencia sobre libertad de expresión organizado por la SIP en Caracas, el 18 de septiembre de 2009"Quiero aprovechar estos momentos que me conceden para hacer una Notificación Oficial. Notificación Oficial que les pido me ayuden a hacer llegar a la mayor cantidad posible de personas, medios de comunicación, Jefes de Estado y organismos internacionales.
Considero necesario, para evitar que a nivel internacional se produzcan en el futuro inútiles sorpresas y extemporáneos sentimientos de culpa, que los venezolanos levantemos nuestra voz mientras queda una oportunidad para hacerlo, y hagamos saber al mundo que el proyecto de hegemonía comunicacional anunciado por el entonces Ministro de Información y Comunicaciones Andrés Izarra y ratificado por el Presidente, está a punto de concretarse.
A partir de ese momento se habrá silenciado toda forma de protesta en Venezuela y se habrá callado y eliminado toda disidencia, toda dirigencia política no autorizada, todo tipo de organización sindical, civil, profesional, popular que pretenda preservar la mas mínima independencia del poder absoluto del régimen.A partir de ese momento ya no habrá presos políticos, como tenemos ahora en número cada vez más preocupante, sino desaparecidos, como nos enseña la trágica experiencia de Argentina y Chile.
Ya no habrá cárceles, sino centros de educación ideológica como en la Unión Soviética y China. Ya no habrá juicios, sino ejecuciones sumarísimas, como nos notificó orgullosamente el dictador Fidel Castro, haciendo referencia a uno de los tantos procesos de eliminación de toda forma de disidencia política, en ese "mar de la felicidad" que se llama Cuba.Concientes de los planes que tiene este régimen, nosotros los venezolanos podemos aceptar que el señor Zapatero y el rey Juan Carlos, reciban cordialmente al Presidente Chávez con miras a facilitar conspicuos negocios entre la empresa española Repsol y la bolivariana PDVSA.
Entendemos y añoramos un Jefe de Gobierno que conciba como propia y prioritaria la función de asegurar más puestos de trabajo para sus ciudadanos. Lo que no podremos aceptar nunca, y para esto el sentido de esta Notificación Oficial, es que el señor Zapatero diga, dentro de 10, 20 o 30 años: ¡No sabíamos con quién estábamos negociando! ¡Quién lo hubiera sospechado! o un más diplomático: ¡Teníamos alguna sospecha pero había tan poca información!
No señor Zapatero, usted, como el señor Insulza, o la ONU, la OEA, el Presidente Obama y su Secretaria de Estado, o los gobernantes de Francia, Italia o Brasil, están todos oficialmente notificados de que, en Venezuela, han cerrado en un solo día 32 emisoras de radio y se preparan para cerrar 208 mas en la predecible continuación del proceso de eliminación radical de toda libertad de expresión, proceso que se inició el 27 de Mayo de 2007 con el cierre de RCTV y que incluye la amenaza constante y la criminalización continua de cualquier medio que sostenga una línea editorial independiente.
Esta criminalización produce una autocensura que, si no fuera tan grave, daría risa. Globovisión es perseguida, entre otras cosas, por informar sobre un movimiento sísmico, dije sísmico no político, de 5,4 de magnitud en la escala de Richter, ocurrido en meses pasados, movimiento sísmico imposible de ocultar pues fue percibido por la mayoría de la población. A pesar de su indudable independencia informativa, que los protege de cualquier forma de indigna autocensura, esta persecución ocasionó que, hace unos días, en ocasión de otro movimiento sísmico aún mas fuerte, que produjo daños materiales y victimas, la periodista que relataba las noticias en vivo y directo, se encontrara en serias dificultades para informar lo que estaba ocurriendo en ese momento, sin mencionar las palabras temblor, sismo o terremoto. Todos, público y reportera, veíamos y sentíamos los movimientos, pero nadie se atrevía a llamarlos por su nombre, hasta que el organismo oficial decretara oficialmente que había ocurrido un temblor.
Esto es sólo una muestra de lo que pasa en Venezuela. Si las personas y los organismos que acabo de mencionar, quieren seguir escudándose en la zona cómoda que les proporciona la aparente legitimidad del régimen del Teniente Coronel Chávez Frías, y bajo dicha legitimidad pretenden justificar u obviar este cierre masivo de medios, nunca antes visto en país alguno, lamentamos mucho hacérselo mas difícil proporcionándoles evidencias de que en Venezuela, no existe Separación de Poderes, ni Estado de Derecho, así como tampoco se respetan los Derechos Humanos de los venezolanos, y por lo tanto ni el régimen es legítimo ni estamos en Democracia, ni tienen forma de justificar nada. Están negociando, compartiendo y son cómplices de un dictador. Lo que ocurra de ahora en adelante es también responsabilidad de esas personalidades y organismos.
Para mas evidencia deben saber que, días antes al cierre de esas 32 emisoras de radio por parte del Teniente Diosdado Cabello, la Fiscal General Luisa Ortega Díaz, cabeza del Ministerio Publico que según el artículo 285 de la Constitución venezolana tiene la función de garantizar el respeto de los Derechos y Garantías Constitucionales, además de los tratados, convenios y acuerdos internacionales del cual sea parte la Republica en los procesos judiciales, presentó ante la Asamblea nacional, siguiendo instrucciones Públicas y notorias del Presidente de la República, una propuesta legislativa, llamada Ley de Delitos Mediáticos, tal vez el instrumento con mas vocación totalitaria y represiva, jamás formulado en la historia de Latinoamérica.Al hacerlo no sólo violó la Constitución venezolana sino el principio universal de la teoría de la Separación de los Poderes Públicos que considera que el Ministerio Público “No tiene facultades de iniciativa normativa, más allá de sus funciones internas para la aplicación del derecho, por lo que no es parte de la función legislativa" .
El hecho de que, ante la protesta unánime de venezolanos de todas las tendencias, este proyecto de Ley no haya sido discutido por la Asamblea Nacional, "por ahora", no disminuye la gravedad del hecho de que La Fiscalía, al seguir públicamente instrucciones del Jefe de Estado, demostró su dependencia y supeditación al mismo, en contra de lo establecido por la Constitución y, al presentar esa ley formulada para reprimir los medios de comunicación, automáticamente se descalifica para actuar objetivamente en cualquier materia que competa a estos.Como si esto fuera poco, días después la misma Fiscal, tratando de justificar la desmedida represión por parte de las fuerzas del orden Público a estudiantes, trabajadores, profesores, padres y representantes que participaban en una manifestación pacífica en contra de la nueva ley Orgánica de Educación, declaró lo siguiente y cito textualmente: “estas conductas (refiriéndose a las manifestaciones) que están asumiendo algunas personas, esto es Rebelión Civil” y continua: “ leo el articulo 143: serán castigados con presidio de 12 a 24 años los que se alcen públicamente en actitud hostil contra el Gobierno legítimamente constituido”.
Para la Fiscal General de la República, tal como lo refleja su Proyecto de Ley que no ha sido aprobado pero guía evidentemente sus actuaciones, toda manifestación pacífica y toda disidencia son una rebelión civil, negando así el derecho a la protesta consagrado en la Constitución Nacional de Venezuela. Esta es la Fiscal General de la Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, este es el funcionario que, rigiéndose por el principio de objetividad e imparcialidad en el ejercicio de sus facultades, debería velar únicamente por la correcta aplicación del Derecho y la defensa de la Constitución, con la obligación de investigar con igual celo no sólo los antecedentes que permiten sustentar la persecución y acusación, sino también los antecedentes que permitan apoyar la defensa del imputado.Pero su actuación no es un caso aislado, en estas mismas manifestaciones, un hoy tristemente célebre Coronel Benavides arengaba a las fuerzas del orden público, a las que se les había impartido la orden ilegal de reprimir violentamente a los manifestantes, ordenándole a un soldado: “Proceda a quitarme a la periodista”, la cual armada de su micrófono, constituía al parecer una seria amenaza para el militar, mientras este hacía proselitismo político, violando así el principio de no beligerancia de la Fuerza Armada establecido en la Constitución y actuando como parte de un órgano represivo ilegal al servicio de una personalidad, un partido y una ideología.Nada de esto es de extrañar. Todos los días, a pesar de que la mayoría de los venezolanos rechazamos la propuesta de reforma de la Constitución presentada por el Presidente de la República, Teniente Coronel Hugo Chávez Frías, que pretendía consagrar el socialismo como doctrina única del Estado venezolano, ese funcionario publico que debería actuar como Presidente de todos los venezolanos, en pleno ejercicio de su cargo y no de su militancia política, amenaza públicamente de muerte a la mayoría de los venezolanos al pronunciar el lema
“Patria Socialismo o Muerte” y esa amenaza de muerte está dirigida, notoria y públicamente a la mayoría de los venezolanos los cuales rechazamos la reforma constitucional.Los venezolanos estamos dispuestos a resistir y a oponernos con todas nuestras fuerzas y convicciones democráticas a la implantación de este régimen y lograremos detenerlo. Esa resistencia debería contar con el apoyo de todos los latinoamericanos, puesto que este proyecto totalitario tiene vocación imperialista. Del apoyo del resto del mundo no nos hacemos muchas ilusiones. La experiencia de Cuba, cuando fallezca el Dictador, producirá nuevos y extemporáneos asombros e inútiles golpes de pecho, aun cuándo la represión a la que está sometido el pueblo cubano desde hace mas de 5 décadas, no llame a engaño a nadie.
En Cuba la gente está silenciada y la mentira es la verdad oficial, tal como quieren hacer en Venezuela.Ahora cuando el Teniente Coronel Chávez Frías anuncia vientos de guerra y endeuda a Venezuela en miles de millones de dólares y euros para lanzarse en una loca carrera armamentista, que no presagia nada bueno para América Latina, es oportuno recordar la "advertencia a Occidente" formulada por el escritor y perseguido político Alexander Solzhenitsyn, cuando dio la magnitud de la represión y de las victimas del régimen comunista:
“Puedo dar la cantidad de pérdidas humanas inmediatamente: SESENTA Y SEIS MILLONES DE MUERTOS. Estas son las pérdidas humanas en Rusia como resultado del experimento socialista: SESENTA Y SEIS MILLONES DE PERSONAS.
¿Con la guerra? (preguntó el periodista)
No, sin la guerra, o sea descontando las pérdidas de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Repito, desde 1917 hasta nuestros días las pérdidas ascienden a SESENTA Y SEIS MILLONES DE SERES HUMANOS”. *Señoras y señores, este es el modelo que guía los pasos del presidente Chávez, no sólo para Venezuela sino para América Latina. Este proyecto dictatorial de corte militar y comunista necesita callar a los medios para que la represión no tenga límites ni sea conocida, sino dentro de muchos años. Nosotros y ustedes estamos en primera fila. El mundo está oficialmente notificado".
Marcel Granier
*Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Advertencia a Occidente, p. 254.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Notificación de Marcel Granier en el foro de emergencia sobre libertad de expresión organizado por la SIP en Caracas, el 18 de septiembre de 2009"Quiero aprovechar estos momentos que me conceden para hacer una Notificación Oficial. Notificación Oficial que les pido me ayuden a hacer llegar a la mayor cantidad posible de personas, medios de comunicación, Jefes de Estado y organismos internacionales.
Considero necesario, para evitar que a nivel internacional se produzcan en el futuro inútiles sorpresas y extemporáneos sentimientos de culpa, que los venezolanos levantemos nuestra voz mientras queda una oportunidad para hacerlo, y hagamos saber al mundo que el proyecto de hegemonía comunicacional anunciado por el entonces Ministro de Información y Comunicaciones Andrés Izarra y ratificado por el Presidente, está a punto de concretarse.
A partir de ese momento se habrá silenciado toda forma de protesta en Venezuela y se habrá callado y eliminado toda disidencia, toda dirigencia política no autorizada, todo tipo de organización sindical, civil, profesional, popular que pretenda preservar la mas mínima independencia del poder absoluto del régimen.A partir de ese momento ya no habrá presos políticos, como tenemos ahora en número cada vez más preocupante, sino desaparecidos, como nos enseña la trágica experiencia de Argentina y Chile.
Ya no habrá cárceles, sino centros de educación ideológica como en la Unión Soviética y China. Ya no habrá juicios, sino ejecuciones sumarísimas, como nos notificó orgullosamente el dictador Fidel Castro, haciendo referencia a uno de los tantos procesos de eliminación de toda forma de disidencia política, en ese "mar de la felicidad" que se llama Cuba.Concientes de los planes que tiene este régimen, nosotros los venezolanos podemos aceptar que el señor Zapatero y el rey Juan Carlos, reciban cordialmente al Presidente Chávez con miras a facilitar conspicuos negocios entre la empresa española Repsol y la bolivariana PDVSA.
Entendemos y añoramos un Jefe de Gobierno que conciba como propia y prioritaria la función de asegurar más puestos de trabajo para sus ciudadanos. Lo que no podremos aceptar nunca, y para esto el sentido de esta Notificación Oficial, es que el señor Zapatero diga, dentro de 10, 20 o 30 años: ¡No sabíamos con quién estábamos negociando! ¡Quién lo hubiera sospechado! o un más diplomático: ¡Teníamos alguna sospecha pero había tan poca información!
No señor Zapatero, usted, como el señor Insulza, o la ONU, la OEA, el Presidente Obama y su Secretaria de Estado, o los gobernantes de Francia, Italia o Brasil, están todos oficialmente notificados de que, en Venezuela, han cerrado en un solo día 32 emisoras de radio y se preparan para cerrar 208 mas en la predecible continuación del proceso de eliminación radical de toda libertad de expresión, proceso que se inició el 27 de Mayo de 2007 con el cierre de RCTV y que incluye la amenaza constante y la criminalización continua de cualquier medio que sostenga una línea editorial independiente.
Esta criminalización produce una autocensura que, si no fuera tan grave, daría risa. Globovisión es perseguida, entre otras cosas, por informar sobre un movimiento sísmico, dije sísmico no político, de 5,4 de magnitud en la escala de Richter, ocurrido en meses pasados, movimiento sísmico imposible de ocultar pues fue percibido por la mayoría de la población. A pesar de su indudable independencia informativa, que los protege de cualquier forma de indigna autocensura, esta persecución ocasionó que, hace unos días, en ocasión de otro movimiento sísmico aún mas fuerte, que produjo daños materiales y victimas, la periodista que relataba las noticias en vivo y directo, se encontrara en serias dificultades para informar lo que estaba ocurriendo en ese momento, sin mencionar las palabras temblor, sismo o terremoto. Todos, público y reportera, veíamos y sentíamos los movimientos, pero nadie se atrevía a llamarlos por su nombre, hasta que el organismo oficial decretara oficialmente que había ocurrido un temblor.
Esto es sólo una muestra de lo que pasa en Venezuela. Si las personas y los organismos que acabo de mencionar, quieren seguir escudándose en la zona cómoda que les proporciona la aparente legitimidad del régimen del Teniente Coronel Chávez Frías, y bajo dicha legitimidad pretenden justificar u obviar este cierre masivo de medios, nunca antes visto en país alguno, lamentamos mucho hacérselo mas difícil proporcionándoles evidencias de que en Venezuela, no existe Separación de Poderes, ni Estado de Derecho, así como tampoco se respetan los Derechos Humanos de los venezolanos, y por lo tanto ni el régimen es legítimo ni estamos en Democracia, ni tienen forma de justificar nada. Están negociando, compartiendo y son cómplices de un dictador. Lo que ocurra de ahora en adelante es también responsabilidad de esas personalidades y organismos.
Para mas evidencia deben saber que, días antes al cierre de esas 32 emisoras de radio por parte del Teniente Diosdado Cabello, la Fiscal General Luisa Ortega Díaz, cabeza del Ministerio Publico que según el artículo 285 de la Constitución venezolana tiene la función de garantizar el respeto de los Derechos y Garantías Constitucionales, además de los tratados, convenios y acuerdos internacionales del cual sea parte la Republica en los procesos judiciales, presentó ante la Asamblea nacional, siguiendo instrucciones Públicas y notorias del Presidente de la República, una propuesta legislativa, llamada Ley de Delitos Mediáticos, tal vez el instrumento con mas vocación totalitaria y represiva, jamás formulado en la historia de Latinoamérica.Al hacerlo no sólo violó la Constitución venezolana sino el principio universal de la teoría de la Separación de los Poderes Públicos que considera que el Ministerio Público “No tiene facultades de iniciativa normativa, más allá de sus funciones internas para la aplicación del derecho, por lo que no es parte de la función legislativa" .
El hecho de que, ante la protesta unánime de venezolanos de todas las tendencias, este proyecto de Ley no haya sido discutido por la Asamblea Nacional, "por ahora", no disminuye la gravedad del hecho de que La Fiscalía, al seguir públicamente instrucciones del Jefe de Estado, demostró su dependencia y supeditación al mismo, en contra de lo establecido por la Constitución y, al presentar esa ley formulada para reprimir los medios de comunicación, automáticamente se descalifica para actuar objetivamente en cualquier materia que competa a estos.Como si esto fuera poco, días después la misma Fiscal, tratando de justificar la desmedida represión por parte de las fuerzas del orden Público a estudiantes, trabajadores, profesores, padres y representantes que participaban en una manifestación pacífica en contra de la nueva ley Orgánica de Educación, declaró lo siguiente y cito textualmente: “estas conductas (refiriéndose a las manifestaciones) que están asumiendo algunas personas, esto es Rebelión Civil” y continua: “ leo el articulo 143: serán castigados con presidio de 12 a 24 años los que se alcen públicamente en actitud hostil contra el Gobierno legítimamente constituido”.
Para la Fiscal General de la República, tal como lo refleja su Proyecto de Ley que no ha sido aprobado pero guía evidentemente sus actuaciones, toda manifestación pacífica y toda disidencia son una rebelión civil, negando así el derecho a la protesta consagrado en la Constitución Nacional de Venezuela. Esta es la Fiscal General de la Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, este es el funcionario que, rigiéndose por el principio de objetividad e imparcialidad en el ejercicio de sus facultades, debería velar únicamente por la correcta aplicación del Derecho y la defensa de la Constitución, con la obligación de investigar con igual celo no sólo los antecedentes que permiten sustentar la persecución y acusación, sino también los antecedentes que permitan apoyar la defensa del imputado.Pero su actuación no es un caso aislado, en estas mismas manifestaciones, un hoy tristemente célebre Coronel Benavides arengaba a las fuerzas del orden público, a las que se les había impartido la orden ilegal de reprimir violentamente a los manifestantes, ordenándole a un soldado: “Proceda a quitarme a la periodista”, la cual armada de su micrófono, constituía al parecer una seria amenaza para el militar, mientras este hacía proselitismo político, violando así el principio de no beligerancia de la Fuerza Armada establecido en la Constitución y actuando como parte de un órgano represivo ilegal al servicio de una personalidad, un partido y una ideología.Nada de esto es de extrañar. Todos los días, a pesar de que la mayoría de los venezolanos rechazamos la propuesta de reforma de la Constitución presentada por el Presidente de la República, Teniente Coronel Hugo Chávez Frías, que pretendía consagrar el socialismo como doctrina única del Estado venezolano, ese funcionario publico que debería actuar como Presidente de todos los venezolanos, en pleno ejercicio de su cargo y no de su militancia política, amenaza públicamente de muerte a la mayoría de los venezolanos al pronunciar el lema
“Patria Socialismo o Muerte” y esa amenaza de muerte está dirigida, notoria y públicamente a la mayoría de los venezolanos los cuales rechazamos la reforma constitucional.Los venezolanos estamos dispuestos a resistir y a oponernos con todas nuestras fuerzas y convicciones democráticas a la implantación de este régimen y lograremos detenerlo. Esa resistencia debería contar con el apoyo de todos los latinoamericanos, puesto que este proyecto totalitario tiene vocación imperialista. Del apoyo del resto del mundo no nos hacemos muchas ilusiones. La experiencia de Cuba, cuando fallezca el Dictador, producirá nuevos y extemporáneos asombros e inútiles golpes de pecho, aun cuándo la represión a la que está sometido el pueblo cubano desde hace mas de 5 décadas, no llame a engaño a nadie.
En Cuba la gente está silenciada y la mentira es la verdad oficial, tal como quieren hacer en Venezuela.Ahora cuando el Teniente Coronel Chávez Frías anuncia vientos de guerra y endeuda a Venezuela en miles de millones de dólares y euros para lanzarse en una loca carrera armamentista, que no presagia nada bueno para América Latina, es oportuno recordar la "advertencia a Occidente" formulada por el escritor y perseguido político Alexander Solzhenitsyn, cuando dio la magnitud de la represión y de las victimas del régimen comunista:
“Puedo dar la cantidad de pérdidas humanas inmediatamente: SESENTA Y SEIS MILLONES DE MUERTOS. Estas son las pérdidas humanas en Rusia como resultado del experimento socialista: SESENTA Y SEIS MILLONES DE PERSONAS.
¿Con la guerra? (preguntó el periodista)
No, sin la guerra, o sea descontando las pérdidas de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Repito, desde 1917 hasta nuestros días las pérdidas ascienden a SESENTA Y SEIS MILLONES DE SERES HUMANOS”. *Señoras y señores, este es el modelo que guía los pasos del presidente Chávez, no sólo para Venezuela sino para América Latina. Este proyecto dictatorial de corte militar y comunista necesita callar a los medios para que la represión no tenga límites ni sea conocida, sino dentro de muchos años. Nosotros y ustedes estamos en primera fila. El mundo está oficialmente notificado".
Marcel Granier
*Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Advertencia a Occidente, p. 254.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Friday, September 25, 2009
Bloggers' question to CNN's LKL
The following are some of the questions from bloggers' that were sent to CNN's Larry King Live for consideration to ask Hugo Chavez:
When was the last time that he said yes to a one-on-one interview with an opposition-run television network in Venezuela? Alexandra Beech
hugo…How can you sell yourself as a defender of the poor and of the environment and at the same time sell gas in Venezuela for less than 10 cents a gallon and by which you take away more than 10% of the GDP from the poorest of the poor and give it to those who drive cars?
hugo… According to the audited figures of PDVSA last year each one of the 27 million citizens of Venezuela could have received cash 275 dollars per month. Do you think your government is giving the Venezuelans value for money?
hugo Last week you were seen over national TV asking some schoolchildren boo the opposition together with you. Do you think this is an appropriate role for a state leader in a divided country, especially considering that some of the parents of those children could be of the opposition?
hugo What does handing over 100.000 Kalashnikovs to yours smell like? Roses? Per Kurowski
Hugo Chavez travels the world with a committee of hundreds of staffers. While Chavez spends large amounts of money in his world public relations financially assisting other nations, Venezuelans face hunger, low quality of life, violence, and major restrictions on the purchase of foreign currency. Is this fair? Maru Angarita
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
When was the last time that he said yes to a one-on-one interview with an opposition-run television network in Venezuela? Alexandra Beech
hugo…How can you sell yourself as a defender of the poor and of the environment and at the same time sell gas in Venezuela for less than 10 cents a gallon and by which you take away more than 10% of the GDP from the poorest of the poor and give it to those who drive cars?
hugo… According to the audited figures of PDVSA last year each one of the 27 million citizens of Venezuela could have received cash 275 dollars per month. Do you think your government is giving the Venezuelans value for money?
hugo Last week you were seen over national TV asking some schoolchildren boo the opposition together with you. Do you think this is an appropriate role for a state leader in a divided country, especially considering that some of the parents of those children could be of the opposition?
hugo What does handing over 100.000 Kalashnikovs to yours smell like? Roses? Per Kurowski
Hugo Chavez travels the world with a committee of hundreds of staffers. While Chavez spends large amounts of money in his world public relations financially assisting other nations, Venezuelans face hunger, low quality of life, violence, and major restrictions on the purchase of foreign currency. Is this fair? Maru Angarita
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Saturday, September 19, 2009
The growing risk of conflict in Venezuela by Enrique ter Horst
The growing risk of conflict in Venezuela
Enrique ter Horst
Caracas, 18 September 2009
Signs announcing conflict in Venezuela have been present ever since Hugo Chávez was elected President of the Republic in 1998, with his discourse of social hatred and political revenge. These signs are now impossible to overlook, as President Chávez, flagrantly violating the Constitution, has started to turn his discourse into decrees, laws and governmental decisions directed at cancelling civil and political rights and dismantling the liberal state and market economy the Constitution, his Constitution, theoretically guarantees. His declared aim is nothing less than to extend his authority to all sectors of human activity, indefinitely, under the guise of “socialism”.
President Chávez has clearly spelled out his objective, in writing and in detail, in his proposal to reform the Constitution, which reform was rejected by the Venezuelan people when the referendum on the subject was defeated in December of 2007. President Chávez himself recognized his defeat, even if he added that for the opposition it had been a “victoria de mierda”. The reform proposal would have entailed the elimination of private property and the end of representative democracy and citizens’ rights, as well as the establishment of a centralized state and controlled society along the Cuban Marxist-Leninist model, with the state and the party (the PSUV in this case) constituting one power structure controlled by the latter and President Chávez leading both, concentrating all power at the top.
It must be added that the proposed reform of the constitution was most probably rejected by a margin much larger than the one announced by the National Electoral Council (CNE); the CNE has still not published the final results of the referendum as it cannot explain the destiny of some 800.000 ballots, about 8% of the valid votes. Chávez did not take No for an answer, however, and has continued to push ahead with his Marxist blueprint, destroying his electoral legitimacy by usurping powers he constitutionally does not have in order to pursue a radical societal project for which he has no mandate.
Before presenting his reform proposal for approval to the people Chávez had in these last ten years abolished all checks and balances on his exercise of power and taken full control of the state, including parliament (with the help of the politically organized opposition, it must be said, when it decided not to participate in the last legislative elections), the judiciary (including the TSJ, the Supreme Court), the electoral authority, the Armed Forces, the oil, steel, aluminum and cement industries, all electricity generation, almost half of food distribution, as well as about half of all TV and radio stations.
Nationalizations have led to the state now controlling around 40% of GDP. In addition, the regime has complete regulatory control of the banking system, which anyhow largely depends on state-owned oil revenue to function. In addition, some 40 products are now the object of price regulation and production quotas set by the government, complete with specific daily monitoring mechanisms for each one of them. Although oil prices have recovered significantly from the lows of 6-8 months ago, oil production and exports have not recovered in the same manner for lack of investment and diminished demand, while financial needs have increased dramatically with the large number of nationalizations and the almost immediate inefficiency that has set in in their wake. The only criterion for advancement in the nationalized companies is political loyalty.
Ten years of price controls, nationalizations and disinvestment by the private sector have led to inflation and scarcity. As an overvalued exchange rate has become untenable, the regime has ensured a minimum of economic stability by importing the goods that domestic industry and agriculture have stopped producing, and by progressively moving to a more centrally planned economy, nationalizing not only key “strategic” sectors but also larger companies in sectors like food and banking in order to gain a presence able to influence the market and advance its political objectives. The regime has undoubtedly moved closer to controlling costs, margins, and prices, and mistakes and inefficiencies can always be repaired by the huge oil income, almost $ 100 billion last year, and about half that amount this year.
The regime has now become so radical that it no longer recognizes its own trade unions as negotiating partners on the other side of the bargaining table, as the concept of “social property” makes the entire tripartite philosophy of cooperation between employers, workers and the state (now by far the largest employer in Venezuela) “useless”, according to a spokesman of the Communist Party. According to Andres Velazquez, the Secretary General of la Causa R and a respected labor leader, also citing the Labor Observatory of the Catholic University, labor conflicts have increased from 45 in January to 59 in February, 113 in March, and now total over 400. They affect mainly the aluminum, steel, iron briquette plants, electricity, iron ore mining, health, education, salt mining, oil, car assembly and the judicial sectors.
Two regions are carrying a disproportionate portion of the job destruction and social tension brought about by the regimes’ nationalizations and its policy of confrontation with organized labor: the Ciudad Guayana cluster of heavy industry, concentrating the steel mills and aluminum smelters, and parts of the oil industry, especially on the eastern shore of Lake Maracaibo. Although it could be attributed to incompetence, the fact that these two situations have been allowed to fester for over six months gives the impression that the regime is no longer only punishing individuals and some social groups that openly oppose it, but entire regions, as Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Duvalier and Hafez el-Assad were fond of doing. The state of Táchira, for ten years the object of governmental neglect, and which elected last November a tough opposition governor and massively voted against Chávez’ indefinite reelection amendment last February, also has been the object of government retaliation and harassment.
Freedom of expression has been under attack since early on in the Chávez regime. A law on the “social responsibility” of the media has regulated contents for already some years, and most TV and radio stations have practiced some degree of self-censorship ever since. Those that do not are selectively subjected to verbal abuse by Chávez personally, punitive fines, and aggression by government-controlled groups of hoodlums that physically and verbally attack their journalists and deface their offices. Their reporters are not allowed to government-organized press conferences. The written press, most radio stations and one TV station (Globovision) still speak their mind, but freedom of expression is now high on the list of rights to be further curtailed by the regime. Private TV station Globovision and over 240 private radio stations (out of a total of some 500) have become the focus of Chávez’ personal attention. 32 of them and 2 TV stations were closed last July, and in early September the competent Minister announced the closure of an additional 29. To nobody’s surprise, growing self-censorship in a large number of stations has led to the cancellation of programs critical of the government.
*
Although they might not fundamentally affect the nature of the political system, Chávez had already in January 2008, barely a month after the defeat of his reform proposal, added the expression “del Poder Popular” to the names of all Ministries, and “Bolivariana” to the Armed Forces, also imposing on troops and officers the Cuban-style “Patria, socialismo, o muerte!” salute. He attaches great value to symbols, as have all totalitarian leaders and movements, be they fascist or communist, and he has allowed himself to clearly show his colours by imposing their very public use. He has taken a very different approach however when it comes to applying the radical legislation that he has been promulgating. It will be recalled that Chávez promulgated in early August 2008, in exercise of his delegated legislative powers that ended on 31 July 2008, 21 Decree-Laws ranging from food security to the Armed Forces, all critically important to the establishment of a Marxist society, but he still did not feel that his revolution had enough support, nor could he rely on a sufficiently committed and efficient state to ensure that such radical legislation would be implemented. Then also, the regional elections at the end of November were only three months away.
Chávez’ slow incremental approach came however to an abrupt end with the 15 February electoral approval of his unconstitutional proposal amending the constitution to allow for his indefinite reelection, and a new stage of accelerated imposition of his totalitarian blueprint was initiated. Indeed, the National Assembly has before it four draft laws on Public Planning (planificación publica), which will ensure that central funding (oil income) will flow mainly to governors and mayors that implement the socialist model; Social Property (propiedad social), abolishing private property of means of production; Workers Councils (Consejos de Trabajadores), regulating the management of expropriated private industry; and the reform of the Organic Law on Work (Ley Orgánica del Trabajo), which in its present form would become inapplicable in a socialist economy. All these laws are in furtherance of the Simon Bolivar Socialist Plan for 2007-2013, which spells out the intended Marxist objectives in remarkable clarity. Discussions on the draft laws are to start before 15 August, and the intention is to approve them before the end of the year. The National Assembly also has before it a new tax law, new laws on the sale and rental of real estate, and new banking and insurance laws.
Furthermore, at the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Constituent Assembly (half of its members did not participate in protest at the violation of the 1999 Constitution it approved), President Chávez announced his intention to accelerate the “move to the proletarian state”, adding that by 15 December “not a single counterrevolutionary law” should remain valid. “We must finish demolishing the structures of the bourgeois state and create the new structures of the proletarian state”, he stated on the same occasion. He added that for that purpose he might request a fourth delegation of legislative authority from the National Assembly.
Chávez had announced in early 2008 that, had the constitutional reform been approved, he had 100 “socialist laws” ready to be promulgated under his third delegation of legislative authority. Apparently their time has now come. As his standing in the polls is slowly but steadily eroded by his governments’ dismal performance and by its much reduced income, the pace and depth of his movement to a totalitarian society has accelerated. It is now or never, he feels, and he is “flooring the revolutionary accelerator”, as he said he would. By December these new laws will constitute the “legal” edifice the regime will use to impose, under the guise of “socialism”, a totalitarian society. The Supreme Tribunal of Justice will not declare any of them unconstitutional, but it remains to be seen if they will be implemented, fully or partially, before the legislative election late next year.
**
Chávez is a very gifted communicator and a formidable campaigner. He also is a ruler, not a statesman nor a manager, and not a team-builder but a loner in search of glory, a narcissist. He demands unconditional loyalty, not honest advice, particularly if it crosses his plans; his former closest collaborators will tell you that the more you know the man, the less you like him. He has lost his most competent and honest collaborators, and is now surrounded by sycophants; a regime held together by the solidarity of accomplices. He is, however, far from being a spent force.
Domestically, Chávez’ control of Venezuela’s institutions is now such that, in addition to everything else described above, he is able with impunity to persecute his political opponents with the help of the judiciary, and to not recognize the authority of governors and mayors declared elected in free and fair elections, cancelling their political and administrative attributions. It is no exaggeration to say that Hugo Chávez has become a very powerful dictator who has proven that he is prepared to openly use his power in an arbitrary and brutal manner. Some call his continuous violation of the Constitution “el golpe de estado permanente”, the permanent coup d’etat. As he sees his Marxist plans turned into reality with diminishing resistance he feels emboldened to deepen and extend them.
Chávez’ majority support has ben melting, and the process appears to be irreversible. His extraordinary communication skills had allowed Chávez him to boast, as recently as December 2006, of having been reelected with 62% of the votes after almost a decade in power, but a year later, in December 2007, he lost the constitutional reform referendum by a margin larger than the one resulting from the partial “but irreversible” results published by the CNE (Sumate says 8%). Pulling out all stops and benefitting from the fact that the opposition did not field unitary candidates in all electoral districts, his candidates in the November 2008 regional election garnered 53% of the popular vote against 47% for those of the opposition. Exploiting the fact that the opposition parties where then financially and otherwise exhausted, he used the favorable momentum and every trick in the book to call the referendum on his indefinite reelection, which he then also won with 55% of the votes.
However, since the defeat of his proposed reform of the Constitution in December 2007, electoral victories have come at an increasingly steep cost to Chávez, both politically and financially. His slow slide downwards seems irreversible, according to the three most important polling companies, as his radical program and failed policies are more and more associated with him personally and no longer attributed to his incompetent ministers or to sinister plots by the old oligarchy. Since his 15 February victory securing his indefinite reelection (never mind that submitting the same issue to referendum more than once within one presidential term is unconstitutional), he is increasingly basing his authority on fear.
Since February 15 he also has acted as if he had been elected President for Life, with unlimited powers and no obligation to report to anyone, and his radical Marxist blueprint has been advancing at greater speed. Chávez has been pushing his radical Marxist project forward while ruling against a sizable minority whose floor has never been lower than 35%, and which has been growing in numbers and militancy pari passu with the radicalization of his societal proposal and his dismal government performance. Opinion polls show that since June the country is now split right down the middle, 50% favoring him, 50% against him, and the trend now favors the opposition.
Until 22 August the days of the large marchas (the huge crowds of opponents marching in protest against the regime) appeared to be a thing of the past, but the brutally repressed large march of that Saturday has proven the contrary. All opinion polls show that the numbers growing now are those of Chávez’ opponents, slowly but steadily, ever since the President decided to take this radical, dogmatic course. This growth is also directly related to Chávez’ inability to even come close to satisfying the enormous expectations he has generated (on the contrary, personal insecurity has never been worse, and inflation will pass 30% this year, both factors affecting mainly his political base), and his obsession of concentrating all power on his person has not gone down well with egalitarian Venezuelans. As opinion studies show that this trend is, in all likelihood, irreversible, many political analysts have lost hope that there ever will be another free and fair election under his rule.
Instilling fear has become essential for Chávez to maintain his ambitious quest of both retaining power and imposing a totalitarian system, but the pace and provocative manner the regime has chosen in moving forward is also geared to force its opponents into the open in order to cut them down, particularly its leadership, as soon as they show their colors, also with the aim of justifying more extended and robust repression. Until February he had acted much more carefully, mindful of his democratic credentials, but the new dynamics he has created force him to do so. He knows full well that he cannot remain for too long in the gray zone between capitalism and socialism, and, more importantly, between democracy and dictatorship, also as his perceived weakness could entice his adversaries within his own movement, as well as those opposing him, to remove him forcefully. But then, by jettisoning his few remaining democratic credentials he has unleashed even more powerful forces at a time when he has not yet put in place an institutional and value system that could more or less reliably carry out his extraordinarily radical project.
The momentum Chávez has now generated might satisfy his most extreme and dogmatic faction, but nobody knows for how long. His political movement is still made up of a fairly wide array of power factors, kept together by his charisma and by his revolutionary discourse, as well as by the privileged access to power and money that only he can provide. His party, the PSUV, is basically an undisciplined bunch of opportunists with little ideological commitment and cannot be relied on in difficult times. His military support responds mainly to personal loyalty and material advantages, and a too radical course will not go down well with many of them.
Chávez also has on his side about 15 % of the population that worships him. A part of them, nobody really knows how many, are prepared to fight and die for him, and a number of them has received military instruction and has been armed. It is a factor that has to be taken into account in any assessment, as have to be the armed and often motorized groups of hoodlums co-opted and supported by the government, mainly in Caracas. The recently created “Socialist Patrols”, organized along the model of the Nazi SA, do not yet constitute a force to be feared, but they do not need to much training.
Internationally, Chávez has little to fear from his neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean. He is now reaping the benefits of his extraordinary largesse, which has ensured him a web of complicities with like-minded movements within each of the regions’ countries, as well as solid friendships with most of its heads of state and government. The tide is turning, however. Even if his open intervention in Honduras in support of a President intending to reproduce his own script of abusing his electoral legitimacy in order to remain in power was almost applauded by some, it did confirm a pattern of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries that is troubling for all counties in the region, as was apparent at the Bariloche UNASUR summit only a few weeks later (see Summary 40).
The same is true in the case of the US. Even if the guilt complex of the new US administration regarding its own past intervention in Latin America appears to have paralyzed its policy towards the region, and that President Obama is busy dealing with Afghanistan, Irak, Iran, North Korea, and the economic crisis, the last visit by Chávez to Libya, Syria, Iran (a very public agreement to cooperate in the development of nuclear energy “for peaceful uses” in Venezuela), Byelorussia and Russia (an agreement to sell Venezuela “all the arms it wants”, as stated by President Medvedev, against the Venezuelan recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) did finally get the full attention of the new administration. Chávez is now recognized as a real threat in the western hemisphere, as the Colombia-US agreement on the use of 7 military bases, the Bariloche UNASUR summit and Brazil’s new strategic relationship with France show. Nobody should forget that Chávez started buying an increasing amount of weaponry almost as soon as came to power.
***
The new leaders of the politically organized opposition - the Governors and Mayors elected last November, particularly Ledezma of Caracas, Perez of Zulia and Perez Vivas of Táchira, as well the deputies of PODEMOS led by Ismael Garcia – have made a name for themselves for their courage and their intelligence in standing up to Chávez in his effort to undermine their authority. It has been a golden opportunity which they are using well. They have the possibility to lead a movement that represents half of the country now, and which is bound to continue growing. It still needs, however, to be galvanized into a political force that can act on short notice.
The challenge for the opposition, as political analyst Diego Bautista Urbaneja says, is to continue resisting the totalitarian onslaught while growing and turning the new majority into an effective political movement. Political parties of the opposition still have quite a distance to go as together they have the support of only 25% of the electorate, but they have the monopoly on the fielding of candidates for elected offices. Headed by the third or fourth tier leaders of the past, they continue to mainly behave as electoral movements, at best reacting to events in a slow and haphazard manner, and still not able to present a common alternative political program that would attract a good part of Chavez’ political base. This glaringly absent alternative governance proposal constitutes without any doubt the big Achilles heel of the politically organized opposition, and shows its inability, up to now, to break out from its purely reactive mode, pretty much foreclosing any further possibility of significant growth.
With the new electoral law establishing the first- past- the- post principle the opposition would have a good chance to control the National Assembly if - a big if – its political parties agree on unitary candidates in each and every electoral district; the “perfect alliance” promoted by Teodoro Petkoff. As if this were not difficult enough, the new electoral law also gives the CNE, the electoral authority, the prerogative of redrawing electoral districts, and Chávez controls four of its five magistrates. In addition to an alternative governance program, the opposition political parties need to agree on a strategy to restore democracy and on a strong leader with the authority to set the agenda and have it carried out. But in Venezuela, as in many other places, these leaders are not agreed on, they appear.
The student movement is bound to find its bearings again soon, once classes start at the beginning of October. The regime has had some success in intimidating a part of its leadership, mainly with direct personal threats, but its national network, which has proven its capacity to act on short notice through text-messaging remains largely intact. They will be back, and they will probably be the detonator of developments that would lead to increased tension and a heightened degree of confrontation.
The other potentially important actor is organized labor, even if the main trade union federation, the Confederacion de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV) is now a spent force, with no credibility, no strategy and weakened by corruption. However, the labor movement as a whole has gained importance recently by the regime’s decision to eliminate the private property of means of production, with its proposed “propiedad social”, cancelling the entire tripartite employers-workers-government philosophy. This has led to opposition and chavista trade unions joining forces in some key sectors, such as the oil industry. Organized labor has a long democratic tradition closely associated to the struggle against the Perez Jimenez dictatorship and as a consequence of it having been the creature of the two main political parties of the previous political system, Accion Democratica and Copei. A new more combative labor movement is emerging, with a new leadership steeped in the same tradition. It is clearly another force that could act as a detonator, also as the tensions in Ciudad Guayana and the Maracaibo lake eastern shore mentioned above stem mainly from labor problems created by the regime. In the past, the coalescing protests of the labor and student movements have proven to be an unstoppable force.
The best hope for a peaceful transition to a new democracy is a strong showing of the opposition in the elections for the National Assembly in the second half of next year, and then victory for the opposition presidential candidate in December 2012. Chávez and his regime have on the other hand clearly established their revolutionary and authoritarian credentials, and it is clear that they will not negotiate the dilution of their power nor their Marxist, totalitarian objectives. Recall Chávez’ expression “Esta revolución esta armada y vino para quedarse”. This is an armed revolution, and it is here to stay. A peaceful, democratic return to democracy will be very difficult indeed, but Chávez still has a keen interest in retaining a democratic varnish that avoids his international isolation. He has been very good at “force projection”, but only used physical violence in exceptional circumstances, even if he has proven that he is also prepared to shoot on people to retain power. He also knows that he cannot rely on his Armed Forces to shoot to kill, and that they could quickly turn on him instead, as happened in April of 2002.
Chávez still insists on his totalitarian blueprint receiving a democratic seal of approval. He stated a few weeks ago, at the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Constituent Assembly that his strategy is to conclude by December this big push forward and to then concentrate on the campaign for the legislative elections as from January. Informed sources report that monetary liquidity will be boosted next year, and it is assumed that most of the new legislation now being promulgated will not be implemented until after these elections. For the opposition this means that the game could be over if its political parties do not field unitary candidates in all electoral districts. On the other hand, if it does it could end up controlling parliament.
Still, Chávez’ now openly dictatorial behavior geared to imposing his radical project no matter what has undoubtedly created a new dynamic, opening the door to “unorthodox events” entailing the use of force.[1]
These could originate from a growing array of sources, as Chávez constantly opens new fronts of confrontation and conflict and the opposition political parties do not appear up to the task of organizing a peaceful, democratic response that is proportional to the regimes’ strong totalitarian push. If they are to succeed in channeling the enormous discontent of half of the country and direct the effort to contain the regimes’ onslaught they need to rapidly put in place a much more creative and assertive strategy that reacts more quickly to the regimes’ initiatives and allows them to regain the political initiative.
Among other things it entails reestablishing the legitimacy of their authorities and correcting the impression that they are more preoccupied with petty internal questions than with the fate of the country. Only by acting as one political movement would they deserve to keep their monopoly on the presentation of candidates to elected offices. Such a strategy to ensure a peaceful, electoral transition reestablishing representative democracy appears extremely ambitious at this stage, but it would be aided by Venezuelans’ long-standing aversion to violent political conflict as it exists in Mexico, El Salvador, and Colombia, and which probably still is a consequence of the long and gruesome independence and civil wars of the XIXth century that forged our national identity.[2]
****
Opposition to Chávez and his regime has grown to the point were all polls show that since June he no longer has a majority supporting him. The opposition is now made up of a wide array of people and persuasions, and is unable to articulate a coherent strategy ensuring an electoral return to representative democracy. The position of democratic governments in the region and in Europe, which continue to deal with the regime as if nothing has happened, demoralizes opposition political actors here and compounds the problem.
The regime, having secured the indefinite reelection of its leader and benefitting from a set of favorable national, regional and global circumstances, is now quickly moving to establish the legal framework severely curtailing personal freedoms. As mentioned above, it intends to conclude this task before the end of the year. It is safe to say that the control the regime now exerts over the population bears very little relation to what it was only a year ago, and that it is bound to become even more pervasive. There is now a high risk of political tension erupting into open violence. It is far from certain that such violence could be contained within the borders of Venezuela.
Venezuelans alone will not be able to ensure a peaceful return to democracy. A return to democracy would disarticulate the military threat the regime now represents for its neighbors. The active help of the democratic governments of the Americas has become indispensable, and they would carry a grave historic responsibility if they continued to refuse to do so.
[1]
This appears to have much to do with the fact that the regime has always made a difference between approving legislation and actually implementing it. Still now, it is only applying the legislation it approves in a selective manner, advancing where it finds less resistance and halting all implementation whenever it senses that it could ignite widespread and lasting protest.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Enrique ter Horst
Caracas, 18 September 2009
Signs announcing conflict in Venezuela have been present ever since Hugo Chávez was elected President of the Republic in 1998, with his discourse of social hatred and political revenge. These signs are now impossible to overlook, as President Chávez, flagrantly violating the Constitution, has started to turn his discourse into decrees, laws and governmental decisions directed at cancelling civil and political rights and dismantling the liberal state and market economy the Constitution, his Constitution, theoretically guarantees. His declared aim is nothing less than to extend his authority to all sectors of human activity, indefinitely, under the guise of “socialism”.
President Chávez has clearly spelled out his objective, in writing and in detail, in his proposal to reform the Constitution, which reform was rejected by the Venezuelan people when the referendum on the subject was defeated in December of 2007. President Chávez himself recognized his defeat, even if he added that for the opposition it had been a “victoria de mierda”. The reform proposal would have entailed the elimination of private property and the end of representative democracy and citizens’ rights, as well as the establishment of a centralized state and controlled society along the Cuban Marxist-Leninist model, with the state and the party (the PSUV in this case) constituting one power structure controlled by the latter and President Chávez leading both, concentrating all power at the top.
It must be added that the proposed reform of the constitution was most probably rejected by a margin much larger than the one announced by the National Electoral Council (CNE); the CNE has still not published the final results of the referendum as it cannot explain the destiny of some 800.000 ballots, about 8% of the valid votes. Chávez did not take No for an answer, however, and has continued to push ahead with his Marxist blueprint, destroying his electoral legitimacy by usurping powers he constitutionally does not have in order to pursue a radical societal project for which he has no mandate.
Before presenting his reform proposal for approval to the people Chávez had in these last ten years abolished all checks and balances on his exercise of power and taken full control of the state, including parliament (with the help of the politically organized opposition, it must be said, when it decided not to participate in the last legislative elections), the judiciary (including the TSJ, the Supreme Court), the electoral authority, the Armed Forces, the oil, steel, aluminum and cement industries, all electricity generation, almost half of food distribution, as well as about half of all TV and radio stations.
Nationalizations have led to the state now controlling around 40% of GDP. In addition, the regime has complete regulatory control of the banking system, which anyhow largely depends on state-owned oil revenue to function. In addition, some 40 products are now the object of price regulation and production quotas set by the government, complete with specific daily monitoring mechanisms for each one of them. Although oil prices have recovered significantly from the lows of 6-8 months ago, oil production and exports have not recovered in the same manner for lack of investment and diminished demand, while financial needs have increased dramatically with the large number of nationalizations and the almost immediate inefficiency that has set in in their wake. The only criterion for advancement in the nationalized companies is political loyalty.
Ten years of price controls, nationalizations and disinvestment by the private sector have led to inflation and scarcity. As an overvalued exchange rate has become untenable, the regime has ensured a minimum of economic stability by importing the goods that domestic industry and agriculture have stopped producing, and by progressively moving to a more centrally planned economy, nationalizing not only key “strategic” sectors but also larger companies in sectors like food and banking in order to gain a presence able to influence the market and advance its political objectives. The regime has undoubtedly moved closer to controlling costs, margins, and prices, and mistakes and inefficiencies can always be repaired by the huge oil income, almost $ 100 billion last year, and about half that amount this year.
The regime has now become so radical that it no longer recognizes its own trade unions as negotiating partners on the other side of the bargaining table, as the concept of “social property” makes the entire tripartite philosophy of cooperation between employers, workers and the state (now by far the largest employer in Venezuela) “useless”, according to a spokesman of the Communist Party. According to Andres Velazquez, the Secretary General of la Causa R and a respected labor leader, also citing the Labor Observatory of the Catholic University, labor conflicts have increased from 45 in January to 59 in February, 113 in March, and now total over 400. They affect mainly the aluminum, steel, iron briquette plants, electricity, iron ore mining, health, education, salt mining, oil, car assembly and the judicial sectors.
Two regions are carrying a disproportionate portion of the job destruction and social tension brought about by the regimes’ nationalizations and its policy of confrontation with organized labor: the Ciudad Guayana cluster of heavy industry, concentrating the steel mills and aluminum smelters, and parts of the oil industry, especially on the eastern shore of Lake Maracaibo. Although it could be attributed to incompetence, the fact that these two situations have been allowed to fester for over six months gives the impression that the regime is no longer only punishing individuals and some social groups that openly oppose it, but entire regions, as Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Duvalier and Hafez el-Assad were fond of doing. The state of Táchira, for ten years the object of governmental neglect, and which elected last November a tough opposition governor and massively voted against Chávez’ indefinite reelection amendment last February, also has been the object of government retaliation and harassment.
Freedom of expression has been under attack since early on in the Chávez regime. A law on the “social responsibility” of the media has regulated contents for already some years, and most TV and radio stations have practiced some degree of self-censorship ever since. Those that do not are selectively subjected to verbal abuse by Chávez personally, punitive fines, and aggression by government-controlled groups of hoodlums that physically and verbally attack their journalists and deface their offices. Their reporters are not allowed to government-organized press conferences. The written press, most radio stations and one TV station (Globovision) still speak their mind, but freedom of expression is now high on the list of rights to be further curtailed by the regime. Private TV station Globovision and over 240 private radio stations (out of a total of some 500) have become the focus of Chávez’ personal attention. 32 of them and 2 TV stations were closed last July, and in early September the competent Minister announced the closure of an additional 29. To nobody’s surprise, growing self-censorship in a large number of stations has led to the cancellation of programs critical of the government.
*
Although they might not fundamentally affect the nature of the political system, Chávez had already in January 2008, barely a month after the defeat of his reform proposal, added the expression “del Poder Popular” to the names of all Ministries, and “Bolivariana” to the Armed Forces, also imposing on troops and officers the Cuban-style “Patria, socialismo, o muerte!” salute. He attaches great value to symbols, as have all totalitarian leaders and movements, be they fascist or communist, and he has allowed himself to clearly show his colours by imposing their very public use. He has taken a very different approach however when it comes to applying the radical legislation that he has been promulgating. It will be recalled that Chávez promulgated in early August 2008, in exercise of his delegated legislative powers that ended on 31 July 2008, 21 Decree-Laws ranging from food security to the Armed Forces, all critically important to the establishment of a Marxist society, but he still did not feel that his revolution had enough support, nor could he rely on a sufficiently committed and efficient state to ensure that such radical legislation would be implemented. Then also, the regional elections at the end of November were only three months away.
Chávez’ slow incremental approach came however to an abrupt end with the 15 February electoral approval of his unconstitutional proposal amending the constitution to allow for his indefinite reelection, and a new stage of accelerated imposition of his totalitarian blueprint was initiated. Indeed, the National Assembly has before it four draft laws on Public Planning (planificación publica), which will ensure that central funding (oil income) will flow mainly to governors and mayors that implement the socialist model; Social Property (propiedad social), abolishing private property of means of production; Workers Councils (Consejos de Trabajadores), regulating the management of expropriated private industry; and the reform of the Organic Law on Work (Ley Orgánica del Trabajo), which in its present form would become inapplicable in a socialist economy. All these laws are in furtherance of the Simon Bolivar Socialist Plan for 2007-2013, which spells out the intended Marxist objectives in remarkable clarity. Discussions on the draft laws are to start before 15 August, and the intention is to approve them before the end of the year. The National Assembly also has before it a new tax law, new laws on the sale and rental of real estate, and new banking and insurance laws.
Furthermore, at the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Constituent Assembly (half of its members did not participate in protest at the violation of the 1999 Constitution it approved), President Chávez announced his intention to accelerate the “move to the proletarian state”, adding that by 15 December “not a single counterrevolutionary law” should remain valid. “We must finish demolishing the structures of the bourgeois state and create the new structures of the proletarian state”, he stated on the same occasion. He added that for that purpose he might request a fourth delegation of legislative authority from the National Assembly.
Chávez had announced in early 2008 that, had the constitutional reform been approved, he had 100 “socialist laws” ready to be promulgated under his third delegation of legislative authority. Apparently their time has now come. As his standing in the polls is slowly but steadily eroded by his governments’ dismal performance and by its much reduced income, the pace and depth of his movement to a totalitarian society has accelerated. It is now or never, he feels, and he is “flooring the revolutionary accelerator”, as he said he would. By December these new laws will constitute the “legal” edifice the regime will use to impose, under the guise of “socialism”, a totalitarian society. The Supreme Tribunal of Justice will not declare any of them unconstitutional, but it remains to be seen if they will be implemented, fully or partially, before the legislative election late next year.
**
Chávez is a very gifted communicator and a formidable campaigner. He also is a ruler, not a statesman nor a manager, and not a team-builder but a loner in search of glory, a narcissist. He demands unconditional loyalty, not honest advice, particularly if it crosses his plans; his former closest collaborators will tell you that the more you know the man, the less you like him. He has lost his most competent and honest collaborators, and is now surrounded by sycophants; a regime held together by the solidarity of accomplices. He is, however, far from being a spent force.
Domestically, Chávez’ control of Venezuela’s institutions is now such that, in addition to everything else described above, he is able with impunity to persecute his political opponents with the help of the judiciary, and to not recognize the authority of governors and mayors declared elected in free and fair elections, cancelling their political and administrative attributions. It is no exaggeration to say that Hugo Chávez has become a very powerful dictator who has proven that he is prepared to openly use his power in an arbitrary and brutal manner. Some call his continuous violation of the Constitution “el golpe de estado permanente”, the permanent coup d’etat. As he sees his Marxist plans turned into reality with diminishing resistance he feels emboldened to deepen and extend them.
Chávez’ majority support has ben melting, and the process appears to be irreversible. His extraordinary communication skills had allowed Chávez him to boast, as recently as December 2006, of having been reelected with 62% of the votes after almost a decade in power, but a year later, in December 2007, he lost the constitutional reform referendum by a margin larger than the one resulting from the partial “but irreversible” results published by the CNE (Sumate says 8%). Pulling out all stops and benefitting from the fact that the opposition did not field unitary candidates in all electoral districts, his candidates in the November 2008 regional election garnered 53% of the popular vote against 47% for those of the opposition. Exploiting the fact that the opposition parties where then financially and otherwise exhausted, he used the favorable momentum and every trick in the book to call the referendum on his indefinite reelection, which he then also won with 55% of the votes.
However, since the defeat of his proposed reform of the Constitution in December 2007, electoral victories have come at an increasingly steep cost to Chávez, both politically and financially. His slow slide downwards seems irreversible, according to the three most important polling companies, as his radical program and failed policies are more and more associated with him personally and no longer attributed to his incompetent ministers or to sinister plots by the old oligarchy. Since his 15 February victory securing his indefinite reelection (never mind that submitting the same issue to referendum more than once within one presidential term is unconstitutional), he is increasingly basing his authority on fear.
Since February 15 he also has acted as if he had been elected President for Life, with unlimited powers and no obligation to report to anyone, and his radical Marxist blueprint has been advancing at greater speed. Chávez has been pushing his radical Marxist project forward while ruling against a sizable minority whose floor has never been lower than 35%, and which has been growing in numbers and militancy pari passu with the radicalization of his societal proposal and his dismal government performance. Opinion polls show that since June the country is now split right down the middle, 50% favoring him, 50% against him, and the trend now favors the opposition.
Until 22 August the days of the large marchas (the huge crowds of opponents marching in protest against the regime) appeared to be a thing of the past, but the brutally repressed large march of that Saturday has proven the contrary. All opinion polls show that the numbers growing now are those of Chávez’ opponents, slowly but steadily, ever since the President decided to take this radical, dogmatic course. This growth is also directly related to Chávez’ inability to even come close to satisfying the enormous expectations he has generated (on the contrary, personal insecurity has never been worse, and inflation will pass 30% this year, both factors affecting mainly his political base), and his obsession of concentrating all power on his person has not gone down well with egalitarian Venezuelans. As opinion studies show that this trend is, in all likelihood, irreversible, many political analysts have lost hope that there ever will be another free and fair election under his rule.
Instilling fear has become essential for Chávez to maintain his ambitious quest of both retaining power and imposing a totalitarian system, but the pace and provocative manner the regime has chosen in moving forward is also geared to force its opponents into the open in order to cut them down, particularly its leadership, as soon as they show their colors, also with the aim of justifying more extended and robust repression. Until February he had acted much more carefully, mindful of his democratic credentials, but the new dynamics he has created force him to do so. He knows full well that he cannot remain for too long in the gray zone between capitalism and socialism, and, more importantly, between democracy and dictatorship, also as his perceived weakness could entice his adversaries within his own movement, as well as those opposing him, to remove him forcefully. But then, by jettisoning his few remaining democratic credentials he has unleashed even more powerful forces at a time when he has not yet put in place an institutional and value system that could more or less reliably carry out his extraordinarily radical project.
The momentum Chávez has now generated might satisfy his most extreme and dogmatic faction, but nobody knows for how long. His political movement is still made up of a fairly wide array of power factors, kept together by his charisma and by his revolutionary discourse, as well as by the privileged access to power and money that only he can provide. His party, the PSUV, is basically an undisciplined bunch of opportunists with little ideological commitment and cannot be relied on in difficult times. His military support responds mainly to personal loyalty and material advantages, and a too radical course will not go down well with many of them.
Chávez also has on his side about 15 % of the population that worships him. A part of them, nobody really knows how many, are prepared to fight and die for him, and a number of them has received military instruction and has been armed. It is a factor that has to be taken into account in any assessment, as have to be the armed and often motorized groups of hoodlums co-opted and supported by the government, mainly in Caracas. The recently created “Socialist Patrols”, organized along the model of the Nazi SA, do not yet constitute a force to be feared, but they do not need to much training.
Internationally, Chávez has little to fear from his neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean. He is now reaping the benefits of his extraordinary largesse, which has ensured him a web of complicities with like-minded movements within each of the regions’ countries, as well as solid friendships with most of its heads of state and government. The tide is turning, however. Even if his open intervention in Honduras in support of a President intending to reproduce his own script of abusing his electoral legitimacy in order to remain in power was almost applauded by some, it did confirm a pattern of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries that is troubling for all counties in the region, as was apparent at the Bariloche UNASUR summit only a few weeks later (see Summary 40).
The same is true in the case of the US. Even if the guilt complex of the new US administration regarding its own past intervention in Latin America appears to have paralyzed its policy towards the region, and that President Obama is busy dealing with Afghanistan, Irak, Iran, North Korea, and the economic crisis, the last visit by Chávez to Libya, Syria, Iran (a very public agreement to cooperate in the development of nuclear energy “for peaceful uses” in Venezuela), Byelorussia and Russia (an agreement to sell Venezuela “all the arms it wants”, as stated by President Medvedev, against the Venezuelan recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) did finally get the full attention of the new administration. Chávez is now recognized as a real threat in the western hemisphere, as the Colombia-US agreement on the use of 7 military bases, the Bariloche UNASUR summit and Brazil’s new strategic relationship with France show. Nobody should forget that Chávez started buying an increasing amount of weaponry almost as soon as came to power.
***
The new leaders of the politically organized opposition - the Governors and Mayors elected last November, particularly Ledezma of Caracas, Perez of Zulia and Perez Vivas of Táchira, as well the deputies of PODEMOS led by Ismael Garcia – have made a name for themselves for their courage and their intelligence in standing up to Chávez in his effort to undermine their authority. It has been a golden opportunity which they are using well. They have the possibility to lead a movement that represents half of the country now, and which is bound to continue growing. It still needs, however, to be galvanized into a political force that can act on short notice.
The challenge for the opposition, as political analyst Diego Bautista Urbaneja says, is to continue resisting the totalitarian onslaught while growing and turning the new majority into an effective political movement. Political parties of the opposition still have quite a distance to go as together they have the support of only 25% of the electorate, but they have the monopoly on the fielding of candidates for elected offices. Headed by the third or fourth tier leaders of the past, they continue to mainly behave as electoral movements, at best reacting to events in a slow and haphazard manner, and still not able to present a common alternative political program that would attract a good part of Chavez’ political base. This glaringly absent alternative governance proposal constitutes without any doubt the big Achilles heel of the politically organized opposition, and shows its inability, up to now, to break out from its purely reactive mode, pretty much foreclosing any further possibility of significant growth.
With the new electoral law establishing the first- past- the- post principle the opposition would have a good chance to control the National Assembly if - a big if – its political parties agree on unitary candidates in each and every electoral district; the “perfect alliance” promoted by Teodoro Petkoff. As if this were not difficult enough, the new electoral law also gives the CNE, the electoral authority, the prerogative of redrawing electoral districts, and Chávez controls four of its five magistrates. In addition to an alternative governance program, the opposition political parties need to agree on a strategy to restore democracy and on a strong leader with the authority to set the agenda and have it carried out. But in Venezuela, as in many other places, these leaders are not agreed on, they appear.
The student movement is bound to find its bearings again soon, once classes start at the beginning of October. The regime has had some success in intimidating a part of its leadership, mainly with direct personal threats, but its national network, which has proven its capacity to act on short notice through text-messaging remains largely intact. They will be back, and they will probably be the detonator of developments that would lead to increased tension and a heightened degree of confrontation.
The other potentially important actor is organized labor, even if the main trade union federation, the Confederacion de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV) is now a spent force, with no credibility, no strategy and weakened by corruption. However, the labor movement as a whole has gained importance recently by the regime’s decision to eliminate the private property of means of production, with its proposed “propiedad social”, cancelling the entire tripartite employers-workers-government philosophy. This has led to opposition and chavista trade unions joining forces in some key sectors, such as the oil industry. Organized labor has a long democratic tradition closely associated to the struggle against the Perez Jimenez dictatorship and as a consequence of it having been the creature of the two main political parties of the previous political system, Accion Democratica and Copei. A new more combative labor movement is emerging, with a new leadership steeped in the same tradition. It is clearly another force that could act as a detonator, also as the tensions in Ciudad Guayana and the Maracaibo lake eastern shore mentioned above stem mainly from labor problems created by the regime. In the past, the coalescing protests of the labor and student movements have proven to be an unstoppable force.
The best hope for a peaceful transition to a new democracy is a strong showing of the opposition in the elections for the National Assembly in the second half of next year, and then victory for the opposition presidential candidate in December 2012. Chávez and his regime have on the other hand clearly established their revolutionary and authoritarian credentials, and it is clear that they will not negotiate the dilution of their power nor their Marxist, totalitarian objectives. Recall Chávez’ expression “Esta revolución esta armada y vino para quedarse”. This is an armed revolution, and it is here to stay. A peaceful, democratic return to democracy will be very difficult indeed, but Chávez still has a keen interest in retaining a democratic varnish that avoids his international isolation. He has been very good at “force projection”, but only used physical violence in exceptional circumstances, even if he has proven that he is also prepared to shoot on people to retain power. He also knows that he cannot rely on his Armed Forces to shoot to kill, and that they could quickly turn on him instead, as happened in April of 2002.
Chávez still insists on his totalitarian blueprint receiving a democratic seal of approval. He stated a few weeks ago, at the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Constituent Assembly that his strategy is to conclude by December this big push forward and to then concentrate on the campaign for the legislative elections as from January. Informed sources report that monetary liquidity will be boosted next year, and it is assumed that most of the new legislation now being promulgated will not be implemented until after these elections. For the opposition this means that the game could be over if its political parties do not field unitary candidates in all electoral districts. On the other hand, if it does it could end up controlling parliament.
Still, Chávez’ now openly dictatorial behavior geared to imposing his radical project no matter what has undoubtedly created a new dynamic, opening the door to “unorthodox events” entailing the use of force.[1]
These could originate from a growing array of sources, as Chávez constantly opens new fronts of confrontation and conflict and the opposition political parties do not appear up to the task of organizing a peaceful, democratic response that is proportional to the regimes’ strong totalitarian push. If they are to succeed in channeling the enormous discontent of half of the country and direct the effort to contain the regimes’ onslaught they need to rapidly put in place a much more creative and assertive strategy that reacts more quickly to the regimes’ initiatives and allows them to regain the political initiative.
Among other things it entails reestablishing the legitimacy of their authorities and correcting the impression that they are more preoccupied with petty internal questions than with the fate of the country. Only by acting as one political movement would they deserve to keep their monopoly on the presentation of candidates to elected offices. Such a strategy to ensure a peaceful, electoral transition reestablishing representative democracy appears extremely ambitious at this stage, but it would be aided by Venezuelans’ long-standing aversion to violent political conflict as it exists in Mexico, El Salvador, and Colombia, and which probably still is a consequence of the long and gruesome independence and civil wars of the XIXth century that forged our national identity.[2]
****
Opposition to Chávez and his regime has grown to the point were all polls show that since June he no longer has a majority supporting him. The opposition is now made up of a wide array of people and persuasions, and is unable to articulate a coherent strategy ensuring an electoral return to representative democracy. The position of democratic governments in the region and in Europe, which continue to deal with the regime as if nothing has happened, demoralizes opposition political actors here and compounds the problem.
The regime, having secured the indefinite reelection of its leader and benefitting from a set of favorable national, regional and global circumstances, is now quickly moving to establish the legal framework severely curtailing personal freedoms. As mentioned above, it intends to conclude this task before the end of the year. It is safe to say that the control the regime now exerts over the population bears very little relation to what it was only a year ago, and that it is bound to become even more pervasive. There is now a high risk of political tension erupting into open violence. It is far from certain that such violence could be contained within the borders of Venezuela.
Venezuelans alone will not be able to ensure a peaceful return to democracy. A return to democracy would disarticulate the military threat the regime now represents for its neighbors. The active help of the democratic governments of the Americas has become indispensable, and they would carry a grave historic responsibility if they continued to refuse to do so.
[1]
This appears to have much to do with the fact that the regime has always made a difference between approving legislation and actually implementing it. Still now, it is only applying the legislation it approves in a selective manner, advancing where it finds less resistance and halting all implementation whenever it senses that it could ignite widespread and lasting protest.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
PMBComments | Council on Foreign Relations drinks Chavez's Kool Aid
PMBComment: The Council on Foreign Relations must have hired a clueless intern to prepare an interactive timeline titled: Venezuela's Chávez Era. Fact checking and objectivity were clearly not part of the assigned task. There are so many factual errors that it would take some time to walk the reader through each one. A colleague blogger is preparing this detailed rebuttal as I write.The CFR does not know, to take a US factoid as example, that Dr. Rice was not Secretary of State in 2002. They also see no problem glorifying the murderous adventures of Hugo Chávez: the failed coup plotter. They ignore the fact that the Chavez revolution has brought certifiable chaos to the country. Corruption, the curse the revolution was meant to extirpate, is a bigger problem than ever and insecurity, inflation and food shortages define daily life for millions of Venezuelans from every socio-economic grouping. The CFR reserves all the adjectives for the past and all the good intentions to the ruinous Lt. Colonel. They seem to ignore - just to name two well documented reports - what HRW has concluded about human rights and what the GAO has laid out about Venezuela's full blown evolution into a indictable narcostate. It is this type of teary eyed romanticism that gets some US liberals into so much trouble as they view the world from the comfort of their academic or think tank perches with no intention whatsoever of spending any time in the countries they write and pontificate about.
While I do not expect the CFR to take this farcical timeline off their web site (intellectual pride is a constraint), I would expect them to read it and make requisite corrections. It is easier to say Condoleezza Rice made a mistake than to accept that it was the Clinton Administration that helped propel Mr. Chávez to power by denying him a visa for leading the failed coup CFR now glorifies. The right uses blunt instruments when engaged in foreign affairs, the left seems to become a pretzel beyond it home boundaries. Not sure what protects US interest best. In the case of Venezuela, we are not to far from an answer. PMB
Link to CFR Timeline: http://www.cfr.org/publication/13504/timeline.html
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
While I do not expect the CFR to take this farcical timeline off their web site (intellectual pride is a constraint), I would expect them to read it and make requisite corrections. It is easier to say Condoleezza Rice made a mistake than to accept that it was the Clinton Administration that helped propel Mr. Chávez to power by denying him a visa for leading the failed coup CFR now glorifies. The right uses blunt instruments when engaged in foreign affairs, the left seems to become a pretzel beyond it home boundaries. Not sure what protects US interest best. In the case of Venezuela, we are not to far from an answer. PMB
Link to CFR Timeline: http://www.cfr.org/publication/13504/timeline.html
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Press Bulletin - September 9, 2009
The following press bulletin from Venezuelans in Madrid, Spain is circulating the Internet:
COMUNICADO
Al más puro estilo "chavista", quizás en honor a su insigne invitado, la delegación del gobierno en Madrid no otorgó el permiso correspondiente para la realización de una concentración en la Plaza Mayor de Madrid a efectuarse el próximo viernes 11 de septiembre como protesta ante la visita a España del presidente de Venezuela Hugo Chávez Frías.
Siguiendo el ejemplo de su homologo venezolano, el gobierno presidido por José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, pretende así cercenar el derecho a la libertad de expresión de todas aquellas personas para quienes el señor Chávez no es mas que un dictador populista que persigue, acorrala y empobrece a su pueblo utilizando para ellos métodos que recuerdan a los tiempos mas oscuros de nuestra historia contemporánea.
Cabe destacar que fuentes acreditadas nos han confirmado la llegada al aeropuerto de Madrid-Barajas de numerosos vuelos de la compañía venezolana CONVIASA, que realiza vuelos regulares a Teherán y Damasco, mas no a Madrid, y que seguramente forman parte de los grupos de animadoras asalariados que casi siempre acompañan al presidente-vedette.
Así mismo, rechazamos que España forme parte de un itinerario diabólico que ha llevado al tiranuelo del caribe por países como, Libia, Siria, Argelia, Bielorrusia, Rusia, Irán, etc.
Queremos que la opinión pública española conozca estos hechos y se de cuenta de cuan largos son los tentáculos del Teniente-Coronel Chávez y su petrochequera.
Estamos tocados pero no vencidos y seguiremos en la lucha pues se lo debemos a nuestros muertos, a nuestros presos y perseguidos políticos, a nuestros hijos y a nosotros mismos.
PLATAFORMA DEMOCRATICA DE VENEZOLANOS EN MADRID
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
COMUNICADO
Al más puro estilo "chavista", quizás en honor a su insigne invitado, la delegación del gobierno en Madrid no otorgó el permiso correspondiente para la realización de una concentración en la Plaza Mayor de Madrid a efectuarse el próximo viernes 11 de septiembre como protesta ante la visita a España del presidente de Venezuela Hugo Chávez Frías.
Siguiendo el ejemplo de su homologo venezolano, el gobierno presidido por José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, pretende así cercenar el derecho a la libertad de expresión de todas aquellas personas para quienes el señor Chávez no es mas que un dictador populista que persigue, acorrala y empobrece a su pueblo utilizando para ellos métodos que recuerdan a los tiempos mas oscuros de nuestra historia contemporánea.
Cabe destacar que fuentes acreditadas nos han confirmado la llegada al aeropuerto de Madrid-Barajas de numerosos vuelos de la compañía venezolana CONVIASA, que realiza vuelos regulares a Teherán y Damasco, mas no a Madrid, y que seguramente forman parte de los grupos de animadoras asalariados que casi siempre acompañan al presidente-vedette.
Así mismo, rechazamos que España forme parte de un itinerario diabólico que ha llevado al tiranuelo del caribe por países como, Libia, Siria, Argelia, Bielorrusia, Rusia, Irán, etc.
Queremos que la opinión pública española conozca estos hechos y se de cuenta de cuan largos son los tentáculos del Teniente-Coronel Chávez y su petrochequera.
Estamos tocados pero no vencidos y seguiremos en la lucha pues se lo debemos a nuestros muertos, a nuestros presos y perseguidos políticos, a nuestros hijos y a nosotros mismos.
PLATAFORMA DEMOCRATICA DE VENEZOLANOS EN MADRID
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Monday, August 31, 2009
Summary on Venezuela 40 by Enrique ter Horst, PhD
Subject: Summary on Venezuela - The Extraordinary Summit Meeting of UNASUR
Summary on Venezuela 40
Enrique ter Horst
On travel, 31 August 2009
The Extraordinary Meeting of Heads of State of UNASUR held on 28 August in Bariloche, Argentina, was a big and painful political defeat for President Chávez. The agreement on the use of seven Colombian military bases by the US was not only not condemned by the conference but, quite remarkably, not mentioned at all in the final communiqué (for the full text in Spanish click www.mmrree.gov.ec
Furthermore, the summit meeting decided to establish and revitalize two mechanisms that will, on an urgent basis, design confidence-building measures in the area of regional security “complementary to the existing instruments of the OAS” (the meeting of ministers of foreign affairs and defense), and define “a strategy to fight the illicit traffic of drugs and strengthen cooperation among the specialized organs of our countries”, a task entrusted to the South American Council to Fight Drug-trafficking, also a UNASUR body. The Bariloche meeting could sound the beginning of a regional multilateral strategy to contain Chávez´ expansionist ambitions.
The Bariloche final declaration, both in its preamble and in its operative part, mentions no country by name and includes statements that, although of a general nature, also appear directed at Chávez, like when it says “Establish a confidence building mechanism in the area of defense and security sustaining our decision not to have recourse to force or the threat of force against the territorial integrity of another UNASUR member state”, or “reaffirms…its rejection of the presence and activity of armed groups outside of the law”. Only Chávez has repeatedly threatened Colombia with military action (moving ten battalions to the border, threatening to use his Sukhoi 30 fighters against it, as well as talking of cutting diplomatic relations with Colombia and of “winds of war”), and his support of the FARC and the ELN is certainly very well documented.
The extraordinary meeting of UNASUR´s ministers of foreign affairs and defense called for in paragraph 4 of the final declaration (to be held within the next two weeks) will necessarily also have to deal with stopping the present costly arms race initiated by Chávez. It will have to act quickly and decisively, as on his return from Bariloche the president of Venezuela only stopped-over in Caracas to declare “victory” before continuing on his next arms buying spree in Russia and Byelorussia, and which will include, Chávez dixit, air and marine defense systems (radars), a large number of last generation tanks, and the fearfully effective Iglas S anti-tank missiles, all assets that would mainly be of use in a war with Colombia.
It will be recalled that Chávez was the one to motorize this meeting, using an increasingly bellicose discourse with the intention of diverting attention from the Venezuelan army rocket launchers found by Colombia in a FARC camp. Isolating Uribe and strengthening his own position, after the loss of his democratic credentials and his Honduran debacle exposing him, once again, as undermining the political system of a sovereign state, had been concentrating his entire attention in the last weeks. In the days preceding the Bariloche meeting he stated that the US presence at the Palanquero military base in Colombia (the most important of the seven, and the only one that apparently really interests the US) was geared to keep an eye on the Venezuelan oil reserve north of the Orinoco, as well as on the natural resources of the Amazon basin and on the sweet water reserve on the borders of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay (!). He added that “with the US bases in Curacao and Aruba, Venezuela is surrounded”, ending by stating that “we hate war, but we must prepare for it.
The empire and the Colombian bourgeoisie are forcing us to. An aggression against Venezuela would provoke an armed response by other countries. A great anti-imperialist movement would rise on these lands. God save us from this!”, adding “fighting the drugs (problem) is an excuse of that country (the US) to invade other nations. The empire must take off its hands from Honduras. The empire must take off its fangs from Latin America”. As he flies off with his fat checkbook to Moscow and Minsk, Bariloche does not appear to have had much of a sobering effect on the continental leader of the Bolivarian Revolution. Or is he doing it in recognition of his defeat?
President Uribe, on the contrary, should be quite satisfied, also as the Bariloche meeting seems to have furthered his reconciliation with Ecuador´s Correa. Brazil and its president also have good reason to be more than pleased with the outcome of the meeting. UNASUR, Brazil’s creation, has not only “survived”, as some analysts say, but has been strengthened by clear new mandates in the areas of defense, security and drug trafficking, and by the consequent development of its subsidiary machinery. The Bariloche meeting confirms Brazil´s undisputed leadership in the region and enhances its role as a power able to ensure peace and stability in its neighborhood.
Chávez is now generally recognized as a military dictator, and increasingly also as an unpredictable, unreliable and very dangerous buffoon. For the first time, having very publicly shown in the last six months his true colors, both international and domestic opinion are seriously turning against him. Both trends are irreversible and it must be assumed that he knows it, but in his desperation he acts in a manner that only accelerates his downward spiral. On 22 August, practically in the middle of Venezuela´s summer vacations, the regime was stunned by the very large march that was put together on very short notice to protest against the new Organic Education Law, a text barely discussed in the National Assembly and immediately promulgated by President Chávez and published in the Official Gazette.
Numbering about a 100.000, the march was brutally repressed with tear gas and pellets by the National Guard, pursuing protesters into a metro station were they had taken refuge in order to continue to tear-gas them. Another march has been called for this Saturday, as the political parties of the opposition have declared that they will keep up the pressure peacefully but relentlessly in order to contain the advance of Chávez´ totalitarian project. The regime accuses them, and all those opposing it, of intending to create a situation of anarchy (ingobernabilidad), but things might be much simpler.
Just as Chávez has come to the conclusion that it is now or never if he wants to secure power indefinitely by imposing a communist dictatorship, his opponents, now probably a majority, have come to the conclusion that this is the last chance to save democracy and remain free citizens. As in the past, the regimes´ strategy of instilling fear by blatantly violating fundamental freedoms; jailing opposition leaders, shutting radio and TV stations and approving communist legislation on fundamental questions has proven counterproductive, stoking outrage instead. Venezuelans are waking up from their consumption induced torpor and the regime could be in for a big surprise once the country returns to work in September. It is also high time for the international community to abandon its comfortably irresponsible position of ignoring the brewing storm.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Resources:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/enrique-ter-horst-gomez/4/814/676
Summary on Venezuela 40
Enrique ter Horst
On travel, 31 August 2009
The Extraordinary Meeting of Heads of State of UNASUR held on 28 August in Bariloche, Argentina, was a big and painful political defeat for President Chávez. The agreement on the use of seven Colombian military bases by the US was not only not condemned by the conference but, quite remarkably, not mentioned at all in the final communiqué (for the full text in Spanish click www.mmrree.gov.ec
Furthermore, the summit meeting decided to establish and revitalize two mechanisms that will, on an urgent basis, design confidence-building measures in the area of regional security “complementary to the existing instruments of the OAS” (the meeting of ministers of foreign affairs and defense), and define “a strategy to fight the illicit traffic of drugs and strengthen cooperation among the specialized organs of our countries”, a task entrusted to the South American Council to Fight Drug-trafficking, also a UNASUR body. The Bariloche meeting could sound the beginning of a regional multilateral strategy to contain Chávez´ expansionist ambitions.
The Bariloche final declaration, both in its preamble and in its operative part, mentions no country by name and includes statements that, although of a general nature, also appear directed at Chávez, like when it says “Establish a confidence building mechanism in the area of defense and security sustaining our decision not to have recourse to force or the threat of force against the territorial integrity of another UNASUR member state”, or “reaffirms…its rejection of the presence and activity of armed groups outside of the law”. Only Chávez has repeatedly threatened Colombia with military action (moving ten battalions to the border, threatening to use his Sukhoi 30 fighters against it, as well as talking of cutting diplomatic relations with Colombia and of “winds of war”), and his support of the FARC and the ELN is certainly very well documented.
The extraordinary meeting of UNASUR´s ministers of foreign affairs and defense called for in paragraph 4 of the final declaration (to be held within the next two weeks) will necessarily also have to deal with stopping the present costly arms race initiated by Chávez. It will have to act quickly and decisively, as on his return from Bariloche the president of Venezuela only stopped-over in Caracas to declare “victory” before continuing on his next arms buying spree in Russia and Byelorussia, and which will include, Chávez dixit, air and marine defense systems (radars), a large number of last generation tanks, and the fearfully effective Iglas S anti-tank missiles, all assets that would mainly be of use in a war with Colombia.
It will be recalled that Chávez was the one to motorize this meeting, using an increasingly bellicose discourse with the intention of diverting attention from the Venezuelan army rocket launchers found by Colombia in a FARC camp. Isolating Uribe and strengthening his own position, after the loss of his democratic credentials and his Honduran debacle exposing him, once again, as undermining the political system of a sovereign state, had been concentrating his entire attention in the last weeks. In the days preceding the Bariloche meeting he stated that the US presence at the Palanquero military base in Colombia (the most important of the seven, and the only one that apparently really interests the US) was geared to keep an eye on the Venezuelan oil reserve north of the Orinoco, as well as on the natural resources of the Amazon basin and on the sweet water reserve on the borders of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay (!). He added that “with the US bases in Curacao and Aruba, Venezuela is surrounded”, ending by stating that “we hate war, but we must prepare for it.
The empire and the Colombian bourgeoisie are forcing us to. An aggression against Venezuela would provoke an armed response by other countries. A great anti-imperialist movement would rise on these lands. God save us from this!”, adding “fighting the drugs (problem) is an excuse of that country (the US) to invade other nations. The empire must take off its hands from Honduras. The empire must take off its fangs from Latin America”. As he flies off with his fat checkbook to Moscow and Minsk, Bariloche does not appear to have had much of a sobering effect on the continental leader of the Bolivarian Revolution. Or is he doing it in recognition of his defeat?
President Uribe, on the contrary, should be quite satisfied, also as the Bariloche meeting seems to have furthered his reconciliation with Ecuador´s Correa. Brazil and its president also have good reason to be more than pleased with the outcome of the meeting. UNASUR, Brazil’s creation, has not only “survived”, as some analysts say, but has been strengthened by clear new mandates in the areas of defense, security and drug trafficking, and by the consequent development of its subsidiary machinery. The Bariloche meeting confirms Brazil´s undisputed leadership in the region and enhances its role as a power able to ensure peace and stability in its neighborhood.
Chávez is now generally recognized as a military dictator, and increasingly also as an unpredictable, unreliable and very dangerous buffoon. For the first time, having very publicly shown in the last six months his true colors, both international and domestic opinion are seriously turning against him. Both trends are irreversible and it must be assumed that he knows it, but in his desperation he acts in a manner that only accelerates his downward spiral. On 22 August, practically in the middle of Venezuela´s summer vacations, the regime was stunned by the very large march that was put together on very short notice to protest against the new Organic Education Law, a text barely discussed in the National Assembly and immediately promulgated by President Chávez and published in the Official Gazette.
Numbering about a 100.000, the march was brutally repressed with tear gas and pellets by the National Guard, pursuing protesters into a metro station were they had taken refuge in order to continue to tear-gas them. Another march has been called for this Saturday, as the political parties of the opposition have declared that they will keep up the pressure peacefully but relentlessly in order to contain the advance of Chávez´ totalitarian project. The regime accuses them, and all those opposing it, of intending to create a situation of anarchy (ingobernabilidad), but things might be much simpler.
Just as Chávez has come to the conclusion that it is now or never if he wants to secure power indefinitely by imposing a communist dictatorship, his opponents, now probably a majority, have come to the conclusion that this is the last chance to save democracy and remain free citizens. As in the past, the regimes´ strategy of instilling fear by blatantly violating fundamental freedoms; jailing opposition leaders, shutting radio and TV stations and approving communist legislation on fundamental questions has proven counterproductive, stoking outrage instead. Venezuelans are waking up from their consumption induced torpor and the regime could be in for a big surprise once the country returns to work in September. It is also high time for the international community to abandon its comfortably irresponsible position of ignoring the brewing storm.
Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/
Resources:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/enrique-ter-horst-gomez/4/814/676
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)