Texto en Español
DECLARACION
La Red Latinoamericana y el Caribe de Solidaridad
En el día internacional de acción y apoyo al movimiento social que converge hoy 7 de Diciembre 2010 en Cancún prosiguiendo en su lucha por la Justicia ambiental y en contra de las actividades que producen el cambio climático, manifiesta:
- Su total apoyo y acompañamiento a los acuerdos de Cochabamba sobre el
Medio Ambiente.
Por el respeto de los derechos ancestrales de los pueblos indígenas sobre sus territorios, sus culturas y sus luchas por el respeto a la madre tierra.
Demanda al Gobierno del Primer Ministro Stephen Harper asumir su responsabilidad por el deterioro ambiental del cual Canadá es parte responsable.
Así mismo condena la forma anti-democrática en que fue vetada la proyecto de Ley C-311 referente al cambio climático.
De la misma manera manifiesta su condena por el apoyo brindado a las compañías mineras en particular, al desechar la proyecto de ley C-300 que pretendía que las antes mencionadas compañías, fueran sujeto de penalidad judicial por daños al medio ambiente y la violación de los derechos humanos como consecuencia de sus operaciones.
Texto en Inglés
Statement BY
THE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN SOLIDARITY NETWORK OF TORONTO
On the occasion of the International Day of Action and Support for the Social Movements which converge today December 7th 2010 in Cancun, and continuing the struggle for Environmental Justice and against activities that result in climate changes, declares:
- Unconditional support and commitment to the Cochabamba Accords on the environment.
- Respect for the ancestral rights of aboriginal peoples over their territories, their cultures and their struggles for respect of Mother Earth.
- Demand that the Administration of Prime Minister Stephen Harper assumes its responsibility for the damage caused by Canada to the environment.
- Condemn the anti-democratic approach by which the proposal for Bill C-311 on climate control was vetoed, and
- Condemn the government’s support to mining companies; most especially its dismissal of Bill C-300 which provided judicial penalties that could hold these companies liable for the damage that they could cause to the environment and the violation of human rights as a result of their unregulated practices.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Declaración final del III encuentro Internacional Civilización o Barbárie Noviembre 8 de 2010
Declaración final del III encuentro Internacional Civilización o Barbárie
Noviembre 8 de 2010
Reunidos en la ciudad portuguesa de Serpa, los participantes en el III Encuentro Internacional Civilización o Barbarie – Desafíos del Mundo Contemporáneo:
-Lanzan un alerta frente al agravamiento de la crisis global del sistema capitalista.
- Constatan que por la evolución de esa crisis –social, financiera, económica, militar, energética, cultural y ambiental- el capitalismo, en su escalada de agresividad, se torno un factor de regresión absoluta de la civilización, amenazando la propia continuidad de la vida en la Tierra.
-Subrayan que los EEUU, nucleo del sistema, optaron por una estratégia de terrorismo de Estado que asume ya matices genocidas en sus guerras asiáticas.
-Identifican en la Unión Europea un bloque político-económico-militar al servicio del capital monopolista, empeñado en imponer, a través del llamado Tratado Constitucional, un refuerzo de la integración capitalista, profundizando su carácter federalista, neoliberal y militarista.
Saludan la resistencia de los pueblos europeos a la ofensiva en curso contra sus derechos y garantías, contra las soberanías nacionales y la democracia, ofensiva que promueve el desempleo y la pauperización, favorece al gran capital y suprime derechos laborales y sociales, sobre todo en los sectores de Salud, de la Educación, de la Seguridad Social, destruyendo conquistas históricas de los trabajadores y afectando con particular violencia a las mujeres trabajadoras. Las gigantescas manifestaciones de protesta en Francia, España, Italia, Portugal y en Grecia confirman que la radicalización de la lucha de masas, como respuesta a la violencia del sistema se amplía a nivel continental.
-Condenan las guerras imperiales que afectan a los pueblos de Iraq y de Afganistán, agredidos y ocupados, y los monstruosos crímenes allí cometidos por las fuerzas armadas de los EEUU y la OTAN, con la aprobación y complicidad del Gobierno Portugués; denuncian como farsa los calendarios de retirada de las tropas invasoras; advierten que auténticos ejércitos mercenarios se comportan en la región como hordas fascistas; y saludan la resistencia de los pueblos iraquí y afgano en lucha por la libertad e independencia.
-Manifiestan su solidaridad con el pueblo mártir de Palestina y el pueblo de Líbano en su combate heroico contra el sionismo neofascista. Denuncian el Tribunal Especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre Líbano como mero auxiliar de los EEUU y de Israel. Denuncian la hipocresía de la falsa política de paz del gobierno de Obama, aliado incondicional del Sionismo y del Estado terrorista de Israel.
-Advierten contra el peligro de una agresión inminente de los EEUU y de Israel al pueblo de Irán –agresión que podría ser el prologo de una III Guerra Mundial - y denuncian la campaña de desinformación montada para deformar la imagen de aquella nación que fue origen de grandes civilizaciones.
- Alertan frente a la política de cerco militar y de guerra fría que los EEUU conducen contra la República Popular de China.
- Condenan las intervenciones militares directas e indirectas del imperialismo estadounidense en América Latina; denuncian el regreso de la IV Flota de la US Navy a las aguas sudamericanas y la instalación de 7 nuevas bases norteamericanas en Colombia y reclaman la clausura de todas las existentes en el Continente, incluyendo la de Guantánamo, ocupada ilegalmente en Cuba.
- Denuncian la participación del gobierno de los EEUU, a través de la CIA y del Pentágono, en el golpe de estado en Honduras y en la fracasada intentona en Ecuador y saludan las conquistas democráticas y las medidas anti-imperialistas alcanzadas por los gobiernos progresistas de Evo Morales en Bolivia y Rafael Correa en Ecuador.
- Saludan la lucha, valiente y difícil, de un porcentaje creciente de ciudadanos norteamericanos contra los engranajes de un sistema de poder cuya ambición e irracionalidad configuran amenazas para la humanidad y señalan que las esperanzas suscitadas por la elección de Barack Obama se desvanecen a medida que se vuelve evidente que el nuevo presidente da continuidad en lo fundamental a la política exterior de George Bush –agravándose igualmente, como sucede en Afganistán y en América Latina- y, en el plano interno actúa como aliado del capital contra los trabajadores.
- Saludan calurosamente al pueblo de Venezuela por los avances realizados en el desenvolvimiento de la Revolución Bolivariana, y por la firmeza frente al imperialismo estadounidense y en la defensa del proyecto de construcción de una sociedad socialista.
- Reclaman el fin del bloqueo impuesto a Cuba por los EEUU y de la “Posición Común de la UE”, ambos instrumentos del imperialismo. Subrayan que la Revolución Socialista y la heroica resistencia de su pueblo a medio siglo de guerra no declarada, fue factor decisivo para el fortalecimiento en todo el Continente de la resistencia al imperialismo norteamericano. Sin esa resistencia, los avances revolucionarios registrados en Venezuela no habrían sido posibles, ni la emergencia de gobiernos progresistas en otros países.
- Saludan las primeras manifestaciones de la clase obrera y de los trabajadores de Rusia contra la explotación desencadenada por la restauración capitalista en curso en ese país.
- Saludan la campaña internacional “Gaza Libre” por el levantamiento del criminal bloqueo de Gaza.
- Condenan los crímenes cometidos por el gobierno de Uribe Vélez en Colombia, en los cuales desempeñó importante papel el actual presidente Juan Manuel Santos y recuerdan que la solidaridad de la Unión Europea con el régimen neofascista colombiano dificulta una solución negociada para el conflicto existente en aquel país por el cual su pueblo viene valientemente luchando. Expresan su solidaridad con la Senadora Piedad Córdoba y las víctimas del terrorismo de Estado.
- Constatan que el crecimiento económico capitalista, basado en el aumento del consumo, moviliza flujos colosales de materiales y de energía, causando la degradación y el agotamiento de recursos finitos –destacadamente el Petróleo que en este momento está alcanzando el nivel máximo de producción posible- amenazando los procesos de renovación natural. Al contrario del bienestar de las poblaciones, el crecimiento económico capitalista desfigura así la relación armoniosa del Hombre con la Tierra que habita y que es patrimonio común de la humanidad, destruyendo el ambiente necesario a la vida y los recursos indispensables a la producción de bienes esenciales.
-Alertan para la necesidad imperiosa del combate a la alienación de gran parte de la humanidad, envenenada por la masacre mediática de una comunicación social –controlada por el imperialismo- que desinforma y manipula, diseminando la mentira y ocultando la realidad en escala mundial.
- Llaman al refuerzo de la defensa de la diversidad cultural y de la resistencia cultural y lingüística contra la hegemonización y la colonización del espacio mediático, comercial, cultural, científico por parte de la expresión anglo-sajona, en tanto “lengua de trabajo” del imperialismo.
- Proclaman la convicción de que el marxismo – y en particular su núcleo fundador basado en la obra de Marx y Engels- continúan ocupando un lugar central entre las referencias teóricas movilizadas no solamente por los comunistas sino también por los progresistas del mundo. La reapropiación y el refuerzo del marxismo, de su metodología y de sus conceptos, como pensamiento de la crítica y de la transformación del mundo, ni dogmatico ni domesticado, y la herencia del marxismo-leninismo, continúan siendo una necesidad absoluta de la lucha ideológica y en la justa definición de la estrategia y la táctica de las fuerzas que se empeñen en el combate anticapitalista y antiimperialista. Contra el sistema totalitario de desinformación, de alienación y de manipulación de las masas , el marxismo-leninismo permanece como el arma intelectual más preciosa en las manos de los trabajadores y de los pueblos que resisten y avanzan. Renunciar a él
equivaldría a desistir de la lucha por el socialismo.- Denuncian el carácter profundamente reaccionario de las campañas de criminalización del comunismo, recuerdan las consecuencias trágicas de la desaparición de la Unión Soviética y expresan la convicción de que el socialismo es la única alternativa al sistema capitalista que, al entrar en la fase senil, optó por una estratégia de desesperación y exterminismo, que amenaza conducir la humanidad a la barbarie.
- Registran el significado de las conmemoraciones del I Centenario de la República Portuguesa, señalando la importancia decisiva de la participación del pueblo en la revolución del 5 de Octubre de 1910 y en sus conquistas políticas.
- Constatan con alegría y esperanza la intensificación de las luchas de los trabajadores en escala mundial, bien como resistencia a las guerras de agresión, destacadamente en los EEUU, centro del sistema de dominación, y señalan que el refuerzo de la solidaridad internacionalista entre los explotados y los excluidos de todo el mundo es imprescindible a la globalización del combate contra el enemigo común: el capitalismo y el imperialismo.
Serpa, 1 de Noviembre del 2010
Noviembre 8 de 2010
Reunidos en la ciudad portuguesa de Serpa, los participantes en el III Encuentro Internacional Civilización o Barbarie – Desafíos del Mundo Contemporáneo:
-Lanzan un alerta frente al agravamiento de la crisis global del sistema capitalista.
- Constatan que por la evolución de esa crisis –social, financiera, económica, militar, energética, cultural y ambiental- el capitalismo, en su escalada de agresividad, se torno un factor de regresión absoluta de la civilización, amenazando la propia continuidad de la vida en la Tierra.
-Subrayan que los EEUU, nucleo del sistema, optaron por una estratégia de terrorismo de Estado que asume ya matices genocidas en sus guerras asiáticas.
-Identifican en la Unión Europea un bloque político-económico-militar al servicio del capital monopolista, empeñado en imponer, a través del llamado Tratado Constitucional, un refuerzo de la integración capitalista, profundizando su carácter federalista, neoliberal y militarista.
Saludan la resistencia de los pueblos europeos a la ofensiva en curso contra sus derechos y garantías, contra las soberanías nacionales y la democracia, ofensiva que promueve el desempleo y la pauperización, favorece al gran capital y suprime derechos laborales y sociales, sobre todo en los sectores de Salud, de la Educación, de la Seguridad Social, destruyendo conquistas históricas de los trabajadores y afectando con particular violencia a las mujeres trabajadoras. Las gigantescas manifestaciones de protesta en Francia, España, Italia, Portugal y en Grecia confirman que la radicalización de la lucha de masas, como respuesta a la violencia del sistema se amplía a nivel continental.
-Condenan las guerras imperiales que afectan a los pueblos de Iraq y de Afganistán, agredidos y ocupados, y los monstruosos crímenes allí cometidos por las fuerzas armadas de los EEUU y la OTAN, con la aprobación y complicidad del Gobierno Portugués; denuncian como farsa los calendarios de retirada de las tropas invasoras; advierten que auténticos ejércitos mercenarios se comportan en la región como hordas fascistas; y saludan la resistencia de los pueblos iraquí y afgano en lucha por la libertad e independencia.
-Manifiestan su solidaridad con el pueblo mártir de Palestina y el pueblo de Líbano en su combate heroico contra el sionismo neofascista. Denuncian el Tribunal Especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre Líbano como mero auxiliar de los EEUU y de Israel. Denuncian la hipocresía de la falsa política de paz del gobierno de Obama, aliado incondicional del Sionismo y del Estado terrorista de Israel.
-Advierten contra el peligro de una agresión inminente de los EEUU y de Israel al pueblo de Irán –agresión que podría ser el prologo de una III Guerra Mundial - y denuncian la campaña de desinformación montada para deformar la imagen de aquella nación que fue origen de grandes civilizaciones.
- Alertan frente a la política de cerco militar y de guerra fría que los EEUU conducen contra la República Popular de China.
- Condenan las intervenciones militares directas e indirectas del imperialismo estadounidense en América Latina; denuncian el regreso de la IV Flota de la US Navy a las aguas sudamericanas y la instalación de 7 nuevas bases norteamericanas en Colombia y reclaman la clausura de todas las existentes en el Continente, incluyendo la de Guantánamo, ocupada ilegalmente en Cuba.
- Denuncian la participación del gobierno de los EEUU, a través de la CIA y del Pentágono, en el golpe de estado en Honduras y en la fracasada intentona en Ecuador y saludan las conquistas democráticas y las medidas anti-imperialistas alcanzadas por los gobiernos progresistas de Evo Morales en Bolivia y Rafael Correa en Ecuador.
- Saludan la lucha, valiente y difícil, de un porcentaje creciente de ciudadanos norteamericanos contra los engranajes de un sistema de poder cuya ambición e irracionalidad configuran amenazas para la humanidad y señalan que las esperanzas suscitadas por la elección de Barack Obama se desvanecen a medida que se vuelve evidente que el nuevo presidente da continuidad en lo fundamental a la política exterior de George Bush –agravándose igualmente, como sucede en Afganistán y en América Latina- y, en el plano interno actúa como aliado del capital contra los trabajadores.
- Saludan calurosamente al pueblo de Venezuela por los avances realizados en el desenvolvimiento de la Revolución Bolivariana, y por la firmeza frente al imperialismo estadounidense y en la defensa del proyecto de construcción de una sociedad socialista.
- Reclaman el fin del bloqueo impuesto a Cuba por los EEUU y de la “Posición Común de la UE”, ambos instrumentos del imperialismo. Subrayan que la Revolución Socialista y la heroica resistencia de su pueblo a medio siglo de guerra no declarada, fue factor decisivo para el fortalecimiento en todo el Continente de la resistencia al imperialismo norteamericano. Sin esa resistencia, los avances revolucionarios registrados en Venezuela no habrían sido posibles, ni la emergencia de gobiernos progresistas en otros países.
- Saludan las primeras manifestaciones de la clase obrera y de los trabajadores de Rusia contra la explotación desencadenada por la restauración capitalista en curso en ese país.
- Saludan la campaña internacional “Gaza Libre” por el levantamiento del criminal bloqueo de Gaza.
- Condenan los crímenes cometidos por el gobierno de Uribe Vélez en Colombia, en los cuales desempeñó importante papel el actual presidente Juan Manuel Santos y recuerdan que la solidaridad de la Unión Europea con el régimen neofascista colombiano dificulta una solución negociada para el conflicto existente en aquel país por el cual su pueblo viene valientemente luchando. Expresan su solidaridad con la Senadora Piedad Córdoba y las víctimas del terrorismo de Estado.
- Constatan que el crecimiento económico capitalista, basado en el aumento del consumo, moviliza flujos colosales de materiales y de energía, causando la degradación y el agotamiento de recursos finitos –destacadamente el Petróleo que en este momento está alcanzando el nivel máximo de producción posible- amenazando los procesos de renovación natural. Al contrario del bienestar de las poblaciones, el crecimiento económico capitalista desfigura así la relación armoniosa del Hombre con la Tierra que habita y que es patrimonio común de la humanidad, destruyendo el ambiente necesario a la vida y los recursos indispensables a la producción de bienes esenciales.
-Alertan para la necesidad imperiosa del combate a la alienación de gran parte de la humanidad, envenenada por la masacre mediática de una comunicación social –controlada por el imperialismo- que desinforma y manipula, diseminando la mentira y ocultando la realidad en escala mundial.
- Llaman al refuerzo de la defensa de la diversidad cultural y de la resistencia cultural y lingüística contra la hegemonización y la colonización del espacio mediático, comercial, cultural, científico por parte de la expresión anglo-sajona, en tanto “lengua de trabajo” del imperialismo.
- Proclaman la convicción de que el marxismo – y en particular su núcleo fundador basado en la obra de Marx y Engels- continúan ocupando un lugar central entre las referencias teóricas movilizadas no solamente por los comunistas sino también por los progresistas del mundo. La reapropiación y el refuerzo del marxismo, de su metodología y de sus conceptos, como pensamiento de la crítica y de la transformación del mundo, ni dogmatico ni domesticado, y la herencia del marxismo-leninismo, continúan siendo una necesidad absoluta de la lucha ideológica y en la justa definición de la estrategia y la táctica de las fuerzas que se empeñen en el combate anticapitalista y antiimperialista. Contra el sistema totalitario de desinformación, de alienación y de manipulación de las masas , el marxismo-leninismo permanece como el arma intelectual más preciosa en las manos de los trabajadores y de los pueblos que resisten y avanzan. Renunciar a él
equivaldría a desistir de la lucha por el socialismo.- Denuncian el carácter profundamente reaccionario de las campañas de criminalización del comunismo, recuerdan las consecuencias trágicas de la desaparición de la Unión Soviética y expresan la convicción de que el socialismo es la única alternativa al sistema capitalista que, al entrar en la fase senil, optó por una estratégia de desesperación y exterminismo, que amenaza conducir la humanidad a la barbarie.
- Registran el significado de las conmemoraciones del I Centenario de la República Portuguesa, señalando la importancia decisiva de la participación del pueblo en la revolución del 5 de Octubre de 1910 y en sus conquistas políticas.
- Constatan con alegría y esperanza la intensificación de las luchas de los trabajadores en escala mundial, bien como resistencia a las guerras de agresión, destacadamente en los EEUU, centro del sistema de dominación, y señalan que el refuerzo de la solidaridad internacionalista entre los explotados y los excluidos de todo el mundo es imprescindible a la globalización del combate contra el enemigo común: el capitalismo y el imperialismo.
Serpa, 1 de Noviembre del 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
OCTOBER EDUCATIONS - CUBAN SCHOLARS THREE EVENTS
LATIN AMERICAN POLITICS AND POLITICAL THOUGHT
PENSAMIENTO Y POLITICA LATINO AMERICANA
TRES EVENTOS CON ACADEMICOS CUBANOS
THREE EVENTS WITH CUBAN ACADEMICS
1)
EN ESPAÑOL
October 4th
7 a 9:30 PM –
Bahen Centre - University of Toronto
40 St. George Street
Room 1170
La revolución Cubana y el nuevo escenario y territorio político en América Latina – The Cuban Revolution, new scenarios and political territorios in Latin America
presentan
Dra. Concepción Nieves Ayus, Professor and Director of the Instituto
Dr. Gilberto Valdés Gutierrez, Associate Professor, Co-ordinator of the GALFISA Research Program
Dr. Jorge Luis Santana, Associate Professor and Researcher, Co-ordinator Program - Cuba Theory and Society
Dr. Humberto Miranda, Assistant Professor and Researcher with GALFISA
Feliz Valdés García, Assistant Professor and Researcher, Assistant Director of the Instituto
2)
En español
October 5th
1:30 pm – 3:30 pm
280 N York Lanes, YORK UNIVERSITY KEELE CAMPUS
La revolución Cubana y el nuevo escenario y territorio político en América Latina – The Cuban Revolution, new scenarios and political territorios in Latin America -
presentan
Dra. Concepción Nieves Ayus, Professor and Director of the Instituto
Dr. Gilberto Valdés Gutierrez, Associate Professor, Co-ordinator of the GALFISA Research Program
Dr. Jorge Luis Santana, Associate Professor and Researcher, Co-ordinator Program - Cuba Theory and Society
Dr. Humberto Miranda, Assistant Professor and Researcher with GALFISA
Feliz Valdés García, Assistant Professor and Researcher, Assistant Director of the Instituto
3) En español e inglés – ENGLISH AND SPANISH
OCTOBER 13TH -
7 to 9 pm
Room 5150 – OISE, University of Toronto
252 Bloor St W, Toronto,
Cuba and us relations –
Dr. Carlos Alzugaray – University of Havana, Director of the Centre of Studies of US/CUBA Relations
Post-neo-liberalism and the politics of anti-system movements
Dr. Gilberto valdes Gutierrez – INSTITUTO DE FILOSOFIA,
DIRECTOR OF GALFISA
Moderator: Prof. nchamah miller (instituto de Filosofia, La Habana, Cuba)
Translator: Dr. Maria Paez Victor
PENSAMIENTO Y POLITICA LATINO AMERICANA
TRES EVENTOS CON ACADEMICOS CUBANOS
THREE EVENTS WITH CUBAN ACADEMICS
1)
EN ESPAÑOL
October 4th
7 a 9:30 PM –
Bahen Centre - University of Toronto
40 St. George Street
Room 1170
La revolución Cubana y el nuevo escenario y territorio político en América Latina – The Cuban Revolution, new scenarios and political territorios in Latin America
presentan
Dra. Concepción Nieves Ayus, Professor and Director of the Instituto
Dr. Gilberto Valdés Gutierrez, Associate Professor, Co-ordinator of the GALFISA Research Program
Dr. Jorge Luis Santana, Associate Professor and Researcher, Co-ordinator Program - Cuba Theory and Society
Dr. Humberto Miranda, Assistant Professor and Researcher with GALFISA
Feliz Valdés García, Assistant Professor and Researcher, Assistant Director of the Instituto
2)
En español
October 5th
1:30 pm – 3:30 pm
280 N York Lanes, YORK UNIVERSITY KEELE CAMPUS
La revolución Cubana y el nuevo escenario y territorio político en América Latina – The Cuban Revolution, new scenarios and political territorios in Latin America -
presentan
Dra. Concepción Nieves Ayus, Professor and Director of the Instituto
Dr. Gilberto Valdés Gutierrez, Associate Professor, Co-ordinator of the GALFISA Research Program
Dr. Jorge Luis Santana, Associate Professor and Researcher, Co-ordinator Program - Cuba Theory and Society
Dr. Humberto Miranda, Assistant Professor and Researcher with GALFISA
Feliz Valdés García, Assistant Professor and Researcher, Assistant Director of the Instituto
3) En español e inglés – ENGLISH AND SPANISH
OCTOBER 13TH -
7 to 9 pm
Room 5150 – OISE, University of Toronto
252 Bloor St W, Toronto,
Cuba and us relations –
Dr. Carlos Alzugaray – University of Havana, Director of the Centre of Studies of US/CUBA Relations
Post-neo-liberalism and the politics of anti-system movements
Dr. Gilberto valdes Gutierrez – INSTITUTO DE FILOSOFIA,
DIRECTOR OF GALFISA
Moderator: Prof. nchamah miller (instituto de Filosofia, La Habana, Cuba)
Translator: Dr. Maria Paez Victor
Thursday, August 26, 2010
VENEZUELA - ELECCIONES
Roy Chaderton: "Los vamos a demoler en las parlamentarias”
YVKE Mundial - www.aporrea.org
25/08/10 - www.aporrea.org/actualidad/n164097.html
Las conquistas económicas y sociales de la Revolución Bolivariana podrían verse estancadas de ganar la oposición en las elecciones parlamentarias del 26 de septiembre próximo, sostuvo este miércoles el candidato al Parlamento Latinoamericano (Parlatino) Roy Chaderton.
“En caso de no tener la mayoría, las conquistas económicas y sociales estarán detenidas, porque la gente de la oposición pretende volver al pasado del neoliberalismo que tanto le costó al país”, recalcó Chaderton durante su participación este miércoles en el programa En Tres Tiempos, que transmite Vive Televisión.
En este sentido, Chaderton puntualizó que la unidad es muy importante en este proceso. “No debemos caer en grupitos que pretendan posicionarse en puestos claves del presidente Chávez. Chavizmo sin Chávez no existe”, agregó.
Destacó que la presencia y liderazgo del mandatario nacional garantiza la unidad de todas y todos los venezolanos.
El pueblo se siente cómodo con democracia participativa
Chaderton resaltó el hecho de que el pueblo se acerca a las autoridades con mucha confianza, “la gente se siente cómoda con la democracia participativa”, así quedó demostrado este martes durante el cohetazo que marcó el inicio de la campaña electoral del Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV).
En cuanto al proceso eleccionario, Chaderton expresó: “Los vamos a demoler en las parlamentarias”.
Por su parte, Ana Elisa Osorio, también candidata al Parlatino, resaltó en el programa En Tres Tiempos que las unidades de batalla Bolívar 200 están bien estructuradas. “Tenemos establecidos más de dos millones de patrulleros y patrulleras, lo que nos da la seguridad de que efectivamente vamos hacia el camino de la victoria”, sostuvo.
Asimismo, Osorio agregó que todos y todas debemos participar en estas elecciones parlamentarias “para seguir moviendo esta locomotora hacia el camino del socialismo”.
Aclaró que de 155 diputados a la Asamblea Nacional el PSUV debe obtener 110 puestos para lograr la mayoría en el Parlamento.
Tanto Chaderton como Osorio hicieron un llamado a todas y todos los venezolanos para que el 26 de septiembre próximo salgan a votar.
YVKE Mundial - www.aporrea.org
25/08/10 - www.aporrea.org/actualidad/n164097.html
Las conquistas económicas y sociales de la Revolución Bolivariana podrían verse estancadas de ganar la oposición en las elecciones parlamentarias del 26 de septiembre próximo, sostuvo este miércoles el candidato al Parlamento Latinoamericano (Parlatino) Roy Chaderton.
“En caso de no tener la mayoría, las conquistas económicas y sociales estarán detenidas, porque la gente de la oposición pretende volver al pasado del neoliberalismo que tanto le costó al país”, recalcó Chaderton durante su participación este miércoles en el programa En Tres Tiempos, que transmite Vive Televisión.
En este sentido, Chaderton puntualizó que la unidad es muy importante en este proceso. “No debemos caer en grupitos que pretendan posicionarse en puestos claves del presidente Chávez. Chavizmo sin Chávez no existe”, agregó.
Destacó que la presencia y liderazgo del mandatario nacional garantiza la unidad de todas y todos los venezolanos.
El pueblo se siente cómodo con democracia participativa
Chaderton resaltó el hecho de que el pueblo se acerca a las autoridades con mucha confianza, “la gente se siente cómoda con la democracia participativa”, así quedó demostrado este martes durante el cohetazo que marcó el inicio de la campaña electoral del Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV).
En cuanto al proceso eleccionario, Chaderton expresó: “Los vamos a demoler en las parlamentarias”.
Por su parte, Ana Elisa Osorio, también candidata al Parlatino, resaltó en el programa En Tres Tiempos que las unidades de batalla Bolívar 200 están bien estructuradas. “Tenemos establecidos más de dos millones de patrulleros y patrulleras, lo que nos da la seguridad de que efectivamente vamos hacia el camino de la victoria”, sostuvo.
Asimismo, Osorio agregó que todos y todas debemos participar en estas elecciones parlamentarias “para seguir moviendo esta locomotora hacia el camino del socialismo”.
Aclaró que de 155 diputados a la Asamblea Nacional el PSUV debe obtener 110 puestos para lograr la mayoría en el Parlamento.
Tanto Chaderton como Osorio hicieron un llamado a todas y todos los venezolanos para que el 26 de septiembre próximo salgan a votar.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Solidarity with Iran Facing Aggression and the Nature of the Regime
Unlimited Circulation Excuse Double Posting
From the desk of Reuven Kaminer July 5, 2010
Solidarity with Iran Facing Aggression and the Nature of the Regime
Fidel Castro, as is his custom, published his views on current developments in his June 26, 2010 column entitled Reflections. The thrust of Castro’s Reflections, printed last week, is crystal clear. Castro describes in detail the recent ongoing United States- Israeli naval build up in the Middle East, stressing that it is, “now a matter of calculating when the American and Israeli naval forces will be deployed off the coasts of Iran joining there the aircraft carriers and other US military ships already on watch in the region.”
In a matter of importance related to our discussion, Castro also makes short shrift of the opposition to the regime in Iran, exposing its class nature: “The US administration worked out a plan to promote a political movement that, based on capitalist consumerism, would divide the Iranians and overthrow the government. Such hope is now harmless.”
The Anti-imperialist Left
Even in the West, with all the weaknesses of the socialist movement, there fortunately persists a current of critical thought, best defined as the anti-imperialist left (AIL). The essential position of the anti-imperialist left is based on the contention that the United States acts as the global hegemonic force, imposing regimes of subservience and exploitation over great sections of the globe – wherever it can and for as long as it can.
As my reader might guess, the AIL is hardly a monolithic affair. As a matter of fact, Castro reignited a serious debate over important issues related to Iran, already the source of much acrimony and friction in the left.
The crux of the often heated debate involves the relation between the growing danger of US-Israel aggression against Iran and the serious charges regarding the reactionary and dictatorial record of the regime in that country.
The two opposing trends here are realists who stress the decisive importance of Iran’s international role and the democrats who call on the AIL to confront the Iranian regime’s record of repression. Naturally enough, there are shades and nuances both in theory and in practice. Even so, the opposing trends are quite recognizable in day to day political discourse.
Precisely, in the heat of the debate, it is vital to stress that all sections and streams in the AIL vigorously oppose US threats and preparations of war against Iran. It is important not to lose sight of this fact both on the theoretical level and in practical politics.
In practical day to day politics, the democrats are heavily engaged in exposing dictatorial repression in Iran and mobilizing support for the human and political rights of the opposition. The democrats insist on placing the issue of repression in Iran high on the public agenda.
The realists deny the progressive nature of the opposition in Iran and consider it linked, formally or not, to the interests of Iran’s enemies. For the realists the main objects of repression are linked to the opposition, which is mainly subversive.
The democrats argue that criticism of the regime and internal changes may be necessary to improve the capacity of the country to repel and overcome aggression. The weaknesses and repressive nature of the regime may even impair its ability to mobilize international sympathy and support.
Weaknesses in the Democratic Approach
This argument, lofty in intent, is essentially a matter of speculation. Even if we knew much more about Iranian society than we know, it is impossible to know the effects of this or that development on the overall strength and viability of the regime, especially in regards to its ability to resist provocations and foreign aggression.
We have no real evidence, as many democrats argue that U.S. intelligence prefers Ahmadinejad and the present rulers of Iran over the opposition, an accusation bandied about by people in the solidarity movement with the Iranian opposition. It is, of course, reasonable to assume that the Iranian opposition is a heterogeneous affair. But it would be naïve to doubt that it must include a major component of forces seeking to overthrow the present regime towards a rapprochement with the U.S. But it is also true that the opposition includes many noble, dedicated women and men of the radical left.
Even though it is correct to say that “in the long run” it is the internal dynamic that would determine Iran’s path. In the real world, here and now, the two fronts, the internal or the external front, are two separate arenas, much less interrelated than they would appear to be, especially in matters related to Iran’s ability to resist U.S.-Israeli aggression. Of course, the “home front” is important but that importance does not match the vital and all embracing importance of the international role of the regime, its will and ability to resist imperialism machinations. Of course, we cannot ignore the eventual significance of the internal dynamic, but we do argue that consistency and determination on the international front can create historical space for advancement on the internal domestic front, for greater democracy and human rights.
Chomsky Backs Fidel
An article published by Noam Chomsky two days after Fidel’s Reflections fully verifies Fidel’s analysis of the approaching storm. Of course, in his own inimitable fashion, Chomsky mobilizes overwhelming evidence for his central point. Iran is in danger of death and destruction not because it is a “terrorist entity,” but because of its deepening political influence in the region. No one could consider Chomsky, with his sensitivity to human rights issues, a friend of the Iranian regime which many have characterized as a regime in war with its own people.
I think that we in the independent left operating in circumstances of severe public debate, dominated by the imperial media monopoly on the prevailing discourse, must develop our own nuanced approach to the question at hand. It would be a crucial mistake if we fail to understand the justifiable reasons for Fidel’s blanket denunciation of the Iranian opposition and his characterization of it as ”a political movement based on capitalist consumerism.” On the other hand, there is an additional dimension, that on the level of human and civil rights, which demands a measured, serious response.
Fidel is telling us what we should already know. It is the duty of any progressive regime to identify in any given circumstances the forces with which it can develop cooperation and mutual advantage. Given the historical hegemony of imperialism over the years, it must be understood that this is a legitimate historical approach and a means of resistance. The principle is simple: the regime (our regime) must do and will do that which is essential to prevent isolation, to ensure security, to put bread on the table of its citizens. It must utilize all these opportunities as a matter of course.
I myself, and others of similar irrepressible sensitivities witness in Iran a series of sickening actions that jar the core our own values and political needs, legitimate in and of themselves. This might create false hope for the emergence of an opposition more to our taste. But is it so hard to understand, that Castro having seen the role of capitalist consumerism in the fall of the USSR, and on the basis of his own analysis of Cuban reality, sees the dreams of Westernized middle class for a “freer” society as one big trap? The U.S. is, as we know, ever ready to assist regime change, more democratic elections, a new lease on life for civil society – all for free.
Castro’s dismissive description of the Iranian opposition may be the basis of Cuban politics on this issue, and it may be basically correct, but it cannot serve all the requirements of those fighting against U.S. aggression in the heartlands of imperialism and its allies. The issue of human and civil rights, the protection against arbitrary arrest, torture and punishment cannot be ignored by the left, even in the rarified and tense atmosphere of an international campaign against the Iranian people and its leadership. Many things are happening which cannot be countenanced.
Strategy and Tactics on the Iran Issue
When we unavoidably relate to the glaring crimes of the Iranian regime, we are faced, whether we wish so or not, with a number of urgent practical and strategic questions. Since silence on this issue is not an option, but since we also refuse to reduce in any way our iron clad obligation to work with the forces in opposition to U.S.-Israeli aggression, we face the challenge of integrating the two elements, of conveying some sense of proportion between the importance of the two issues, and the choice of partners in the day to day political battle. There is, of course, no easy formula, but there are certain guidelines that might prevent serious distortions from the policy we seek.
The main front is the fight against U.S.-Israeli aggression, as long as the real danger persists. It is here that we are interested in the establishment of the widest possible front. The internal Iranian front is a secondary battle. We cannot prove this, but our instinctive sense is that the danger of war increases domestic chauvinism and disregard for human rights. An eventual relaxation in tension over a broad period should open the way for more respect for the rights of Iranians in all spheres. And as long as the danger of war is there, our main duty, is opposition to the war, which is in the final analysis the best thing that we can do for the people of Iran, including victims of repression in Iran.
Knowing that there is at the least some truth in the Castro point regarding the nature of the opposition, we should desist from undifferentiated, overall support for the opposition on the basis of liberal principles and democratic rights. We should support analytical and documentary reports to expose regime brutality. But we are not “fans“ of an entity identified in the media as the “democratic opposition” nor do we believe that the forces identified with the “democratic opposition” are a more humanitarian and just alternative.
Two categories: Iran’s international status, and Iran’s internal regime – reflect two important interrelated aspects of Iran’s existence. But they are not two dimensions of equal import and impact. The decisive axis of development, the major impact and influence stem from the first category, Iran’s international status. The Iranian issue has long lost any vestige of localism, of involvement in mere local interests. The battle around Iran has taken on immense importance as a critical stage in the weakening of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and even on a wider scope.
For the above reasons, we reject the simple formula often suggested in thorny issues like this one, i.e., Fight aggression against Iran without relating to the character of the regime in that country and fight against the regime, as if there were no danger of aggression. However, the two issues, both admittedly important, are not on the same scale of importance and influence on the course of events.
An Echo from the Past
Marxist theory on the issue suggests that it may seem as if this is some sort of “replay” of past disputes. But it isn’t. The material conditions obtaining today and their political ramifications are simply vastly different. The communist movement no longer exists as an international force, and Trotskyism has no role in presenting an alternative to the communist option. Moreover the theories associated with Stalin and/or Trotsky no longer possess, without further contemporary development, a degree of internal consistency that can supply answers to any strategic dilemma. Inevitably, they have become, on the theoretical level, historical schools of thought, which do inspire different and often conflicting approaches to the very same issue. In short, the dispute that we are dealing with is not based on the different theories of Stalin and Trotsky.
Realists, who have experience with the various oppositions against authoritarian governments which chose to set out on an anti-U.S. path, have reason to be highly suspicious. The pressures in the opposition to be drawn into the vortex of US support are tremendous. Orange, velvet, yellow or green oppositional forces do tend to go the way of U.S.-sponsored “democracy”, even when they set out to do battle on the basis of the most sincere and naïve basis. The realist challenge to the democrats centers, more than on anything else, on the question of the real nature of the Iranian. Their approach is that the opposition grew and developed on the basis of U.S. spiritual and ideological foundations, with the hope for a more material equivalent not too far off in the future. My impression is that the realists, in rallying to the defense of Iran, are not so much in sympathy with its rulers as motivated by anxiety over the negative repercussions of the possible downfall of the present leadership.
Between Two Worlds
One of the more intelligent attempts, from a friend in Europe, to come to grips with the two different approaches argues that –
“Fidel stands for the raison d’état, like Chávez, by the way. Both Cuba and Iran are harassed by the US, and both suffer the effects of an embargo. Whether this implies to embrace the regime in Iran is another story. Neither Chomsky nor myself have interests of state which might blind our critical approach. Therefore my position is that as citizens, and this extends to the civil society at large, we may not support a reactionary theocracy, a clerical and military regime based on crony capitalism.
Any approach to Iran from the civil society should stress this paradox: Iran has the right to development but also to freedom, and a set of political liberties may be set aside temporarily on behalf of development, when the improvement of the people is delivered (like in China), and social and cultural overtures are promoted, and legal equality for all citizens is guaranteed.”
But despite the nature of the regime - a reactionary theocracy, a clerical and military regime based on crony capitalism - This doesn't allow imperialist intervention to change the regime, as the only consequence it brings is chaos, civil strife, and political and economic subjugation. Iran is living out very interesting contradictions, but they are internal, and Iranians must be left alone in order to experience their own autonomous resolution.”
Our friend is mindful of the source of the different views on the issue and he tends to justify both, depending on the level of the discourse. But this solution, despite the penetrating analysis of the difference in the circumstances of states on one hand and actors in civil society, is still quite unsatisfactory. There is something both wrong and inadequate in the attempt to separate the worlds of power and interests on one hand and that of critical minded activists, on the other. There is some faulty, rather quaint logic here that implies that we would have to change our position if, God forbid, state power would be thrust upon us. But, to be practical, the distinction, between the two worlds, though tempting, is not really viable. If we accept the validity of the “reasons of state,” we are not and cannot remain indifferent to the intense political struggle regarding the actions of those countries which enter into alliances with Iran. This means on our part the active defense of Cuba, Venezuela, etc precisely on the Iranian issue. This calls for active support for Iran trying to break out of isolation imposed by the US. “Reasons of state,” when the state involved is struggling against suffocation by the still very powerful hegemonic force, are valid political currency in the real political battles.
Human Rights – Yes! Alternative Regime – No
I do not sense that there is any serious contradiction between full support for Iran versus the United States plans for aggression and refusing, at the very same time, to condone many of the ugly violations of human rights and dignity.
But there is a contradiction between support for Iranian resistance and the claim that there exists a completely satisfactory alternative to the given regime in the form of a democratic opposition which could with sweep of its hand, as it were, enhance Iran’s prestige as a democratic entity – thus erecting a moral barrier to aggression against the country. With all due respect, the orientation on an alternative regime means faith in a new formation that would emerge rather quickly as the true and tested ally of the United States. Aggression might be avoided in the new circumstances precisely because now that we have pro-Western government, it has been rendered superfluous. The country and its assets would be in safe hands, just like Iraq today.
Castro and Chomsky have made the dangers crystal clear indeed. The bloody war in Iraq is far from being over. Afghanistan is a quagmire of quicksand. Turkey is opting for neutrality. Syria and Lebanon insist on their independence. Obama and the U.S. are running out of money and corporate U.S. has barred governmental access to the mint. Faced with significant, multiple regional defeats, the United States entertains dreams of a military fix that might reverse the trends. Israel is pinning its hopes on confrontation. War to protect the edifice of a crumbling hegemony seems to be, for the rulers of the U.S., a way out of the swamp.
--
Reuven Kaminer
POBox 9013
Jerusalem 91090
Israel 972 2 6414632
From the desk of Reuven Kaminer July 5, 2010
Solidarity with Iran Facing Aggression and the Nature of the Regime
Fidel Castro, as is his custom, published his views on current developments in his June 26, 2010 column entitled Reflections. The thrust of Castro’s Reflections, printed last week, is crystal clear. Castro describes in detail the recent ongoing United States- Israeli naval build up in the Middle East, stressing that it is, “now a matter of calculating when the American and Israeli naval forces will be deployed off the coasts of Iran joining there the aircraft carriers and other US military ships already on watch in the region.”
In a matter of importance related to our discussion, Castro also makes short shrift of the opposition to the regime in Iran, exposing its class nature: “The US administration worked out a plan to promote a political movement that, based on capitalist consumerism, would divide the Iranians and overthrow the government. Such hope is now harmless.”
The Anti-imperialist Left
Even in the West, with all the weaknesses of the socialist movement, there fortunately persists a current of critical thought, best defined as the anti-imperialist left (AIL). The essential position of the anti-imperialist left is based on the contention that the United States acts as the global hegemonic force, imposing regimes of subservience and exploitation over great sections of the globe – wherever it can and for as long as it can.
As my reader might guess, the AIL is hardly a monolithic affair. As a matter of fact, Castro reignited a serious debate over important issues related to Iran, already the source of much acrimony and friction in the left.
The crux of the often heated debate involves the relation between the growing danger of US-Israel aggression against Iran and the serious charges regarding the reactionary and dictatorial record of the regime in that country.
The two opposing trends here are realists who stress the decisive importance of Iran’s international role and the democrats who call on the AIL to confront the Iranian regime’s record of repression. Naturally enough, there are shades and nuances both in theory and in practice. Even so, the opposing trends are quite recognizable in day to day political discourse.
Precisely, in the heat of the debate, it is vital to stress that all sections and streams in the AIL vigorously oppose US threats and preparations of war against Iran. It is important not to lose sight of this fact both on the theoretical level and in practical politics.
In practical day to day politics, the democrats are heavily engaged in exposing dictatorial repression in Iran and mobilizing support for the human and political rights of the opposition. The democrats insist on placing the issue of repression in Iran high on the public agenda.
The realists deny the progressive nature of the opposition in Iran and consider it linked, formally or not, to the interests of Iran’s enemies. For the realists the main objects of repression are linked to the opposition, which is mainly subversive.
The democrats argue that criticism of the regime and internal changes may be necessary to improve the capacity of the country to repel and overcome aggression. The weaknesses and repressive nature of the regime may even impair its ability to mobilize international sympathy and support.
Weaknesses in the Democratic Approach
This argument, lofty in intent, is essentially a matter of speculation. Even if we knew much more about Iranian society than we know, it is impossible to know the effects of this or that development on the overall strength and viability of the regime, especially in regards to its ability to resist provocations and foreign aggression.
We have no real evidence, as many democrats argue that U.S. intelligence prefers Ahmadinejad and the present rulers of Iran over the opposition, an accusation bandied about by people in the solidarity movement with the Iranian opposition. It is, of course, reasonable to assume that the Iranian opposition is a heterogeneous affair. But it would be naïve to doubt that it must include a major component of forces seeking to overthrow the present regime towards a rapprochement with the U.S. But it is also true that the opposition includes many noble, dedicated women and men of the radical left.
Even though it is correct to say that “in the long run” it is the internal dynamic that would determine Iran’s path. In the real world, here and now, the two fronts, the internal or the external front, are two separate arenas, much less interrelated than they would appear to be, especially in matters related to Iran’s ability to resist U.S.-Israeli aggression. Of course, the “home front” is important but that importance does not match the vital and all embracing importance of the international role of the regime, its will and ability to resist imperialism machinations. Of course, we cannot ignore the eventual significance of the internal dynamic, but we do argue that consistency and determination on the international front can create historical space for advancement on the internal domestic front, for greater democracy and human rights.
Chomsky Backs Fidel
An article published by Noam Chomsky two days after Fidel’s Reflections fully verifies Fidel’s analysis of the approaching storm. Of course, in his own inimitable fashion, Chomsky mobilizes overwhelming evidence for his central point. Iran is in danger of death and destruction not because it is a “terrorist entity,” but because of its deepening political influence in the region. No one could consider Chomsky, with his sensitivity to human rights issues, a friend of the Iranian regime which many have characterized as a regime in war with its own people.
I think that we in the independent left operating in circumstances of severe public debate, dominated by the imperial media monopoly on the prevailing discourse, must develop our own nuanced approach to the question at hand. It would be a crucial mistake if we fail to understand the justifiable reasons for Fidel’s blanket denunciation of the Iranian opposition and his characterization of it as ”a political movement based on capitalist consumerism.” On the other hand, there is an additional dimension, that on the level of human and civil rights, which demands a measured, serious response.
Fidel is telling us what we should already know. It is the duty of any progressive regime to identify in any given circumstances the forces with which it can develop cooperation and mutual advantage. Given the historical hegemony of imperialism over the years, it must be understood that this is a legitimate historical approach and a means of resistance. The principle is simple: the regime (our regime) must do and will do that which is essential to prevent isolation, to ensure security, to put bread on the table of its citizens. It must utilize all these opportunities as a matter of course.
I myself, and others of similar irrepressible sensitivities witness in Iran a series of sickening actions that jar the core our own values and political needs, legitimate in and of themselves. This might create false hope for the emergence of an opposition more to our taste. But is it so hard to understand, that Castro having seen the role of capitalist consumerism in the fall of the USSR, and on the basis of his own analysis of Cuban reality, sees the dreams of Westernized middle class for a “freer” society as one big trap? The U.S. is, as we know, ever ready to assist regime change, more democratic elections, a new lease on life for civil society – all for free.
Castro’s dismissive description of the Iranian opposition may be the basis of Cuban politics on this issue, and it may be basically correct, but it cannot serve all the requirements of those fighting against U.S. aggression in the heartlands of imperialism and its allies. The issue of human and civil rights, the protection against arbitrary arrest, torture and punishment cannot be ignored by the left, even in the rarified and tense atmosphere of an international campaign against the Iranian people and its leadership. Many things are happening which cannot be countenanced.
Strategy and Tactics on the Iran Issue
When we unavoidably relate to the glaring crimes of the Iranian regime, we are faced, whether we wish so or not, with a number of urgent practical and strategic questions. Since silence on this issue is not an option, but since we also refuse to reduce in any way our iron clad obligation to work with the forces in opposition to U.S.-Israeli aggression, we face the challenge of integrating the two elements, of conveying some sense of proportion between the importance of the two issues, and the choice of partners in the day to day political battle. There is, of course, no easy formula, but there are certain guidelines that might prevent serious distortions from the policy we seek.
The main front is the fight against U.S.-Israeli aggression, as long as the real danger persists. It is here that we are interested in the establishment of the widest possible front. The internal Iranian front is a secondary battle. We cannot prove this, but our instinctive sense is that the danger of war increases domestic chauvinism and disregard for human rights. An eventual relaxation in tension over a broad period should open the way for more respect for the rights of Iranians in all spheres. And as long as the danger of war is there, our main duty, is opposition to the war, which is in the final analysis the best thing that we can do for the people of Iran, including victims of repression in Iran.
Knowing that there is at the least some truth in the Castro point regarding the nature of the opposition, we should desist from undifferentiated, overall support for the opposition on the basis of liberal principles and democratic rights. We should support analytical and documentary reports to expose regime brutality. But we are not “fans“ of an entity identified in the media as the “democratic opposition” nor do we believe that the forces identified with the “democratic opposition” are a more humanitarian and just alternative.
Two categories: Iran’s international status, and Iran’s internal regime – reflect two important interrelated aspects of Iran’s existence. But they are not two dimensions of equal import and impact. The decisive axis of development, the major impact and influence stem from the first category, Iran’s international status. The Iranian issue has long lost any vestige of localism, of involvement in mere local interests. The battle around Iran has taken on immense importance as a critical stage in the weakening of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and even on a wider scope.
For the above reasons, we reject the simple formula often suggested in thorny issues like this one, i.e., Fight aggression against Iran without relating to the character of the regime in that country and fight against the regime, as if there were no danger of aggression. However, the two issues, both admittedly important, are not on the same scale of importance and influence on the course of events.
An Echo from the Past
Marxist theory on the issue suggests that it may seem as if this is some sort of “replay” of past disputes. But it isn’t. The material conditions obtaining today and their political ramifications are simply vastly different. The communist movement no longer exists as an international force, and Trotskyism has no role in presenting an alternative to the communist option. Moreover the theories associated with Stalin and/or Trotsky no longer possess, without further contemporary development, a degree of internal consistency that can supply answers to any strategic dilemma. Inevitably, they have become, on the theoretical level, historical schools of thought, which do inspire different and often conflicting approaches to the very same issue. In short, the dispute that we are dealing with is not based on the different theories of Stalin and Trotsky.
Realists, who have experience with the various oppositions against authoritarian governments which chose to set out on an anti-U.S. path, have reason to be highly suspicious. The pressures in the opposition to be drawn into the vortex of US support are tremendous. Orange, velvet, yellow or green oppositional forces do tend to go the way of U.S.-sponsored “democracy”, even when they set out to do battle on the basis of the most sincere and naïve basis. The realist challenge to the democrats centers, more than on anything else, on the question of the real nature of the Iranian. Their approach is that the opposition grew and developed on the basis of U.S. spiritual and ideological foundations, with the hope for a more material equivalent not too far off in the future. My impression is that the realists, in rallying to the defense of Iran, are not so much in sympathy with its rulers as motivated by anxiety over the negative repercussions of the possible downfall of the present leadership.
Between Two Worlds
One of the more intelligent attempts, from a friend in Europe, to come to grips with the two different approaches argues that –
“Fidel stands for the raison d’état, like Chávez, by the way. Both Cuba and Iran are harassed by the US, and both suffer the effects of an embargo. Whether this implies to embrace the regime in Iran is another story. Neither Chomsky nor myself have interests of state which might blind our critical approach. Therefore my position is that as citizens, and this extends to the civil society at large, we may not support a reactionary theocracy, a clerical and military regime based on crony capitalism.
Any approach to Iran from the civil society should stress this paradox: Iran has the right to development but also to freedom, and a set of political liberties may be set aside temporarily on behalf of development, when the improvement of the people is delivered (like in China), and social and cultural overtures are promoted, and legal equality for all citizens is guaranteed.”
But despite the nature of the regime - a reactionary theocracy, a clerical and military regime based on crony capitalism - This doesn't allow imperialist intervention to change the regime, as the only consequence it brings is chaos, civil strife, and political and economic subjugation. Iran is living out very interesting contradictions, but they are internal, and Iranians must be left alone in order to experience their own autonomous resolution.”
Our friend is mindful of the source of the different views on the issue and he tends to justify both, depending on the level of the discourse. But this solution, despite the penetrating analysis of the difference in the circumstances of states on one hand and actors in civil society, is still quite unsatisfactory. There is something both wrong and inadequate in the attempt to separate the worlds of power and interests on one hand and that of critical minded activists, on the other. There is some faulty, rather quaint logic here that implies that we would have to change our position if, God forbid, state power would be thrust upon us. But, to be practical, the distinction, between the two worlds, though tempting, is not really viable. If we accept the validity of the “reasons of state,” we are not and cannot remain indifferent to the intense political struggle regarding the actions of those countries which enter into alliances with Iran. This means on our part the active defense of Cuba, Venezuela, etc precisely on the Iranian issue. This calls for active support for Iran trying to break out of isolation imposed by the US. “Reasons of state,” when the state involved is struggling against suffocation by the still very powerful hegemonic force, are valid political currency in the real political battles.
Human Rights – Yes! Alternative Regime – No
I do not sense that there is any serious contradiction between full support for Iran versus the United States plans for aggression and refusing, at the very same time, to condone many of the ugly violations of human rights and dignity.
But there is a contradiction between support for Iranian resistance and the claim that there exists a completely satisfactory alternative to the given regime in the form of a democratic opposition which could with sweep of its hand, as it were, enhance Iran’s prestige as a democratic entity – thus erecting a moral barrier to aggression against the country. With all due respect, the orientation on an alternative regime means faith in a new formation that would emerge rather quickly as the true and tested ally of the United States. Aggression might be avoided in the new circumstances precisely because now that we have pro-Western government, it has been rendered superfluous. The country and its assets would be in safe hands, just like Iraq today.
Castro and Chomsky have made the dangers crystal clear indeed. The bloody war in Iraq is far from being over. Afghanistan is a quagmire of quicksand. Turkey is opting for neutrality. Syria and Lebanon insist on their independence. Obama and the U.S. are running out of money and corporate U.S. has barred governmental access to the mint. Faced with significant, multiple regional defeats, the United States entertains dreams of a military fix that might reverse the trends. Israel is pinning its hopes on confrontation. War to protect the edifice of a crumbling hegemony seems to be, for the rulers of the U.S., a way out of the swamp.
--
Reuven Kaminer
POBox 9013
Jerusalem 91090
Israel 972 2 6414632
Solidarity with Iran Facing Aggression and the Nature of the Regime
Unlimited Circulation Excuse Double Posting
From the desk of Reuven Kaminer July 5, 2010
Solidarity with Iran Facing Aggression and the Nature of the Regime
Fidel Castro, as is his custom, published his views on current developments in his June 26, 2010 column entitled Reflections. The thrust of Castro’s Reflections, printed last week, is crystal clear. Castro describes in detail the recent ongoing United States- Israeli naval build up in the Middle East, stressing that it is, “now a matter of calculating when the American and Israeli naval forces will be deployed off the coasts of Iran joining there the aircraft carriers and other US military ships already on watch in the region.”
In a matter of importance related to our discussion, Castro also makes short shrift of the opposition to the regime in Iran, exposing its class nature: “The US administration worked out a plan to promote a political movement that, based on capitalist consumerism, would divide the Iranians and overthrow the government. Such hope is now harmless.”
The Anti-imperialist Left
Even in the West, with all the weaknesses of the socialist movement, there fortunately persists a current of critical thought, best defined as the anti-imperialist left (AIL). The essential position of the anti-imperialist left is based on the contention that the United States acts as the global hegemonic force, imposing regimes of subservience and exploitation over great sections of the globe – wherever it can and for as long as it can.
As my reader might guess, the AIL is hardly a monolithic affair. As a matter of fact, Castro reignited a serious debate over important issues related to Iran, already the source of much acrimony and friction in the left.
The crux of the often heated debate involves the relation between the growing danger of US-Israel aggression against Iran and the serious charges regarding the reactionary and dictatorial record of the regime in that country.
The two opposing trends here are realists who stress the decisive importance of Iran’s international role and the democrats who call on the AIL to confront the Iranian regime’s record of repression. Naturally enough, there are shades and nuances both in theory and in practice. Even so, the opposing trends are quite recognizable in day to day political discourse.
Precisely, in the heat of the debate, it is vital to stress that all sections and streams in the AIL vigorously oppose US threats and preparations of war against Iran. It is important not to lose sight of this fact both on the theoretical level and in practical politics.
In practical day to day politics, the democrats are heavily engaged in exposing dictatorial repression in Iran and mobilizing support for the human and political rights of the opposition. The democrats insist on placing the issue of repression in Iran high on the public agenda.
The realists deny the progressive nature of the opposition in Iran and consider it linked, formally or not, to the interests of Iran’s enemies. For the realists the main objects of repression are linked to the opposition, which is mainly subversive.
The democrats argue that criticism of the regime and internal changes may be necessary to improve the capacity of the country to repel and overcome aggression. The weaknesses and repressive nature of the regime may even impair its ability to mobilize international sympathy and support.
Weaknesses in the Democratic Approach
This argument, lofty in intent, is essentially a matter of speculation. Even if we knew much more about Iranian society than we know, it is impossible to know the effects of this or that development on the overall strength and viability of the regime, especially in regards to its ability to resist provocations and foreign aggression.
We have no real evidence, as many democrats argue that U.S. intelligence prefers Ahmadinejad and the present rulers of Iran over the opposition, an accusation bandied about by people in the solidarity movement with the Iranian opposition. It is, of course, reasonable to assume that the Iranian opposition is a heterogeneous affair. But it would be naïve to doubt that it must include a major component of forces seeking to overthrow the present regime towards a rapprochement with the U.S. But it is also true that the opposition includes many noble, dedicated women and men of the radical left.
Even though it is correct to say that “in the long run” it is the internal dynamic that would determine Iran’s path. In the real world, here and now, the two fronts, the internal or the external front, are two separate arenas, much less interrelated than they would appear to be, especially in matters related to Iran’s ability to resist U.S.-Israeli aggression. Of course, the “home front” is important but that importance does not match the vital and all embracing importance of the international role of the regime, its will and ability to resist imperialism machinations. Of course, we cannot ignore the eventual significance of the internal dynamic, but we do argue that consistency and determination on the international front can create historical space for advancement on the internal domestic front, for greater democracy and human rights.
Chomsky Backs Fidel
An article published by Noam Chomsky two days after Fidel’s Reflections fully verifies Fidel’s analysis of the approaching storm. Of course, in his own inimitable fashion, Chomsky mobilizes overwhelming evidence for his central point. Iran is in danger of death and destruction not because it is a “terrorist entity,” but because of its deepening political influence in the region. No one could consider Chomsky, with his sensitivity to human rights issues, a friend of the Iranian regime which many have characterized as a regime in war with its own people.
I think that we in the independent left operating in circumstances of severe public debate, dominated by the imperial media monopoly on the prevailing discourse, must develop our own nuanced approach to the question at hand. It would be a crucial mistake if we fail to understand the justifiable reasons for Fidel’s blanket denunciation of the Iranian opposition and his characterization of it as ”a political movement based on capitalist consumerism.” On the other hand, there is an additional dimension, that on the level of human and civil rights, which demands a measured, serious response.
Fidel is telling us what we should already know. It is the duty of any progressive regime to identify in any given circumstances the forces with which it can develop cooperation and mutual advantage. Given the historical hegemony of imperialism over the years, it must be understood that this is a legitimate historical approach and a means of resistance. The principle is simple: the regime (our regime) must do and will do that which is essential to prevent isolation, to ensure security, to put bread on the table of its citizens. It must utilize all these opportunities as a matter of course.
I myself, and others of similar irrepressible sensitivities witness in Iran a series of sickening actions that jar the core our own values and political needs, legitimate in and of themselves. This might create false hope for the emergence of an opposition more to our taste. But is it so hard to understand, that Castro having seen the role of capitalist consumerism in the fall of the USSR, and on the basis of his own analysis of Cuban reality, sees the dreams of Westernized middle class for a “freer” society as one big trap? The U.S. is, as we know, ever ready to assist regime change, more democratic elections, a new lease on life for civil society – all for free.
Castro’s dismissive description of the Iranian opposition may be the basis of Cuban politics on this issue, and it may be basically correct, but it cannot serve all the requirements of those fighting against U.S. aggression in the heartlands of imperialism and its allies. The issue of human and civil rights, the protection against arbitrary arrest, torture and punishment cannot be ignored by the left, even in the rarified and tense atmosphere of an international campaign against the Iranian people and its leadership. Many things are happening which cannot be countenanced.
Strategy and Tactics on the Iran Issue
When we unavoidably relate to the glaring crimes of the Iranian regime, we are faced, whether we wish so or not, with a number of urgent practical and strategic questions. Since silence on this issue is not an option, but since we also refuse to reduce in any way our iron clad obligation to work with the forces in opposition to U.S.-Israeli aggression, we face the challenge of integrating the two elements, of conveying some sense of proportion between the importance of the two issues, and the choice of partners in the day to day political battle. There is, of course, no easy formula, but there are certain guidelines that might prevent serious distortions from the policy we seek.
The main front is the fight against U.S.-Israeli aggression, as long as the real danger persists. It is here that we are interested in the establishment of the widest possible front. The internal Iranian front is a secondary battle. We cannot prove this, but our instinctive sense is that the danger of war increases domestic chauvinism and disregard for human rights. An eventual relaxation in tension over a broad period should open the way for more respect for the rights of Iranians in all spheres. And as long as the danger of war is there, our main duty, is opposition to the war, which is in the final analysis the best thing that we can do for the people of Iran, including victims of repression in Iran.
Knowing that there is at the least some truth in the Castro point regarding the nature of the opposition, we should desist from undifferentiated, overall support for the opposition on the basis of liberal principles and democratic rights. We should support analytical and documentary reports to expose regime brutality. But we are not “fans“ of an entity identified in the media as the “democratic opposition” nor do we believe that the forces identified with the “democratic opposition” are a more humanitarian and just alternative.
Two categories: Iran’s international status, and Iran’s internal regime – reflect two important interrelated aspects of Iran’s existence. But they are not two dimensions of equal import and impact. The decisive axis of development, the major impact and influence stem from the first category, Iran’s international status. The Iranian issue has long lost any vestige of localism, of involvement in mere local interests. The battle around Iran has taken on immense importance as a critical stage in the weakening of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and even on a wider scope.
For the above reasons, we reject the simple formula often suggested in thorny issues like this one, i.e., Fight aggression against Iran without relating to the character of the regime in that country and fight against the regime, as if there were no danger of aggression. However, the two issues, both admittedly important, are not on the same scale of importance and influence on the course of events.
An Echo from the Past
Marxist theory on the issue suggests that it may seem as if this is some sort of “replay” of past disputes. But it isn’t. The material conditions obtaining today and their political ramifications are simply vastly different. The communist movement no longer exists as an international force, and Trotskyism has no role in presenting an alternative to the communist option. Moreover the theories associated with Stalin and/or Trotsky no longer possess, without further contemporary development, a degree of internal consistency that can supply answers to any strategic dilemma. Inevitably, they have become, on the theoretical level, historical schools of thought, which do inspire different and often conflicting approaches to the very same issue. In short, the dispute that we are dealing with is not based on the different theories of Stalin and Trotsky.
Realists, who have experience with the various oppositions against authoritarian governments which chose to set out on an anti-U.S. path, have reason to be highly suspicious. The pressures in the opposition to be drawn into the vortex of US support are tremendous. Orange, velvet, yellow or green oppositional forces do tend to go the way of U.S.-sponsored “democracy”, even when they set out to do battle on the basis of the most sincere and naïve basis. The realist challenge to the democrats centers, more than on anything else, on the question of the real nature of the Iranian. Their approach is that the opposition grew and developed on the basis of U.S. spiritual and ideological foundations, with the hope for a more material equivalent not too far off in the future. My impression is that the realists, in rallying to the defense of Iran, are not so much in sympathy with its rulers as motivated by anxiety over the negative repercussions of the possible downfall of the present leadership.
Between Two Worlds
One of the more intelligent attempts, from a friend in Europe, to come to grips with the two different approaches argues that –
“Fidel stands for the raison d’état, like Chávez, by the way. Both Cuba and Iran are harassed by the US, and both suffer the effects of an embargo. Whether this implies to embrace the regime in Iran is another story. Neither Chomsky nor myself have interests of state which might blind our critical approach. Therefore my position is that as citizens, and this extends to the civil society at large, we may not support a reactionary theocracy, a clerical and military regime based on crony capitalism.
Any approach to Iran from the civil society should stress this paradox: Iran has the right to development but also to freedom, and a set of political liberties may be set aside temporarily on behalf of development, when the improvement of the people is delivered (like in China), and social and cultural overtures are promoted, and legal equality for all citizens is guaranteed.”
But despite the nature of the regime - a reactionary theocracy, a clerical and military regime based on crony capitalism - This doesn't allow imperialist intervention to change the regime, as the only consequence it brings is chaos, civil strife, and political and economic subjugation. Iran is living out very interesting contradictions, but they are internal, and Iranians must be left alone in order to experience their own autonomous resolution.”
Our friend is mindful of the source of the different views on the issue and he tends to justify both, depending on the level of the discourse. But this solution, despite the penetrating analysis of the difference in the circumstances of states on one hand and actors in civil society, is still quite unsatisfactory. There is something both wrong and inadequate in the attempt to separate the worlds of power and interests on one hand and that of critical minded activists, on the other. There is some faulty, rather quaint logic here that implies that we would have to change our position if, God forbid, state power would be thrust upon us. But, to be practical, the distinction, between the two worlds, though tempting, is not really viable. If we accept the validity of the “reasons of state,” we are not and cannot remain indifferent to the intense political struggle regarding the actions of those countries which enter into alliances with Iran. This means on our part the active defense of Cuba, Venezuela, etc precisely on the Iranian issue. This calls for active support for Iran trying to break out of isolation imposed by the US. “Reasons of state,” when the state involved is struggling against suffocation by the still very powerful hegemonic force, are valid political currency in the real political battles.
Human Rights – Yes! Alternative Regime – No
I do not sense that there is any serious contradiction between full support for Iran versus the United States plans for aggression and refusing, at the very same time, to condone many of the ugly violations of human rights and dignity.
But there is a contradiction between support for Iranian resistance and the claim that there exists a completely satisfactory alternative to the given regime in the form of a democratic opposition which could with sweep of its hand, as it were, enhance Iran’s prestige as a democratic entity – thus erecting a moral barrier to aggression against the country. With all due respect, the orientation on an alternative regime means faith in a new formation that would emerge rather quickly as the true and tested ally of the United States. Aggression might be avoided in the new circumstances precisely because now that we have pro-Western government, it has been rendered superfluous. The country and its assets would be in safe hands, just like Iraq today.
Castro and Chomsky have made the dangers crystal clear indeed. The bloody war in Iraq is far from being over. Afghanistan is a quagmire of quicksand. Turkey is opting for neutrality. Syria and Lebanon insist on their independence. Obama and the U.S. are running out of money and corporate U.S. has barred governmental access to the mint. Faced with significant, multiple regional defeats, the United States entertains dreams of a military fix that might reverse the trends. Israel is pinning its hopes on confrontation. War to protect the edifice of a crumbling hegemony seems to be, for the rulers of the U.S., a way out of the swamp.
--
Reuven Kaminer
POBox 9013
Jerusalem 91090
Israel 972 2 6414632
From the desk of Reuven Kaminer July 5, 2010
Solidarity with Iran Facing Aggression and the Nature of the Regime
Fidel Castro, as is his custom, published his views on current developments in his June 26, 2010 column entitled Reflections. The thrust of Castro’s Reflections, printed last week, is crystal clear. Castro describes in detail the recent ongoing United States- Israeli naval build up in the Middle East, stressing that it is, “now a matter of calculating when the American and Israeli naval forces will be deployed off the coasts of Iran joining there the aircraft carriers and other US military ships already on watch in the region.”
In a matter of importance related to our discussion, Castro also makes short shrift of the opposition to the regime in Iran, exposing its class nature: “The US administration worked out a plan to promote a political movement that, based on capitalist consumerism, would divide the Iranians and overthrow the government. Such hope is now harmless.”
The Anti-imperialist Left
Even in the West, with all the weaknesses of the socialist movement, there fortunately persists a current of critical thought, best defined as the anti-imperialist left (AIL). The essential position of the anti-imperialist left is based on the contention that the United States acts as the global hegemonic force, imposing regimes of subservience and exploitation over great sections of the globe – wherever it can and for as long as it can.
As my reader might guess, the AIL is hardly a monolithic affair. As a matter of fact, Castro reignited a serious debate over important issues related to Iran, already the source of much acrimony and friction in the left.
The crux of the often heated debate involves the relation between the growing danger of US-Israel aggression against Iran and the serious charges regarding the reactionary and dictatorial record of the regime in that country.
The two opposing trends here are realists who stress the decisive importance of Iran’s international role and the democrats who call on the AIL to confront the Iranian regime’s record of repression. Naturally enough, there are shades and nuances both in theory and in practice. Even so, the opposing trends are quite recognizable in day to day political discourse.
Precisely, in the heat of the debate, it is vital to stress that all sections and streams in the AIL vigorously oppose US threats and preparations of war against Iran. It is important not to lose sight of this fact both on the theoretical level and in practical politics.
In practical day to day politics, the democrats are heavily engaged in exposing dictatorial repression in Iran and mobilizing support for the human and political rights of the opposition. The democrats insist on placing the issue of repression in Iran high on the public agenda.
The realists deny the progressive nature of the opposition in Iran and consider it linked, formally or not, to the interests of Iran’s enemies. For the realists the main objects of repression are linked to the opposition, which is mainly subversive.
The democrats argue that criticism of the regime and internal changes may be necessary to improve the capacity of the country to repel and overcome aggression. The weaknesses and repressive nature of the regime may even impair its ability to mobilize international sympathy and support.
Weaknesses in the Democratic Approach
This argument, lofty in intent, is essentially a matter of speculation. Even if we knew much more about Iranian society than we know, it is impossible to know the effects of this or that development on the overall strength and viability of the regime, especially in regards to its ability to resist provocations and foreign aggression.
We have no real evidence, as many democrats argue that U.S. intelligence prefers Ahmadinejad and the present rulers of Iran over the opposition, an accusation bandied about by people in the solidarity movement with the Iranian opposition. It is, of course, reasonable to assume that the Iranian opposition is a heterogeneous affair. But it would be naïve to doubt that it must include a major component of forces seeking to overthrow the present regime towards a rapprochement with the U.S. But it is also true that the opposition includes many noble, dedicated women and men of the radical left.
Even though it is correct to say that “in the long run” it is the internal dynamic that would determine Iran’s path. In the real world, here and now, the two fronts, the internal or the external front, are two separate arenas, much less interrelated than they would appear to be, especially in matters related to Iran’s ability to resist U.S.-Israeli aggression. Of course, the “home front” is important but that importance does not match the vital and all embracing importance of the international role of the regime, its will and ability to resist imperialism machinations. Of course, we cannot ignore the eventual significance of the internal dynamic, but we do argue that consistency and determination on the international front can create historical space for advancement on the internal domestic front, for greater democracy and human rights.
Chomsky Backs Fidel
An article published by Noam Chomsky two days after Fidel’s Reflections fully verifies Fidel’s analysis of the approaching storm. Of course, in his own inimitable fashion, Chomsky mobilizes overwhelming evidence for his central point. Iran is in danger of death and destruction not because it is a “terrorist entity,” but because of its deepening political influence in the region. No one could consider Chomsky, with his sensitivity to human rights issues, a friend of the Iranian regime which many have characterized as a regime in war with its own people.
I think that we in the independent left operating in circumstances of severe public debate, dominated by the imperial media monopoly on the prevailing discourse, must develop our own nuanced approach to the question at hand. It would be a crucial mistake if we fail to understand the justifiable reasons for Fidel’s blanket denunciation of the Iranian opposition and his characterization of it as ”a political movement based on capitalist consumerism.” On the other hand, there is an additional dimension, that on the level of human and civil rights, which demands a measured, serious response.
Fidel is telling us what we should already know. It is the duty of any progressive regime to identify in any given circumstances the forces with which it can develop cooperation and mutual advantage. Given the historical hegemony of imperialism over the years, it must be understood that this is a legitimate historical approach and a means of resistance. The principle is simple: the regime (our regime) must do and will do that which is essential to prevent isolation, to ensure security, to put bread on the table of its citizens. It must utilize all these opportunities as a matter of course.
I myself, and others of similar irrepressible sensitivities witness in Iran a series of sickening actions that jar the core our own values and political needs, legitimate in and of themselves. This might create false hope for the emergence of an opposition more to our taste. But is it so hard to understand, that Castro having seen the role of capitalist consumerism in the fall of the USSR, and on the basis of his own analysis of Cuban reality, sees the dreams of Westernized middle class for a “freer” society as one big trap? The U.S. is, as we know, ever ready to assist regime change, more democratic elections, a new lease on life for civil society – all for free.
Castro’s dismissive description of the Iranian opposition may be the basis of Cuban politics on this issue, and it may be basically correct, but it cannot serve all the requirements of those fighting against U.S. aggression in the heartlands of imperialism and its allies. The issue of human and civil rights, the protection against arbitrary arrest, torture and punishment cannot be ignored by the left, even in the rarified and tense atmosphere of an international campaign against the Iranian people and its leadership. Many things are happening which cannot be countenanced.
Strategy and Tactics on the Iran Issue
When we unavoidably relate to the glaring crimes of the Iranian regime, we are faced, whether we wish so or not, with a number of urgent practical and strategic questions. Since silence on this issue is not an option, but since we also refuse to reduce in any way our iron clad obligation to work with the forces in opposition to U.S.-Israeli aggression, we face the challenge of integrating the two elements, of conveying some sense of proportion between the importance of the two issues, and the choice of partners in the day to day political battle. There is, of course, no easy formula, but there are certain guidelines that might prevent serious distortions from the policy we seek.
The main front is the fight against U.S.-Israeli aggression, as long as the real danger persists. It is here that we are interested in the establishment of the widest possible front. The internal Iranian front is a secondary battle. We cannot prove this, but our instinctive sense is that the danger of war increases domestic chauvinism and disregard for human rights. An eventual relaxation in tension over a broad period should open the way for more respect for the rights of Iranians in all spheres. And as long as the danger of war is there, our main duty, is opposition to the war, which is in the final analysis the best thing that we can do for the people of Iran, including victims of repression in Iran.
Knowing that there is at the least some truth in the Castro point regarding the nature of the opposition, we should desist from undifferentiated, overall support for the opposition on the basis of liberal principles and democratic rights. We should support analytical and documentary reports to expose regime brutality. But we are not “fans“ of an entity identified in the media as the “democratic opposition” nor do we believe that the forces identified with the “democratic opposition” are a more humanitarian and just alternative.
Two categories: Iran’s international status, and Iran’s internal regime – reflect two important interrelated aspects of Iran’s existence. But they are not two dimensions of equal import and impact. The decisive axis of development, the major impact and influence stem from the first category, Iran’s international status. The Iranian issue has long lost any vestige of localism, of involvement in mere local interests. The battle around Iran has taken on immense importance as a critical stage in the weakening of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and even on a wider scope.
For the above reasons, we reject the simple formula often suggested in thorny issues like this one, i.e., Fight aggression against Iran without relating to the character of the regime in that country and fight against the regime, as if there were no danger of aggression. However, the two issues, both admittedly important, are not on the same scale of importance and influence on the course of events.
An Echo from the Past
Marxist theory on the issue suggests that it may seem as if this is some sort of “replay” of past disputes. But it isn’t. The material conditions obtaining today and their political ramifications are simply vastly different. The communist movement no longer exists as an international force, and Trotskyism has no role in presenting an alternative to the communist option. Moreover the theories associated with Stalin and/or Trotsky no longer possess, without further contemporary development, a degree of internal consistency that can supply answers to any strategic dilemma. Inevitably, they have become, on the theoretical level, historical schools of thought, which do inspire different and often conflicting approaches to the very same issue. In short, the dispute that we are dealing with is not based on the different theories of Stalin and Trotsky.
Realists, who have experience with the various oppositions against authoritarian governments which chose to set out on an anti-U.S. path, have reason to be highly suspicious. The pressures in the opposition to be drawn into the vortex of US support are tremendous. Orange, velvet, yellow or green oppositional forces do tend to go the way of U.S.-sponsored “democracy”, even when they set out to do battle on the basis of the most sincere and naïve basis. The realist challenge to the democrats centers, more than on anything else, on the question of the real nature of the Iranian. Their approach is that the opposition grew and developed on the basis of U.S. spiritual and ideological foundations, with the hope for a more material equivalent not too far off in the future. My impression is that the realists, in rallying to the defense of Iran, are not so much in sympathy with its rulers as motivated by anxiety over the negative repercussions of the possible downfall of the present leadership.
Between Two Worlds
One of the more intelligent attempts, from a friend in Europe, to come to grips with the two different approaches argues that –
“Fidel stands for the raison d’état, like Chávez, by the way. Both Cuba and Iran are harassed by the US, and both suffer the effects of an embargo. Whether this implies to embrace the regime in Iran is another story. Neither Chomsky nor myself have interests of state which might blind our critical approach. Therefore my position is that as citizens, and this extends to the civil society at large, we may not support a reactionary theocracy, a clerical and military regime based on crony capitalism.
Any approach to Iran from the civil society should stress this paradox: Iran has the right to development but also to freedom, and a set of political liberties may be set aside temporarily on behalf of development, when the improvement of the people is delivered (like in China), and social and cultural overtures are promoted, and legal equality for all citizens is guaranteed.”
But despite the nature of the regime - a reactionary theocracy, a clerical and military regime based on crony capitalism - This doesn't allow imperialist intervention to change the regime, as the only consequence it brings is chaos, civil strife, and political and economic subjugation. Iran is living out very interesting contradictions, but they are internal, and Iranians must be left alone in order to experience their own autonomous resolution.”
Our friend is mindful of the source of the different views on the issue and he tends to justify both, depending on the level of the discourse. But this solution, despite the penetrating analysis of the difference in the circumstances of states on one hand and actors in civil society, is still quite unsatisfactory. There is something both wrong and inadequate in the attempt to separate the worlds of power and interests on one hand and that of critical minded activists, on the other. There is some faulty, rather quaint logic here that implies that we would have to change our position if, God forbid, state power would be thrust upon us. But, to be practical, the distinction, between the two worlds, though tempting, is not really viable. If we accept the validity of the “reasons of state,” we are not and cannot remain indifferent to the intense political struggle regarding the actions of those countries which enter into alliances with Iran. This means on our part the active defense of Cuba, Venezuela, etc precisely on the Iranian issue. This calls for active support for Iran trying to break out of isolation imposed by the US. “Reasons of state,” when the state involved is struggling against suffocation by the still very powerful hegemonic force, are valid political currency in the real political battles.
Human Rights – Yes! Alternative Regime – No
I do not sense that there is any serious contradiction between full support for Iran versus the United States plans for aggression and refusing, at the very same time, to condone many of the ugly violations of human rights and dignity.
But there is a contradiction between support for Iranian resistance and the claim that there exists a completely satisfactory alternative to the given regime in the form of a democratic opposition which could with sweep of its hand, as it were, enhance Iran’s prestige as a democratic entity – thus erecting a moral barrier to aggression against the country. With all due respect, the orientation on an alternative regime means faith in a new formation that would emerge rather quickly as the true and tested ally of the United States. Aggression might be avoided in the new circumstances precisely because now that we have pro-Western government, it has been rendered superfluous. The country and its assets would be in safe hands, just like Iraq today.
Castro and Chomsky have made the dangers crystal clear indeed. The bloody war in Iraq is far from being over. Afghanistan is a quagmire of quicksand. Turkey is opting for neutrality. Syria and Lebanon insist on their independence. Obama and the U.S. are running out of money and corporate U.S. has barred governmental access to the mint. Faced with significant, multiple regional defeats, the United States entertains dreams of a military fix that might reverse the trends. Israel is pinning its hopes on confrontation. War to protect the edifice of a crumbling hegemony seems to be, for the rulers of the U.S., a way out of the swamp.
--
Reuven Kaminer
POBox 9013
Jerusalem 91090
Israel 972 2 6414632
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA
HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA
4 May 2010
Presentation to the Sub-committee on International Human Rights
House of Commons, Parliament of Canada
Presented by:
Dr. Maria Páez Victor
Louis Riel Bolivarian Circle/Hands Off Venezuela
Greetings to the honorable Members of Parliament:
It is an honour to be able to address this committee, thank you for this opportunity.
PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION
We understand that this Parliamentary Sub-committee is conducting a study of the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It is a difficult task for any country to get a fully accurate view of the human rights situation in any other country, as statistics are not always available or comparable and anecdotal information is unrepresentative.
This situation is not helped by a national media, such as exists in Venezuela, which is largely controlled by admitted opponents of the elected government and is connected to the international media. Even reputable Canadian newspapers have succumbed to their campaign of misinformation. For example, the Toronto Star was disciplined by the Ontario Press Council for publishing articles on Venezuela that were “significantly deficient” in terms of the standards of good journalism.
Due to this intentionally biased campaign, it is understandable that Canadians, and their Honourable Representatives, may have an insufficient and inaccurate picture of the state of human rights in Venezuela.
We have come here to share with you information from a variety of sources and our first hand experience on this issue because the decision that the Parliament of Canada may make regarding human rights in Venezuela could have important ramifications for both countries, and even Latin America as a whole. And we would not want this august body to fall prey to media distortions.
BACKGROUND
First of all, I would like to tell you a bit of background on human rights in Venezuela before 1999. Since its founding in 1811, the country has had 26 constitutions; the previous one in 1961was a provisional constitution full of loopholes that were never amended. In the end, it was practically irrelevant because human rights, scarcely mentioned, were hardly central to the practice of government. Torture, censorship, disappearances of opponents, killings, use of secret police, suspension of civil rights, were all commonplace in the administrations of the 4 previous presidents. Most notably in February of 1989, about 3000 people were massacred on the streets by the army as they spontaneously protested sudden price hikes instigated by the World Bank and the IMF. The international community and media scarcely paid attention to these events nor defended the human rights of Venezuelans then.
The Venezuelan people, who lived thought all this, are judging the Chávez Administration based on what went before. Numerous recent polls show that Venezuelans have a high regard for their democracy, its capacity to solve problems and a very high happiness rate.
It all stated with the new Constitution of 1999, which placed human rights at the very core of law and politics, an emphasis that was not there before. Many who were tortured and jailed by previous governments became supporters of President Chávez, helped write the Constitution and made sure human rights had a central place in the rule of law and practice of government. The word justice appeared perhaps 2 times in the previous constitution and in the present one appears 30 times and is central to understanding the state.
Venezuelans now have not only civil human rights - such as the right to assembly and to free speech- but also social rights – they now can insist on their rights to decent housing, health care, employment. For the first time Indigenous People, Women and Children have constitutional rights, and there are even rights to clean environment. The government has a duty to ensure these rights.
The constitution is not a boring topic for Venezuelans; on the contrary. It is sold in the streets, people carry it around with them, and discuss it. It is held in high regard, and even now, the opposition is taking it into consideration. In contrast, hardly anybody read the previous constitution. As one expert has stated, “There is a large consensus both within Venezuela and among foreign observers that Venezuela now has one of the world’s most advanced constitutions, providing for some of the most comprehensive human rights protection of any constitution in the world.”
The Constitution became the key for the transformation the country from one with 80% of its people in dire poverty into one that has dramatically lowered poverty, malnutrition, infant mortality; that has given the country the lowest rate in unemployment in decades, eradicated literacy, provided health care and education to all population and has the lowest inequality index in the region.
KEY ISSUES
The Media
Throughout the history of Latin America, the media has been in the hands of oligarchies that did not allow its use by ordinary citizens. This was especially the case in Venezuela. Since the election of the present government, the private media abandoned all attempt of balanced reporting and journalistic standards. In Venezuela, the TV and radio outlets are owned by the same people who had a pivotal role in the 2002 coup d’etat that overthrew the democratically elected government for 48 hours, kidnapped the President and almost assassinated him. Private TV and radio stations were directly acting to overthrow the government, imposed blackout of news so that people did not know what was happening on the streets, and even staged a press conference with the leading military coup plotters announcing the overthrow of President Chávez, before it had happened.
The private media is the Venezuelan opposition; it has displaced regular opposition parties. This is why the coup of 2002 was considered as the first “media coup”.
In my own experience, every Spanish-speaker whom I have been with visiting Venezuela has been dumbstruck by the amount of criticism, indeed by the vitriolic criticism of the government in newspapers, TV, and radio. There is full freedom of expression.
The government has not forcefully or illegally closed any TV or radio station. The only TV station that was closed was the state channel during the coup. Coup supporters vandalized it.
As 95% of TV and radio was in private hands, the government expanded access to community radio and TV. Instead of censuring or closing media, instead of restricting freedom of expression, they amplified it. Today there are numerous community radio and TV in areas where it would have been impossible previously: in urban poor areas, in rural towns, in indigenous villages.
Private media is still very strong, but there are now more community media. There are 656 privately owned radio station and 243 community stations, only 79 are state owned. There are 65 private TV stations (60%) and 37 (35%) community stations, and only 6 state TV stations across the nation.
A new Telecommunications Law was based on the very same precepts of the laws in Canada, USA, and Europe. It regulates the time and content of children’s and adult programming, it enables community media, and it prohibits racist, sexist, inflammatory content and incitement to violence or hatred. The opposition opposed this very reasonable law and in one of its demonstrations, two students were shot dead by unidentified snipers. They were both supporters of President Chávez. It is disappointing that there is scant international attention to violence in Venezuela when the opposition perpetrates it.
Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) defied the rule of law. It refused to abide by the legal regulations: It tried to pass itself off as an international channel (which are exempt from the regulations if their Venezuelan program content is below 70%) yet RCTV’s content was 90% Venezuelan. It refused to register and pay the required fees to CONATEL the telecommunications regulatory agency similar to the CRTC. However, last February, RCTV finally duly registered putting an end to this farce.
Last year, 32 privately owned stations and 2 regional TV were closed, not for any reason related to freedom of speech but because they were all operating illegally, some for 30 years, without registration or permits. The media concession had been treated as an inheritable property, being passed from one family member to another. These illegal stations were handed over to the communities (not the state), further increasing access to telecommunications to the Venezuelan population.
In Canada, the CRTC would have no tolerance for any media station that defied its regulations. I believe the Government of Canada would rightly consider it impertinence if another country intervened in what is essentially an internal issue of good governance.
The Judicial System
The Venezuelan Judicial System in the past has had the worst reputation for systemic corruption. Previous presidents refused to reform it, even under prodding from the World Bank. President Chávez brought in a series of reforms – 1999, 2004, and 2005- making it more independent, giving more power to the Supreme Court.
Corruption in the judicial system is very hard to eradicate, but when the government tries to reform it, the opposition accuses it of intervening and politicizing it.
Lamentably, in Venezuela only those who could afford it were able to study law, therefore, the marginalized and less fortunate were unable to study law, and furthermore, their access to justice was heavily restricted. Only those who could pay were able to afford a lawyer.
All this has changed. Access is greatly widened. Things are by no means perfect, and it will take probably a new generation of lawyers and judges to fully control corruption. A parliamentary committee composed of members of civil society and parliamentary members after several screening processes, today names judges formerly chosen by partisanship and cronyism.
In Canada, it is practically unheard of for a judge to be jailed, so it is understandable that the case of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni would cause concern here.
Contrary to Canada, which enjoys a very efficient banking system, Venezuela has been racked recently with banking scandals in several private banks. The government had to nationalize them to save the funds of ordinary citizens. In this context, Judge Afiuni released a very wealthy president of two banks accused of stealing millions from government. He immediately fled the country. The judge carried out a custody hearing without due process, as with no prosecutor present, it amounted to a secret hearing. Venezuelans are astounded that international groups would defend a judge that did not follow procedures, released a man accused of grave felony, and then aided his escape.
She is legally held in custody– unlike former times, the law is the law, and it applies to all, even judges. Article 266, No. 3 of the Constitution lays out the process to charge a judge with crime. A judge can be suspended if the Attorney General, Human Rights Ombudsman, and the Comptroller General unanimously declare there has been a failure by a judge; then the National Assembly, with a majority of 2/3 can remove the judge. What is very important to point out is that neither the judge nor the banker was an opposition members or politically active.
The judicial system of Venezuela should be praised for trying to deal with a historically corrupt banking sector and judicial system.
The Police
The Bolivarian government has a serious problem with crime – which is endemic to the entire region not just that country . It is associated with drugs, gangs, and in Venezuela, with Colombian paramilitary that regularly commit atrocious crimes in Venezuelan territory. Crime in Venezuela goes back beyond the Chávez government. According to PROVEA, the Venezuelan human rights organization, Venezuela has been experiencing growth in crime for over 2 decades.
Crime is a very difficult social problem with many causes while the actual crime rate has been high; it has been stable over the last ten years at 43-53% . However, the perception of crime has multiplied. This has a lot to do with the opposition campaign to exaggerate and magnify any governmental weakness, regardless of causing anxiety among the citizens, so they may blame government.
During previous governments, the police were very low paid, poorly trained and with an entirely repressive function. In 2006, the police was reformed with a new laws and the establishment of new National Police Force. It modernizes the police force with education on community policing, professional ethics, knowledge of crime preventative measures and human rights training. In October of 2008, for the first time, 5000 policemen were specifically trained in human rights during a 2 year course.
For the first time in 40 years, there is no secret police in Venezuela.
As to the case of Oswaldo Alvarez Paz, he has been singled out as a “political “ prisoner by the opposition even though his civil rights have been meticulously respected. But the law is the law and he stated on TV that the country had become a centre of narco-traffic promotion, and that the President was linked to this nefarious activity.
There is freedom of speech, but it is not without limits as there is there is also a law against defamation, hatred, and willfully disseminating false information. It is one thing to say rude things about a government agency or politician, which he has the right to do, but it is another thing altogether to accuse them of a criminal activity. He either has to provide evidence of his statements or he will face the consequences of the law, which applies to all and everyone.
Venezuelan drug enforcement agencies have had very significant achievements combating narco-traffic. According to the UN, Venezuela was the country with one of the highest drug confiscation rates in 2008. This year alone, 14 drug lords have been deported to Colombia and the US and 3,075 sentences have been given to drug dealers.
The Real Human Rights Abuses
The international media, so quick to judge Venezuelan authorities, gives very little attention to the inroads of the Colombian paramilitary – Aguilas Negras- into Venezuelan territory. They operate through common criminals and terrorize low-income areas. In rural areas, they have been implicated in the assassination of over 200 rural leaders, who have upset wealthy landowners. Just last year over 100 Colombian paramilitary troops were caught with uniforms and arms just on the outskirts of the capital. This is a political terrorism designed to destabilize the elected government.
The Venezuelan opposition mobs have attacked anti-poverty program sites including medical stations, closed streets, and burned tires that caused allergic reactions in the neighborhood. They carry out violent demonstrations with trained provocateurs that openly incite the police, pose for the international media as if they are being victimized, throw Molotov cocktails, rocks, and glass. Yet, the Venezuelan police are prohibited from having live ammunition during demonstrations and/or strikes.
However, peaceful demonstrations are a regular occurrence and proceed with no police repression.
Inter-American Press Association
The Inter-American Press Association report issued last month denouncing violations against freedom of speech in Venezuela was based mainly on accounts by the Venezuelan opposition.
The IAPA did not condemn the coup d’etat of 2002 nor the closing and ransacking of the state TV and numerous community radios by the coup supporters. It has not mentioned the numerous attacks by the opposition throughout these last years on journalists that work for the state TV and radio.
The IAPA is not a journalist organization, an NGO nor academic group, but an entity of powerful newspapers owners who have been linked to some of the worst dictatorships in the region. The Latin American Federation of Journalists has stated that “the IAPA has been an accomplice in barbarity and has fathered the derailment of democratic process… it has no moral authority having endorsed some of the most bloody coup d’etat in recent decades.”
The IAPA has not condemned the coup d’etat in Honduras nor the killings just last month of six journalists in that country.
Human Rights Watch
The report this organization recently issued condemning Venezuela was so inaccurate and biased that over 100 distinguished international experts on Latin America issued an open letter stating that it “does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility.”
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a highly respected US think tank on Latin America based in Washington DC, said of this report: “The problem is the presence of a mean-spirited tone and lack of balance and fair play that characterizes Vivanco’s reportage and his tendentious interpretation of the alleged misdeeds of the Chávez revolution are demonstrably bereft of scale and accuracy.”
CONCLUSION
It is with dismay that we noted a Member of Parliament say to the press recently that President Chávez is a “brutal dictator”. Latin Americans would consider this statement as an indication of profound ignorance of Latin American history in general and of Venezuela in particular.
Latin Americans are very well acquainted with brutal dictators that waged war against neighbors, made thousands of people disappear, displaced indigenous peoples, kept secret police, tortured, imprisoned or killed at will, and utterly disregarded the rule of law. None these things are happening in President Chávez’s Venezuela.
Venezuela is not a dictatorship. The government has conducted 14 elections of different levels in the last 11 years. These have been the most monitored elections in the world with about 300 international observers present, including Jimmy Carter and his Carter Centre. The efficiency, transparency, and honesty of the elections have thus been internationally verified. President Chávez has been elected thus in 1999 – reelected under the new Constitution the following year, and reelected for a second term in 2006. Every election was won by near 60% of votes, with extremely high levels of voter turnout. He lost the referendum of 2004 by 1% - and I ask you, what kind of brutal dictator loses an important referendum by 1% and still recognizes the result? Indeed, President Chávez has the strongest democratic legitimacy in the continent.
There are serious problems in Venezuela just as in any developing country, but the Venezuelan government has made credible inroads in meeting the needs of his people by using oil revenues for health services, lowering poverty, providing universal education, needed infrastructure, modern transit systems, and especially in trying to increase citizen participation among those formally marginalized. It has placed human rights as the cornerstone of its governance mandate.
We hope that, in the end, the Parliament of Canada, as it studies Venezuela will take note of the many positive, dramatically positive, developments have been taking place there with respect to civil and social human rights. And we respectfully submit, that to gain a full appreciation of the human rights in the region, that this committee also study the human rights record of Colombia and Honduras.
I have here to show you an example of the human rights education campaign that has been going on Venezuela these last 11 years. These are bags of rice, sugar, flour, that are sold in subsidized food markets. They are stamped with articles of the constitution to teach the population about their human rights. They are not stamped with the picture of the president or his party, but of the laws of the country that protect citizens.
We have never known any brutal dictator to do such a thing.
In the end, what really matters is what Venezuelans think of their own government. They have expressed it formally in clean elections. They also have expressed it through international polls that show consistently that Venezuelans are amongst the Latin Americans that most highly regard their democracy and have the highest rating of the region in believing that their government has the capacity to solve their problems.
Thank you.
4 May 2010
Presentation to the Sub-committee on International Human Rights
House of Commons, Parliament of Canada
Presented by:
Dr. Maria Páez Victor
Louis Riel Bolivarian Circle/Hands Off Venezuela
Greetings to the honorable Members of Parliament:
It is an honour to be able to address this committee, thank you for this opportunity.
PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION
We understand that this Parliamentary Sub-committee is conducting a study of the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It is a difficult task for any country to get a fully accurate view of the human rights situation in any other country, as statistics are not always available or comparable and anecdotal information is unrepresentative.
This situation is not helped by a national media, such as exists in Venezuela, which is largely controlled by admitted opponents of the elected government and is connected to the international media. Even reputable Canadian newspapers have succumbed to their campaign of misinformation. For example, the Toronto Star was disciplined by the Ontario Press Council for publishing articles on Venezuela that were “significantly deficient” in terms of the standards of good journalism.
Due to this intentionally biased campaign, it is understandable that Canadians, and their Honourable Representatives, may have an insufficient and inaccurate picture of the state of human rights in Venezuela.
We have come here to share with you information from a variety of sources and our first hand experience on this issue because the decision that the Parliament of Canada may make regarding human rights in Venezuela could have important ramifications for both countries, and even Latin America as a whole. And we would not want this august body to fall prey to media distortions.
BACKGROUND
First of all, I would like to tell you a bit of background on human rights in Venezuela before 1999. Since its founding in 1811, the country has had 26 constitutions; the previous one in 1961was a provisional constitution full of loopholes that were never amended. In the end, it was practically irrelevant because human rights, scarcely mentioned, were hardly central to the practice of government. Torture, censorship, disappearances of opponents, killings, use of secret police, suspension of civil rights, were all commonplace in the administrations of the 4 previous presidents. Most notably in February of 1989, about 3000 people were massacred on the streets by the army as they spontaneously protested sudden price hikes instigated by the World Bank and the IMF. The international community and media scarcely paid attention to these events nor defended the human rights of Venezuelans then.
The Venezuelan people, who lived thought all this, are judging the Chávez Administration based on what went before. Numerous recent polls show that Venezuelans have a high regard for their democracy, its capacity to solve problems and a very high happiness rate.
It all stated with the new Constitution of 1999, which placed human rights at the very core of law and politics, an emphasis that was not there before. Many who were tortured and jailed by previous governments became supporters of President Chávez, helped write the Constitution and made sure human rights had a central place in the rule of law and practice of government. The word justice appeared perhaps 2 times in the previous constitution and in the present one appears 30 times and is central to understanding the state.
Venezuelans now have not only civil human rights - such as the right to assembly and to free speech- but also social rights – they now can insist on their rights to decent housing, health care, employment. For the first time Indigenous People, Women and Children have constitutional rights, and there are even rights to clean environment. The government has a duty to ensure these rights.
The constitution is not a boring topic for Venezuelans; on the contrary. It is sold in the streets, people carry it around with them, and discuss it. It is held in high regard, and even now, the opposition is taking it into consideration. In contrast, hardly anybody read the previous constitution. As one expert has stated, “There is a large consensus both within Venezuela and among foreign observers that Venezuela now has one of the world’s most advanced constitutions, providing for some of the most comprehensive human rights protection of any constitution in the world.”
The Constitution became the key for the transformation the country from one with 80% of its people in dire poverty into one that has dramatically lowered poverty, malnutrition, infant mortality; that has given the country the lowest rate in unemployment in decades, eradicated literacy, provided health care and education to all population and has the lowest inequality index in the region.
KEY ISSUES
The Media
Throughout the history of Latin America, the media has been in the hands of oligarchies that did not allow its use by ordinary citizens. This was especially the case in Venezuela. Since the election of the present government, the private media abandoned all attempt of balanced reporting and journalistic standards. In Venezuela, the TV and radio outlets are owned by the same people who had a pivotal role in the 2002 coup d’etat that overthrew the democratically elected government for 48 hours, kidnapped the President and almost assassinated him. Private TV and radio stations were directly acting to overthrow the government, imposed blackout of news so that people did not know what was happening on the streets, and even staged a press conference with the leading military coup plotters announcing the overthrow of President Chávez, before it had happened.
The private media is the Venezuelan opposition; it has displaced regular opposition parties. This is why the coup of 2002 was considered as the first “media coup”.
In my own experience, every Spanish-speaker whom I have been with visiting Venezuela has been dumbstruck by the amount of criticism, indeed by the vitriolic criticism of the government in newspapers, TV, and radio. There is full freedom of expression.
The government has not forcefully or illegally closed any TV or radio station. The only TV station that was closed was the state channel during the coup. Coup supporters vandalized it.
As 95% of TV and radio was in private hands, the government expanded access to community radio and TV. Instead of censuring or closing media, instead of restricting freedom of expression, they amplified it. Today there are numerous community radio and TV in areas where it would have been impossible previously: in urban poor areas, in rural towns, in indigenous villages.
Private media is still very strong, but there are now more community media. There are 656 privately owned radio station and 243 community stations, only 79 are state owned. There are 65 private TV stations (60%) and 37 (35%) community stations, and only 6 state TV stations across the nation.
A new Telecommunications Law was based on the very same precepts of the laws in Canada, USA, and Europe. It regulates the time and content of children’s and adult programming, it enables community media, and it prohibits racist, sexist, inflammatory content and incitement to violence or hatred. The opposition opposed this very reasonable law and in one of its demonstrations, two students were shot dead by unidentified snipers. They were both supporters of President Chávez. It is disappointing that there is scant international attention to violence in Venezuela when the opposition perpetrates it.
Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) defied the rule of law. It refused to abide by the legal regulations: It tried to pass itself off as an international channel (which are exempt from the regulations if their Venezuelan program content is below 70%) yet RCTV’s content was 90% Venezuelan. It refused to register and pay the required fees to CONATEL the telecommunications regulatory agency similar to the CRTC. However, last February, RCTV finally duly registered putting an end to this farce.
Last year, 32 privately owned stations and 2 regional TV were closed, not for any reason related to freedom of speech but because they were all operating illegally, some for 30 years, without registration or permits. The media concession had been treated as an inheritable property, being passed from one family member to another. These illegal stations were handed over to the communities (not the state), further increasing access to telecommunications to the Venezuelan population.
In Canada, the CRTC would have no tolerance for any media station that defied its regulations. I believe the Government of Canada would rightly consider it impertinence if another country intervened in what is essentially an internal issue of good governance.
The Judicial System
The Venezuelan Judicial System in the past has had the worst reputation for systemic corruption. Previous presidents refused to reform it, even under prodding from the World Bank. President Chávez brought in a series of reforms – 1999, 2004, and 2005- making it more independent, giving more power to the Supreme Court.
Corruption in the judicial system is very hard to eradicate, but when the government tries to reform it, the opposition accuses it of intervening and politicizing it.
Lamentably, in Venezuela only those who could afford it were able to study law, therefore, the marginalized and less fortunate were unable to study law, and furthermore, their access to justice was heavily restricted. Only those who could pay were able to afford a lawyer.
All this has changed. Access is greatly widened. Things are by no means perfect, and it will take probably a new generation of lawyers and judges to fully control corruption. A parliamentary committee composed of members of civil society and parliamentary members after several screening processes, today names judges formerly chosen by partisanship and cronyism.
In Canada, it is practically unheard of for a judge to be jailed, so it is understandable that the case of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni would cause concern here.
Contrary to Canada, which enjoys a very efficient banking system, Venezuela has been racked recently with banking scandals in several private banks. The government had to nationalize them to save the funds of ordinary citizens. In this context, Judge Afiuni released a very wealthy president of two banks accused of stealing millions from government. He immediately fled the country. The judge carried out a custody hearing without due process, as with no prosecutor present, it amounted to a secret hearing. Venezuelans are astounded that international groups would defend a judge that did not follow procedures, released a man accused of grave felony, and then aided his escape.
She is legally held in custody– unlike former times, the law is the law, and it applies to all, even judges. Article 266, No. 3 of the Constitution lays out the process to charge a judge with crime. A judge can be suspended if the Attorney General, Human Rights Ombudsman, and the Comptroller General unanimously declare there has been a failure by a judge; then the National Assembly, with a majority of 2/3 can remove the judge. What is very important to point out is that neither the judge nor the banker was an opposition members or politically active.
The judicial system of Venezuela should be praised for trying to deal with a historically corrupt banking sector and judicial system.
The Police
The Bolivarian government has a serious problem with crime – which is endemic to the entire region not just that country . It is associated with drugs, gangs, and in Venezuela, with Colombian paramilitary that regularly commit atrocious crimes in Venezuelan territory. Crime in Venezuela goes back beyond the Chávez government. According to PROVEA, the Venezuelan human rights organization, Venezuela has been experiencing growth in crime for over 2 decades.
Crime is a very difficult social problem with many causes while the actual crime rate has been high; it has been stable over the last ten years at 43-53% . However, the perception of crime has multiplied. This has a lot to do with the opposition campaign to exaggerate and magnify any governmental weakness, regardless of causing anxiety among the citizens, so they may blame government.
During previous governments, the police were very low paid, poorly trained and with an entirely repressive function. In 2006, the police was reformed with a new laws and the establishment of new National Police Force. It modernizes the police force with education on community policing, professional ethics, knowledge of crime preventative measures and human rights training. In October of 2008, for the first time, 5000 policemen were specifically trained in human rights during a 2 year course.
For the first time in 40 years, there is no secret police in Venezuela.
As to the case of Oswaldo Alvarez Paz, he has been singled out as a “political “ prisoner by the opposition even though his civil rights have been meticulously respected. But the law is the law and he stated on TV that the country had become a centre of narco-traffic promotion, and that the President was linked to this nefarious activity.
There is freedom of speech, but it is not without limits as there is there is also a law against defamation, hatred, and willfully disseminating false information. It is one thing to say rude things about a government agency or politician, which he has the right to do, but it is another thing altogether to accuse them of a criminal activity. He either has to provide evidence of his statements or he will face the consequences of the law, which applies to all and everyone.
Venezuelan drug enforcement agencies have had very significant achievements combating narco-traffic. According to the UN, Venezuela was the country with one of the highest drug confiscation rates in 2008. This year alone, 14 drug lords have been deported to Colombia and the US and 3,075 sentences have been given to drug dealers.
The Real Human Rights Abuses
The international media, so quick to judge Venezuelan authorities, gives very little attention to the inroads of the Colombian paramilitary – Aguilas Negras- into Venezuelan territory. They operate through common criminals and terrorize low-income areas. In rural areas, they have been implicated in the assassination of over 200 rural leaders, who have upset wealthy landowners. Just last year over 100 Colombian paramilitary troops were caught with uniforms and arms just on the outskirts of the capital. This is a political terrorism designed to destabilize the elected government.
The Venezuelan opposition mobs have attacked anti-poverty program sites including medical stations, closed streets, and burned tires that caused allergic reactions in the neighborhood. They carry out violent demonstrations with trained provocateurs that openly incite the police, pose for the international media as if they are being victimized, throw Molotov cocktails, rocks, and glass. Yet, the Venezuelan police are prohibited from having live ammunition during demonstrations and/or strikes.
However, peaceful demonstrations are a regular occurrence and proceed with no police repression.
Inter-American Press Association
The Inter-American Press Association report issued last month denouncing violations against freedom of speech in Venezuela was based mainly on accounts by the Venezuelan opposition.
The IAPA did not condemn the coup d’etat of 2002 nor the closing and ransacking of the state TV and numerous community radios by the coup supporters. It has not mentioned the numerous attacks by the opposition throughout these last years on journalists that work for the state TV and radio.
The IAPA is not a journalist organization, an NGO nor academic group, but an entity of powerful newspapers owners who have been linked to some of the worst dictatorships in the region. The Latin American Federation of Journalists has stated that “the IAPA has been an accomplice in barbarity and has fathered the derailment of democratic process… it has no moral authority having endorsed some of the most bloody coup d’etat in recent decades.”
The IAPA has not condemned the coup d’etat in Honduras nor the killings just last month of six journalists in that country.
Human Rights Watch
The report this organization recently issued condemning Venezuela was so inaccurate and biased that over 100 distinguished international experts on Latin America issued an open letter stating that it “does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility.”
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a highly respected US think tank on Latin America based in Washington DC, said of this report: “The problem is the presence of a mean-spirited tone and lack of balance and fair play that characterizes Vivanco’s reportage and his tendentious interpretation of the alleged misdeeds of the Chávez revolution are demonstrably bereft of scale and accuracy.”
CONCLUSION
It is with dismay that we noted a Member of Parliament say to the press recently that President Chávez is a “brutal dictator”. Latin Americans would consider this statement as an indication of profound ignorance of Latin American history in general and of Venezuela in particular.
Latin Americans are very well acquainted with brutal dictators that waged war against neighbors, made thousands of people disappear, displaced indigenous peoples, kept secret police, tortured, imprisoned or killed at will, and utterly disregarded the rule of law. None these things are happening in President Chávez’s Venezuela.
Venezuela is not a dictatorship. The government has conducted 14 elections of different levels in the last 11 years. These have been the most monitored elections in the world with about 300 international observers present, including Jimmy Carter and his Carter Centre. The efficiency, transparency, and honesty of the elections have thus been internationally verified. President Chávez has been elected thus in 1999 – reelected under the new Constitution the following year, and reelected for a second term in 2006. Every election was won by near 60% of votes, with extremely high levels of voter turnout. He lost the referendum of 2004 by 1% - and I ask you, what kind of brutal dictator loses an important referendum by 1% and still recognizes the result? Indeed, President Chávez has the strongest democratic legitimacy in the continent.
There are serious problems in Venezuela just as in any developing country, but the Venezuelan government has made credible inroads in meeting the needs of his people by using oil revenues for health services, lowering poverty, providing universal education, needed infrastructure, modern transit systems, and especially in trying to increase citizen participation among those formally marginalized. It has placed human rights as the cornerstone of its governance mandate.
We hope that, in the end, the Parliament of Canada, as it studies Venezuela will take note of the many positive, dramatically positive, developments have been taking place there with respect to civil and social human rights. And we respectfully submit, that to gain a full appreciation of the human rights in the region, that this committee also study the human rights record of Colombia and Honduras.
I have here to show you an example of the human rights education campaign that has been going on Venezuela these last 11 years. These are bags of rice, sugar, flour, that are sold in subsidized food markets. They are stamped with articles of the constitution to teach the population about their human rights. They are not stamped with the picture of the president or his party, but of the laws of the country that protect citizens.
We have never known any brutal dictator to do such a thing.
In the end, what really matters is what Venezuelans think of their own government. They have expressed it formally in clean elections. They also have expressed it through international polls that show consistently that Venezuelans are amongst the Latin Americans that most highly regard their democracy and have the highest rating of the region in believing that their government has the capacity to solve their problems.
Thank you.
Des droits humains dans la République bolivarienne du Venezuela
Des droits humains dans la République bolivarienne du Venezuela
La campagne Pas touche au Venezuela!, a été créée pour sensibiliser le public au sujet du Venezuela au sein du mouvement ouvrier et auprès des jeunes. Notre tâche principale est de promouvoir les acquis sociaux de la Révolution bolivarienne et la mobilisation contre l’agression des forces impérialistes envers le Venezuela.
À l’automne de 2008, une réunion historique a eu lieu. Après avoir travaillé ensemble, pendant plus d’un an et demi, pour la promotion des acquis révolutionnaires des masses en lutte en Amérique latine, Hands Off Venezuela et la Société Bolivarienne du Québec se sont fusionnés officiellement pour former une seule organisation solidaire.
Nous sommes des ouvriers, des étudiants, Québécois, Canadiens, immigrants et des Premières Nations, parlant une multitude de langues, mais unifiés dans notre lutte pour transformer la société et pour promouvoir une forme d’existence humaine dans la dignité et la solidarité - Notre Déclaration d’unité HOV/SBQ organise des événements publics, des visites de solidarité aux Premières Nations du Canada, aux syndicats et de délégations de jeunes au Venezuela. Elle fournit des informations sur la situation en Amérique latine et favorise la solidarité entre les mouvements de travailleurs d’Amérique latine et les mouvements de travailleurs d’autres pays.
« La Société Bolivarienne du Québec/Hands Off Venezuela (SBQ/HOV) est un organisme sans but lucratif, pluriculturel et autonome de diffusion et d’émancipation populaire, inspirée par le libérateur Simón Bolívar, de lutte internationaliste et anti-néolibérale et s’inspire des idéaux d’autodétermination des peuples latino-américains, de justice sociale, d’intégration latino-américaine et de respect des droits ancestraux des peuples aborigènes et de l’environnement. » (Art.2 des Statuts)
Brève mise en contexte
Aux alentours des années soixante-dix, avec le Président Carlos Andrés Pérez (inséré dans le pacte du Punto Fijo1), le Venezuela vécu ses premiers pas vers le néolibéralisme. Avec l’implantation de diverses mesures favorisant le relâchement de l’État envers le peuple, soit la réduction de la redistribution des richesses, des inégalités sociales commencèrent à être perçues. Ce changement créa un revirement des tensions politiques et sociales qui mena aux événements du Caracazo2, puis à l’élection d’Hugo Chávez Frías en 1998. À partir de ce moment, les relations du Venezuela entre les pays du Premier monde et du Tiers monde changèrent. Arrivé au pouvoir, Chávez utilisa les revenus du pétrole, longtemps accaparés par les élites nationales et étrangères, afin de réduire les disparités socio-économiques et créer une nouvelle société absente d’inégalités.
1 Punto Fijo: Pacte ayant commencé en 1958 au Venezuela et s'étant terminé en 1998 qui stipulait une alternance automatique entre le COPEI et l'AD, partis politiques vénézuélien, peut importe le résultat des élections.
2 Caracazo: Il s’agit d’une vague de manifestations effectuées en février 1989 dans la région Caracaset ailleurs au pays, afin de contester l’état dans lequel le pays s’avançait à travers les réformes néolibérales. Durant cette période, il y eut beaucoup de répression policière et militaire causant la mort de plusieurs milliers de manifestants.
Hugo Chávez Frías conquit la présidence du Venezuela à travers son discours multipolaire regroupant les autochtones, les afro-latinos et les latinos. Un an plus tard, ce même gouvernement entreprit de créer une nouvelle constitution à travers une Assemblée constituante et un référendum auxquels la population vénézuélienne vota majoritairement en faveur. Appliquant ses promesses, cette nouvelle constitution permit, entre autres, plus d’autonomie territoriale aux groupes autochtones, tout en reconnaissant officiellement leurs langues. Entourée par une opposition déterminée à ne pas concéder le fruit de son passé, Chávez connaîtra à maintes reprises des pressions provenant de leur part:
• En avril 2002, un coup d’État fut organisé par l’opposition ayant réussi à retirer du pouvoir Chávez pour deux jours seulement. Grâce à d’importantes mobilisations populaires et l'appui de la Garde royale, il a pu retourner au palais présidentiel de Miraflores;
• En décembre 2002, le patronat pétrolier (FEDECAMARAS) organise un sabotage de PDVSA, suivit de la Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV). Cet événement apportât des pertes économiques énormes pour le Venezuela, mais
prouva également aux travailleurs qu’ils pouvaient opérer une entreprise sans les cadres;
• En août 2004, organisation d’un référendum révocatoire au mi-mandat de la présidence d’Hugo Chávez où l’opposition perdit par 58%. Et ce, sans considérer toutes les attaques incessantes effectuées par les réseaux médiatiques nationaux et internationaux à l’égard du gouvernement de la Ve république.
• Depuis 2004, l’opposition s’attaque virulemment au parti au pouvoir par l’entremise des médias (qui leur appartiennent majoritairement – 80%) et via le soutien d’États tel que les États-Unis et le Canada qui financent certaines de leurs organisations «démocratiques» en plus de faire une campagne diffamatoire à l’égard de la Révolution bolivarienne.
En contraste, le gouvernement de la République bolivarienne du Venezuela a entrepris diverses mesures afin d’améliorer les conditions de vie de lapopulation vénézuélienne s’effectuant surtout par l’entremise de la Constitution de 1999 où les missions bolivariennes débutèrent ainsi que les cercles bolivariens3. De plus, en octobre 2000, le Venezuela a entamé des accords bilatéraux, notamment avec Cuba, en échangeant du pétrole contre des biens et services, initiative qui a mené à la création de l’ALBA (Alliance Bolivarienne pour l’Amérique – Traité entre les peuples) en 2004. Les statistiques le prouvent: la pauvreté extrême à diminué au Venezuela: de 1997 à 2009. Et ce, sans compter les apports de la sphère informelle dans l’amélioration de l’indice de développement humain: de 1998 à 2009, il est passé de 0.6798 à 0.8263. Cela n’aurait peut-être pas pu être possible sans la révolution.
3 Cercles bolivariens: groupes organisés à l’intérieur de villages formés d’une douzaine d’individus qui se réunissent pour discuter de leur communauté et trouver des pistes de solutions.
L'atteinte des droits humains au Venezuela
L'État vénézuélien a l'obligation de respecter et de garantir les droits humains en adoptant les moyens nécessaires pour les atteindre et en assurant la prestation des services qui y sont reliés. La Constitution de 1999 établit dans son troisième chapitre une ample protection des droits humains. Leur atteinte se manifeste également au sein de traités élaborés, de pactes et accords internationaux ratifiés de même que dans les lois mise en place par le Venezuela qui sont soumises à la Constitution de 1999 élaborée et votée (87% des voies pour) par le peuple vénézuélien.
La Constitution nationale est innovatrice en termes de droits humains, puisqu'en plus de protéger les intérêts individuels, elle étend cette protection aux intérêts légitimes, collectifs et diffus. De plus, le gouvernement vénézuélien a distribué largement les textes à sa population et organisé des séances de lecture pour que le peuple soit en mesure de connaître et comprendre leurs droits, de veiller à leur application, de les défendre dans le but de les exercer.
Plusieurs types de droits humains prévalent au Venezuela, ils s'établissent via les textes ratifiés, mais également par les mesures entreprises par le gouvernement, soit les diverses missions bolivariennes4 et dans la structure politique nouvellement mise en place via les Conseils communaux. La mise en application de ces droits a permis des avancées notables au niveau de l'IDH, de la réduction de la pauvreté ainsi que dans l'écart entre les populations riche et pauvre. Sans les outils de base que sont lire et écrire, se loger et se nourrir, les fondations de la démocratie sont inaccessibles.
DROITS DE NATIONALITÉ ET CITOYENNETÉ
Grâce à la mission Identidad, des milliers de Vénézuéliens qui auparavant n'avaient pas des cartes de citoyenneté sont enregistrés auprès de l'État et peuvent être prestataire de ses services en plus de voter en tant que citoyen. Avec la nouvelle constitution, les citoyens sont en mesure de voter dès l’âge de 18 ans. La classe politique traditionnelle a légué au gouvernement bolivarien un héritage surréaliste : 70% des vénézuéliens ne possédaient pas de documents d’identité, 90% de ces sans papiers provenaient des classes populaires. Non seulement le gouvernement bolivarien à réussit à reconnaître sa population afin de lui donner légitimement ses papiers de citoyenneté mais, sur un plan psychologique ou politique, il lui a enfin donner le droit d’exister. Ainsi, grâce aux divers Bureaux Nationaux d’Identification et des services Étrangers (ONIDEX), en 2005, déjà 8.710.404 cartes d’identité ont été délivrées au cours de cette même année dont 653.306 pour des enfants.
DROITS CIVILS
La liberté d'expression prévaut au Venezuela, il n'existe aucun commissionnaire de la censure. En fait, la plus grande menace de censure consiste en la faramineuse concentration du discours médiatique vénézuelien. Plus de 80% des médias sont privés et appartiennent à l’élite nationale. Afin de protéger les droits des téléspectateurs à avoir une information juste et équilibré, les médias doivent se plier à la nouvelle loi RESORTE qui, comme le CRTC au
4 Missions bolivariennes: Stratégies d'intervention massive orientées pour garantir les droits fondamentaux de la population et mettant l'accent sur les secteurs les plus exclus.
Canada, vise à établir un cadre de diffusion où est prohibée la violence lors des heures d'écoute infantile ainsi que, par exemple, les messages incitant à l'insurrection et à la violence. Par exemple, c’est le cas de Globovision et de son propriétaire Oswaldo Álvarez Paz qui, après avoir soutenu et participé au coup d’État de 2002, à multiplié ses attaques subjectives contre le gouvernement bolivarien jusqu’à inciter les citoyens à la violence armée. La Constitution permet évidement la liberté d’expression des individus, mais cette liberté s’arrête au moment ou elle est utilisé contre la sécurité des autres.
Au niveau de l’orientation sexuelle des citoyens, une loi est présentement en discussion afin de permettre le mariage homosexuel et la transmission de l’héritage entre des couples du même sexe, il s’agit de la loi de l’équité des genres5.
DROITS POLITIQUES
Depuis 1998, le Venezuela a vécu plus de 14 processus électoraux, et ce marqué par un fort taux de participation. Plusieurs élections présidentielles, municipales et législatives ont lieu, et ce à des dates fixes. De plus, plusieurs référendums ont été lancés afin de prendre le pouls de la population sur l'élaboration d'une nouvelle constitution, la tenue d'un référendum révocatoire et une modification constitutionnelle. Au sein de la Constitution est stipulé que le peuple peut demander au mi-mandat présidentiel un référendum révocatoire permettant d'appeler de nouvelles élections présidentielles, et ce via la présentation de pétitions. Notons qu’un tel référendum révocatoire à bel et bien eu lieu en 2004, (deux ans seulement après le coups d’état) demandé par l’opposition, (la même qui à supportée le coups d’état) et qu’il a été perdant à 59%.
De plus, afin de rompre avec les vieilles institutions corrompues du passé et favoriser la participation populaire dans le processus bolivarien, des conseils communaux6 s’installent un peu partout au Venezuela. Le conseil communal fonctionne par l’élection d’un certain nombre de porte-parole et des membres d’un minimum de sept commissions qui auront pour objectif de gérer les diverses activités de la communauté. Pour le moment, le conseil est principalement l’interlocuteur entre la communauté et l’instance gouvernementale nationale.
DROITS SOCIAUX ET DES FAMILLES
Le gouvernement bolivarien a mis de l'avant plusieurs missions en termes de santé et de famille. Une des plus notables dans ses avancées est la mission Barrio Adentro (à l'intérieur du quartier) qui a permis l'introduction de cliniques publiques à l'intérieur de quartier et la construction d'hôpitaux (avec l'aide de Cuba qui « prêté » plus de 10 000 médecins au Venezuela en échange d'une réduction de dette) en plus d'offrir un service de santé universel (gratuit), spécialisé et moderne. La mission SUMED a permis de son côté l’accès gratuit à des produits pharmaceutiques pour les familles vénézueliennes. Plusieurs aux missions ont également été mises sur pied en santé, dont Miracle qui vise à soigner la cécité et Negra Hipolita offrant un soutien aux toxicomanes et sans-abris. La mission Madres del Barrio a
5 Lois sur l’équité des genres: Art. 8. « Chaque personne a le droit d’exercer son orientation et identité sexuelle préférée de façon libre et non-discriminatoire. En conséquence, l’État reconnaîtra les couples déjà établis entre des deux conjoints de même sexe, par accord mutuel, dans un consentement libre et effectif judiciairement et patrimonialement. »
6 Conseils communaux: un conseil communal est un groupe d’habitants, en zone rurale ou urbaine. La participation aux conseils communaux est totalement volontaire et n’est pas rémunérée
permis de fournir des biens et services gratuits aux mères ayant un faible de revenu et étant monoparentale. Ainsi, le taux de mortalité infantile a diminué de 7,7% depuis 1998 et l'espérance de vie a augmenté de 1,7 an.
En termes de soutien alimentaire, la mission MERCAL et l'entreprise publique PDVAL (financé par l'entreprise pétrolière étatique PDVSA), reconnu par l'OMS, a permis d'augmenter la distribution et l'accès à des produits essentiels subventionnés par l'État aux quartiers moins nantis du Venezuela. Plusieurs comptoirs alimentaires ont également fait leur apparition où des repas sont servis au peuple et où la nourriture est distribuée. Il existe aujourd'hui pus de 6000 marchés où plus de 3,2 millions de kilos sont distribués quotidiennement et bénéficiant à plus de 8 millions de personnes. De plus, ils ont permis un développement accru de l'industrie agro-alimentaire du Venezuela qui avait été décroissant lors des mandats présidentiels précédents.
Grâce aux fonds versés directement aux communautés et à la mission Plan Bolivar7, plusieurs quartiers ont pu amélioré leurs infrastructures. Par exemple, Le taux de personnes ayant accès à l'eau potable est passé de 82% en 1998 à 94% en 2009 et le taux de personnes ayant accès au système de canalisation d'eau potable est passé de 64% en 1998 à 84% en 2009.
DROITS CULTURELS ET ÉDUCATIFS
Le gouvernement bolivarien valorise les sports et la culturel. D'ailleurs, le nombre de participants aux jeux Olympiques a passé de 39 pour les jeux d'Atlanta en 1996 à 109 pour les jeux de Beijing an 2008. De plus, l'Orquesta Sinfónica Simón Bolívar est réputée à travers le monde pour son talent et son ingéniosité.
Dans le secteur de l'éducation, plusieurs missions ont été mise de l'avant dont Robinson, Ribas et Sucre. Ces missions ont permis une alphabétisation massive et volontaire du peuple vénézuélien faisant du pays un territoire libre d'analphabétisme en 2008 selon l'UNESCO, un soutien aux jeunes du secondaire permettant de conjuguer travail et famille menant à réduction de 40% du taux d'échec scolaire ainsi qu'un soutien économique aux étudiants du post-secondaire. Le taux de remise de diplômes au Venezuela a augmenté de 60% pour le préscolaire, 91% pour le primaire et 58% pour l'universitaire de 1998 à 2009.
DROITS ÉCONOMIQUES
Le peuple vénézuelien a pu également jouir de grandes avancées du point de vue des droits économiques. Le taux de personnes en situation de pauvreté extrême est passé de 20,3% en 1998 à 7,2% en 2009. Rappelons que la pauvreté absolue signifie une insuffisance de logement, d’habits et de nourriture. Le taux de personnes ayant un niveau de vie sous le seuil de pauvreté est également passé de 50,4% en 1998 à 28,5% en 2009. L'Indice de développement humain (IDH) a passé de 0,6798 en 1998 à 0,8263 en 2007, soit d'un IDH bas à élever en moins d’une décennie. Ceci n’est possible qu’avec des politiques de
7 Plan Bolivar: utilisation de plus de 40 000 soldats pour construire des écoles, des maisons, distribuer de la nourriture, fournir des vaccin sa la population, etc.
redistribution de la richesse du pays pro pauvres. Le Coefficient de Gini8 a passé de 0,498 en 1999 à 0,3928 en 2009, soit le plus bas en Amérique latine (Colombie: 0,572 en 1999 et 0,584 en 2005). Ce qui permet d’apprécier les effets bénéfiques de la redistribution de la richesse par le gouvernement bolivarien. Afin d’avoir une bonne idée des effets et politiques connexes, on peut se servir des indicateurs suivant :
• Le taux Besoins de base insatisfaits9 (BBI) pour les foyers pauvres est passé de 28,9% en 1998 à 23,6% en 2009
• Le taux Besoins de base insatisfaits (BBI) pour les foyers en pauvreté extrême est passé de 10,8%% en 1998 à 7,9%% en 2009
• Le taux d'inflation sous le gouvernement d'Hugo Chavez est demeuré stable avec 20,7% (Rafael Cardera 59,4% - 1993-1998, Carlos A. Pérez 45,3% - 1998-1993, Jaime Lusinchi 22,7% - 1984-1988)
• Le taux de chômage a passé de 15% en 1998 à 10,2% en 2009 (le Canada avait un taux de chômage de 7,2% en janvier 2009)
• Le taux d'emploi dans le secteur formel est passé de 47,6% (1999) à 56% (2009) et de 525,4% (1999) à 44% (2009) dans le secteur informel
• Le salaire minimum est passé de 185,1$US en 1998 à 450$US en 2009 • Le nombre de retraités recevant une pension est passé de 475 114 en 1998 à 1 462
443 en 2009 En bref, les droits économiques des vénézueliens et vénézueliennes à une qualité de vie qui s’améliore constamment sont observables par les chiffres. Rappelons que cela est également bonifié par le Capital Social que produit les politiques du gouvernement bolivarien d’encourager la participation active de la population aux affaires publiques et par la consolidation et la multiplication des Conseils Communaux. L’économie vénézuélienne se porte aujourd’hui beaucoup mieux qu’avant. Même que, selon une étude de Mark Weisbrot et Luis Sandoval, le secteur financier privé a connu une croissance de 37,9% en 2004, de 34,6% en 2005 et de 39,2% en 2006 alors que le secteur public (tous secteurs confondus) n’a connu qu’une croissance de 12,5% en 2004, de 4,1% en 2005, de 2,9% en 2006. On est donc loin des affirmations des médias d’oppositions qui disent que Chavez nationalise en excès.
DROITS DES PEUPLES INDIGÈNES
Tout d’abord, on peut mentionner que le Venezuela est signataire de la Déclaration des droits des peuples autochtones de l’ONU. Rappelons que les autochtones ne constituent qu'une faible portion de la population du Venezuela et ils ne dépassent pas les 320 000 locuteurs. Avant le gouvernement bolivarien, certains ont traité de la condition des peuples autochtones au Venezuela de véritable « génocide ethno culturel ». Les droits des peuples autochtones sont maintenant reconnus dans un véritable arsenal d'instruments juridiques. Mentionnons : la Loi sur l’éducation des peuples indigènes et sur l’usage de leurs langues (18 juin 2001), la Loi d'approbation de la Convention no 169 relative aux peuples indigènes et tribaux de l'Organisation internationale du travail (no 37.305 du 17 octobre 2001), la Convention relative
8 Coefficient de Gini: un nombre variant de 0 à 1, où 0 signifie l'égalité parfaite (tout le monde a le même revenu) et 1 signifie l'inégalité totale (une personne a tout le revenu, les autres n'ont rien, cas extrême du maître et de ses esclaves).
9 Besoins de base insatisfaits: coefficient évaluant ensemble le taux d'enfants n'allant pas à l'école, la quantité d'individu par chambre (3 et+), habitation insalubre, chef de famille ayant moins de 3 années d'éducation, non-accès à l'eau potable et aux services sanitaire. Est considéré un foyer pauvre si le BBI est moins de 1 et extrême si 2 BBI ou plus.
aux peuples indigènes et tribaux (octobre 2001) et la Loi organique sur la culture (octobre 2001). D’ailleurs, les peuples autochtones ont une garantit de représentation politique d’élus au parlement vénézuelien. La Constitution vénézuélienne reconnaît de grands gains pour les peuples autochtones à parti de l’Article 119.
DROITS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX
La protection de l’environnement et le développement durable, en concertation avec les populations locales, est au cœur de la Constitution vénézuelienne et des politiques du gouvernement bolivarien. On ne peut nier que les revenues venant du secteur pétrolier sont primordiales pour l’économie du pays; ceci dit il ne s’agit aucunement d’un développement sauvage imposé aux populations locales. Aux articles 127, 128 et 129 de la Constitution, il est spécifié les devoirs de l’État en termes de protection de l’environnement, de planification de l’aménagement du territoire et la gestion des activités touchant les écosystèmes. Le gouvernement a, par exemple, le devoir d’assurer la mise en œuvre d'études d'impact environnemental et socioculturel concernant les activités pouvant causer des dommages.
Quelques chiffres concernant la satisfaction de la population : • 62,7% des Vénézuéliens considèrent que leur situation globale s'est améliorée
depuis 1998 • 67% considèrent que leur situation économique s'est améliorée • 70,6% de la population qualifie que les missions éducatives sont bonnes • 79,3% de la population est d’avis pour dire que les missions ont amélioré le niveau
éducationnel du peuple • 82,2% sont d’avis pour dire que les jeunes ont plus d'opportunités de formation et
d'avancées • 73,9% considèrent que le mandat présidentiel se déroule bien • 43,2% considèrent que l'opposition se développe bien • 56,8% des Vénézuéliens voteraient à nouveau pour Hugo Chavez
La campagne Pas touche au Venezuela!, a été créée pour sensibiliser le public au sujet du Venezuela au sein du mouvement ouvrier et auprès des jeunes. Notre tâche principale est de promouvoir les acquis sociaux de la Révolution bolivarienne et la mobilisation contre l’agression des forces impérialistes envers le Venezuela.
À l’automne de 2008, une réunion historique a eu lieu. Après avoir travaillé ensemble, pendant plus d’un an et demi, pour la promotion des acquis révolutionnaires des masses en lutte en Amérique latine, Hands Off Venezuela et la Société Bolivarienne du Québec se sont fusionnés officiellement pour former une seule organisation solidaire.
Nous sommes des ouvriers, des étudiants, Québécois, Canadiens, immigrants et des Premières Nations, parlant une multitude de langues, mais unifiés dans notre lutte pour transformer la société et pour promouvoir une forme d’existence humaine dans la dignité et la solidarité - Notre Déclaration d’unité HOV/SBQ organise des événements publics, des visites de solidarité aux Premières Nations du Canada, aux syndicats et de délégations de jeunes au Venezuela. Elle fournit des informations sur la situation en Amérique latine et favorise la solidarité entre les mouvements de travailleurs d’Amérique latine et les mouvements de travailleurs d’autres pays.
« La Société Bolivarienne du Québec/Hands Off Venezuela (SBQ/HOV) est un organisme sans but lucratif, pluriculturel et autonome de diffusion et d’émancipation populaire, inspirée par le libérateur Simón Bolívar, de lutte internationaliste et anti-néolibérale et s’inspire des idéaux d’autodétermination des peuples latino-américains, de justice sociale, d’intégration latino-américaine et de respect des droits ancestraux des peuples aborigènes et de l’environnement. » (Art.2 des Statuts)
Brève mise en contexte
Aux alentours des années soixante-dix, avec le Président Carlos Andrés Pérez (inséré dans le pacte du Punto Fijo1), le Venezuela vécu ses premiers pas vers le néolibéralisme. Avec l’implantation de diverses mesures favorisant le relâchement de l’État envers le peuple, soit la réduction de la redistribution des richesses, des inégalités sociales commencèrent à être perçues. Ce changement créa un revirement des tensions politiques et sociales qui mena aux événements du Caracazo2, puis à l’élection d’Hugo Chávez Frías en 1998. À partir de ce moment, les relations du Venezuela entre les pays du Premier monde et du Tiers monde changèrent. Arrivé au pouvoir, Chávez utilisa les revenus du pétrole, longtemps accaparés par les élites nationales et étrangères, afin de réduire les disparités socio-économiques et créer une nouvelle société absente d’inégalités.
1 Punto Fijo: Pacte ayant commencé en 1958 au Venezuela et s'étant terminé en 1998 qui stipulait une alternance automatique entre le COPEI et l'AD, partis politiques vénézuélien, peut importe le résultat des élections.
2 Caracazo: Il s’agit d’une vague de manifestations effectuées en février 1989 dans la région Caracaset ailleurs au pays, afin de contester l’état dans lequel le pays s’avançait à travers les réformes néolibérales. Durant cette période, il y eut beaucoup de répression policière et militaire causant la mort de plusieurs milliers de manifestants.
Hugo Chávez Frías conquit la présidence du Venezuela à travers son discours multipolaire regroupant les autochtones, les afro-latinos et les latinos. Un an plus tard, ce même gouvernement entreprit de créer une nouvelle constitution à travers une Assemblée constituante et un référendum auxquels la population vénézuélienne vota majoritairement en faveur. Appliquant ses promesses, cette nouvelle constitution permit, entre autres, plus d’autonomie territoriale aux groupes autochtones, tout en reconnaissant officiellement leurs langues. Entourée par une opposition déterminée à ne pas concéder le fruit de son passé, Chávez connaîtra à maintes reprises des pressions provenant de leur part:
• En avril 2002, un coup d’État fut organisé par l’opposition ayant réussi à retirer du pouvoir Chávez pour deux jours seulement. Grâce à d’importantes mobilisations populaires et l'appui de la Garde royale, il a pu retourner au palais présidentiel de Miraflores;
• En décembre 2002, le patronat pétrolier (FEDECAMARAS) organise un sabotage de PDVSA, suivit de la Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV). Cet événement apportât des pertes économiques énormes pour le Venezuela, mais
prouva également aux travailleurs qu’ils pouvaient opérer une entreprise sans les cadres;
• En août 2004, organisation d’un référendum révocatoire au mi-mandat de la présidence d’Hugo Chávez où l’opposition perdit par 58%. Et ce, sans considérer toutes les attaques incessantes effectuées par les réseaux médiatiques nationaux et internationaux à l’égard du gouvernement de la Ve république.
• Depuis 2004, l’opposition s’attaque virulemment au parti au pouvoir par l’entremise des médias (qui leur appartiennent majoritairement – 80%) et via le soutien d’États tel que les États-Unis et le Canada qui financent certaines de leurs organisations «démocratiques» en plus de faire une campagne diffamatoire à l’égard de la Révolution bolivarienne.
En contraste, le gouvernement de la République bolivarienne du Venezuela a entrepris diverses mesures afin d’améliorer les conditions de vie de lapopulation vénézuélienne s’effectuant surtout par l’entremise de la Constitution de 1999 où les missions bolivariennes débutèrent ainsi que les cercles bolivariens3. De plus, en octobre 2000, le Venezuela a entamé des accords bilatéraux, notamment avec Cuba, en échangeant du pétrole contre des biens et services, initiative qui a mené à la création de l’ALBA (Alliance Bolivarienne pour l’Amérique – Traité entre les peuples) en 2004. Les statistiques le prouvent: la pauvreté extrême à diminué au Venezuela: de 1997 à 2009. Et ce, sans compter les apports de la sphère informelle dans l’amélioration de l’indice de développement humain: de 1998 à 2009, il est passé de 0.6798 à 0.8263. Cela n’aurait peut-être pas pu être possible sans la révolution.
3 Cercles bolivariens: groupes organisés à l’intérieur de villages formés d’une douzaine d’individus qui se réunissent pour discuter de leur communauté et trouver des pistes de solutions.
L'atteinte des droits humains au Venezuela
L'État vénézuélien a l'obligation de respecter et de garantir les droits humains en adoptant les moyens nécessaires pour les atteindre et en assurant la prestation des services qui y sont reliés. La Constitution de 1999 établit dans son troisième chapitre une ample protection des droits humains. Leur atteinte se manifeste également au sein de traités élaborés, de pactes et accords internationaux ratifiés de même que dans les lois mise en place par le Venezuela qui sont soumises à la Constitution de 1999 élaborée et votée (87% des voies pour) par le peuple vénézuélien.
La Constitution nationale est innovatrice en termes de droits humains, puisqu'en plus de protéger les intérêts individuels, elle étend cette protection aux intérêts légitimes, collectifs et diffus. De plus, le gouvernement vénézuélien a distribué largement les textes à sa population et organisé des séances de lecture pour que le peuple soit en mesure de connaître et comprendre leurs droits, de veiller à leur application, de les défendre dans le but de les exercer.
Plusieurs types de droits humains prévalent au Venezuela, ils s'établissent via les textes ratifiés, mais également par les mesures entreprises par le gouvernement, soit les diverses missions bolivariennes4 et dans la structure politique nouvellement mise en place via les Conseils communaux. La mise en application de ces droits a permis des avancées notables au niveau de l'IDH, de la réduction de la pauvreté ainsi que dans l'écart entre les populations riche et pauvre. Sans les outils de base que sont lire et écrire, se loger et se nourrir, les fondations de la démocratie sont inaccessibles.
DROITS DE NATIONALITÉ ET CITOYENNETÉ
Grâce à la mission Identidad, des milliers de Vénézuéliens qui auparavant n'avaient pas des cartes de citoyenneté sont enregistrés auprès de l'État et peuvent être prestataire de ses services en plus de voter en tant que citoyen. Avec la nouvelle constitution, les citoyens sont en mesure de voter dès l’âge de 18 ans. La classe politique traditionnelle a légué au gouvernement bolivarien un héritage surréaliste : 70% des vénézuéliens ne possédaient pas de documents d’identité, 90% de ces sans papiers provenaient des classes populaires. Non seulement le gouvernement bolivarien à réussit à reconnaître sa population afin de lui donner légitimement ses papiers de citoyenneté mais, sur un plan psychologique ou politique, il lui a enfin donner le droit d’exister. Ainsi, grâce aux divers Bureaux Nationaux d’Identification et des services Étrangers (ONIDEX), en 2005, déjà 8.710.404 cartes d’identité ont été délivrées au cours de cette même année dont 653.306 pour des enfants.
DROITS CIVILS
La liberté d'expression prévaut au Venezuela, il n'existe aucun commissionnaire de la censure. En fait, la plus grande menace de censure consiste en la faramineuse concentration du discours médiatique vénézuelien. Plus de 80% des médias sont privés et appartiennent à l’élite nationale. Afin de protéger les droits des téléspectateurs à avoir une information juste et équilibré, les médias doivent se plier à la nouvelle loi RESORTE qui, comme le CRTC au
4 Missions bolivariennes: Stratégies d'intervention massive orientées pour garantir les droits fondamentaux de la population et mettant l'accent sur les secteurs les plus exclus.
Canada, vise à établir un cadre de diffusion où est prohibée la violence lors des heures d'écoute infantile ainsi que, par exemple, les messages incitant à l'insurrection et à la violence. Par exemple, c’est le cas de Globovision et de son propriétaire Oswaldo Álvarez Paz qui, après avoir soutenu et participé au coup d’État de 2002, à multiplié ses attaques subjectives contre le gouvernement bolivarien jusqu’à inciter les citoyens à la violence armée. La Constitution permet évidement la liberté d’expression des individus, mais cette liberté s’arrête au moment ou elle est utilisé contre la sécurité des autres.
Au niveau de l’orientation sexuelle des citoyens, une loi est présentement en discussion afin de permettre le mariage homosexuel et la transmission de l’héritage entre des couples du même sexe, il s’agit de la loi de l’équité des genres5.
DROITS POLITIQUES
Depuis 1998, le Venezuela a vécu plus de 14 processus électoraux, et ce marqué par un fort taux de participation. Plusieurs élections présidentielles, municipales et législatives ont lieu, et ce à des dates fixes. De plus, plusieurs référendums ont été lancés afin de prendre le pouls de la population sur l'élaboration d'une nouvelle constitution, la tenue d'un référendum révocatoire et une modification constitutionnelle. Au sein de la Constitution est stipulé que le peuple peut demander au mi-mandat présidentiel un référendum révocatoire permettant d'appeler de nouvelles élections présidentielles, et ce via la présentation de pétitions. Notons qu’un tel référendum révocatoire à bel et bien eu lieu en 2004, (deux ans seulement après le coups d’état) demandé par l’opposition, (la même qui à supportée le coups d’état) et qu’il a été perdant à 59%.
De plus, afin de rompre avec les vieilles institutions corrompues du passé et favoriser la participation populaire dans le processus bolivarien, des conseils communaux6 s’installent un peu partout au Venezuela. Le conseil communal fonctionne par l’élection d’un certain nombre de porte-parole et des membres d’un minimum de sept commissions qui auront pour objectif de gérer les diverses activités de la communauté. Pour le moment, le conseil est principalement l’interlocuteur entre la communauté et l’instance gouvernementale nationale.
DROITS SOCIAUX ET DES FAMILLES
Le gouvernement bolivarien a mis de l'avant plusieurs missions en termes de santé et de famille. Une des plus notables dans ses avancées est la mission Barrio Adentro (à l'intérieur du quartier) qui a permis l'introduction de cliniques publiques à l'intérieur de quartier et la construction d'hôpitaux (avec l'aide de Cuba qui « prêté » plus de 10 000 médecins au Venezuela en échange d'une réduction de dette) en plus d'offrir un service de santé universel (gratuit), spécialisé et moderne. La mission SUMED a permis de son côté l’accès gratuit à des produits pharmaceutiques pour les familles vénézueliennes. Plusieurs aux missions ont également été mises sur pied en santé, dont Miracle qui vise à soigner la cécité et Negra Hipolita offrant un soutien aux toxicomanes et sans-abris. La mission Madres del Barrio a
5 Lois sur l’équité des genres: Art. 8. « Chaque personne a le droit d’exercer son orientation et identité sexuelle préférée de façon libre et non-discriminatoire. En conséquence, l’État reconnaîtra les couples déjà établis entre des deux conjoints de même sexe, par accord mutuel, dans un consentement libre et effectif judiciairement et patrimonialement. »
6 Conseils communaux: un conseil communal est un groupe d’habitants, en zone rurale ou urbaine. La participation aux conseils communaux est totalement volontaire et n’est pas rémunérée
permis de fournir des biens et services gratuits aux mères ayant un faible de revenu et étant monoparentale. Ainsi, le taux de mortalité infantile a diminué de 7,7% depuis 1998 et l'espérance de vie a augmenté de 1,7 an.
En termes de soutien alimentaire, la mission MERCAL et l'entreprise publique PDVAL (financé par l'entreprise pétrolière étatique PDVSA), reconnu par l'OMS, a permis d'augmenter la distribution et l'accès à des produits essentiels subventionnés par l'État aux quartiers moins nantis du Venezuela. Plusieurs comptoirs alimentaires ont également fait leur apparition où des repas sont servis au peuple et où la nourriture est distribuée. Il existe aujourd'hui pus de 6000 marchés où plus de 3,2 millions de kilos sont distribués quotidiennement et bénéficiant à plus de 8 millions de personnes. De plus, ils ont permis un développement accru de l'industrie agro-alimentaire du Venezuela qui avait été décroissant lors des mandats présidentiels précédents.
Grâce aux fonds versés directement aux communautés et à la mission Plan Bolivar7, plusieurs quartiers ont pu amélioré leurs infrastructures. Par exemple, Le taux de personnes ayant accès à l'eau potable est passé de 82% en 1998 à 94% en 2009 et le taux de personnes ayant accès au système de canalisation d'eau potable est passé de 64% en 1998 à 84% en 2009.
DROITS CULTURELS ET ÉDUCATIFS
Le gouvernement bolivarien valorise les sports et la culturel. D'ailleurs, le nombre de participants aux jeux Olympiques a passé de 39 pour les jeux d'Atlanta en 1996 à 109 pour les jeux de Beijing an 2008. De plus, l'Orquesta Sinfónica Simón Bolívar est réputée à travers le monde pour son talent et son ingéniosité.
Dans le secteur de l'éducation, plusieurs missions ont été mise de l'avant dont Robinson, Ribas et Sucre. Ces missions ont permis une alphabétisation massive et volontaire du peuple vénézuélien faisant du pays un territoire libre d'analphabétisme en 2008 selon l'UNESCO, un soutien aux jeunes du secondaire permettant de conjuguer travail et famille menant à réduction de 40% du taux d'échec scolaire ainsi qu'un soutien économique aux étudiants du post-secondaire. Le taux de remise de diplômes au Venezuela a augmenté de 60% pour le préscolaire, 91% pour le primaire et 58% pour l'universitaire de 1998 à 2009.
DROITS ÉCONOMIQUES
Le peuple vénézuelien a pu également jouir de grandes avancées du point de vue des droits économiques. Le taux de personnes en situation de pauvreté extrême est passé de 20,3% en 1998 à 7,2% en 2009. Rappelons que la pauvreté absolue signifie une insuffisance de logement, d’habits et de nourriture. Le taux de personnes ayant un niveau de vie sous le seuil de pauvreté est également passé de 50,4% en 1998 à 28,5% en 2009. L'Indice de développement humain (IDH) a passé de 0,6798 en 1998 à 0,8263 en 2007, soit d'un IDH bas à élever en moins d’une décennie. Ceci n’est possible qu’avec des politiques de
7 Plan Bolivar: utilisation de plus de 40 000 soldats pour construire des écoles, des maisons, distribuer de la nourriture, fournir des vaccin sa la population, etc.
redistribution de la richesse du pays pro pauvres. Le Coefficient de Gini8 a passé de 0,498 en 1999 à 0,3928 en 2009, soit le plus bas en Amérique latine (Colombie: 0,572 en 1999 et 0,584 en 2005). Ce qui permet d’apprécier les effets bénéfiques de la redistribution de la richesse par le gouvernement bolivarien. Afin d’avoir une bonne idée des effets et politiques connexes, on peut se servir des indicateurs suivant :
• Le taux Besoins de base insatisfaits9 (BBI) pour les foyers pauvres est passé de 28,9% en 1998 à 23,6% en 2009
• Le taux Besoins de base insatisfaits (BBI) pour les foyers en pauvreté extrême est passé de 10,8%% en 1998 à 7,9%% en 2009
• Le taux d'inflation sous le gouvernement d'Hugo Chavez est demeuré stable avec 20,7% (Rafael Cardera 59,4% - 1993-1998, Carlos A. Pérez 45,3% - 1998-1993, Jaime Lusinchi 22,7% - 1984-1988)
• Le taux de chômage a passé de 15% en 1998 à 10,2% en 2009 (le Canada avait un taux de chômage de 7,2% en janvier 2009)
• Le taux d'emploi dans le secteur formel est passé de 47,6% (1999) à 56% (2009) et de 525,4% (1999) à 44% (2009) dans le secteur informel
• Le salaire minimum est passé de 185,1$US en 1998 à 450$US en 2009 • Le nombre de retraités recevant une pension est passé de 475 114 en 1998 à 1 462
443 en 2009 En bref, les droits économiques des vénézueliens et vénézueliennes à une qualité de vie qui s’améliore constamment sont observables par les chiffres. Rappelons que cela est également bonifié par le Capital Social que produit les politiques du gouvernement bolivarien d’encourager la participation active de la population aux affaires publiques et par la consolidation et la multiplication des Conseils Communaux. L’économie vénézuélienne se porte aujourd’hui beaucoup mieux qu’avant. Même que, selon une étude de Mark Weisbrot et Luis Sandoval, le secteur financier privé a connu une croissance de 37,9% en 2004, de 34,6% en 2005 et de 39,2% en 2006 alors que le secteur public (tous secteurs confondus) n’a connu qu’une croissance de 12,5% en 2004, de 4,1% en 2005, de 2,9% en 2006. On est donc loin des affirmations des médias d’oppositions qui disent que Chavez nationalise en excès.
DROITS DES PEUPLES INDIGÈNES
Tout d’abord, on peut mentionner que le Venezuela est signataire de la Déclaration des droits des peuples autochtones de l’ONU. Rappelons que les autochtones ne constituent qu'une faible portion de la population du Venezuela et ils ne dépassent pas les 320 000 locuteurs. Avant le gouvernement bolivarien, certains ont traité de la condition des peuples autochtones au Venezuela de véritable « génocide ethno culturel ». Les droits des peuples autochtones sont maintenant reconnus dans un véritable arsenal d'instruments juridiques. Mentionnons : la Loi sur l’éducation des peuples indigènes et sur l’usage de leurs langues (18 juin 2001), la Loi d'approbation de la Convention no 169 relative aux peuples indigènes et tribaux de l'Organisation internationale du travail (no 37.305 du 17 octobre 2001), la Convention relative
8 Coefficient de Gini: un nombre variant de 0 à 1, où 0 signifie l'égalité parfaite (tout le monde a le même revenu) et 1 signifie l'inégalité totale (une personne a tout le revenu, les autres n'ont rien, cas extrême du maître et de ses esclaves).
9 Besoins de base insatisfaits: coefficient évaluant ensemble le taux d'enfants n'allant pas à l'école, la quantité d'individu par chambre (3 et+), habitation insalubre, chef de famille ayant moins de 3 années d'éducation, non-accès à l'eau potable et aux services sanitaire. Est considéré un foyer pauvre si le BBI est moins de 1 et extrême si 2 BBI ou plus.
aux peuples indigènes et tribaux (octobre 2001) et la Loi organique sur la culture (octobre 2001). D’ailleurs, les peuples autochtones ont une garantit de représentation politique d’élus au parlement vénézuelien. La Constitution vénézuélienne reconnaît de grands gains pour les peuples autochtones à parti de l’Article 119.
DROITS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX
La protection de l’environnement et le développement durable, en concertation avec les populations locales, est au cœur de la Constitution vénézuelienne et des politiques du gouvernement bolivarien. On ne peut nier que les revenues venant du secteur pétrolier sont primordiales pour l’économie du pays; ceci dit il ne s’agit aucunement d’un développement sauvage imposé aux populations locales. Aux articles 127, 128 et 129 de la Constitution, il est spécifié les devoirs de l’État en termes de protection de l’environnement, de planification de l’aménagement du territoire et la gestion des activités touchant les écosystèmes. Le gouvernement a, par exemple, le devoir d’assurer la mise en œuvre d'études d'impact environnemental et socioculturel concernant les activités pouvant causer des dommages.
Quelques chiffres concernant la satisfaction de la population : • 62,7% des Vénézuéliens considèrent que leur situation globale s'est améliorée
depuis 1998 • 67% considèrent que leur situation économique s'est améliorée • 70,6% de la population qualifie que les missions éducatives sont bonnes • 79,3% de la population est d’avis pour dire que les missions ont amélioré le niveau
éducationnel du peuple • 82,2% sont d’avis pour dire que les jeunes ont plus d'opportunités de formation et
d'avancées • 73,9% considèrent que le mandat présidentiel se déroule bien • 43,2% considèrent que l'opposition se développe bien • 56,8% des Vénézuéliens voteraient à nouveau pour Hugo Chavez
Friday, February 19, 2010
HONDURAS SIGUEN LAS TORTURAS - texto en ingles
Interview: Tortured, Exiled Honduran Journalist Recalls His Experiences
by Tamar Sharabi
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/honduras-archives-46/2362--interview-tortured-exiled-honduran-journalist-recalls-his-experience
Upside Down World: Before the Honduras Coup Detat of June 28th 2009,
tell me a little about your life.
Cesar Silva:
I have always been involved in popular struggles. During university I
was elected Secretary of the University Reform Front (FRU) from where
we constantly held a line of complaints denouncing corruption and
participating in different actions to benefit students. I was also
elected president of Journalism Students for two consecutive terms from
1998 to 2002, during which we founded the "Vanguard University Journal"
and "Magazine Alert" that circulated once a month across the country's
universities.
Upon graduating from the National Autonomous
University of Honduras (UNAH), I worked for six years as a reporter for
Channel 9 TV (Vica TV), the last two years of which I was a news
director for that company in Tegucigalpa. I also worked for Channel 63
for two years, along with Renato Alvarez who is now director of the
news of Televicentro. (Read, ‘Coup Mouthpiece’) I also worked four
years at Channel 54, which produced a program called "The protagonists
of the News.”
In 2006 Jorge Arturo Reina Idiáquez (Ambassador
of Honduras to the UN) offered me a position with the Ministry of
Interior and Justice in the Zelaya Government. My position was Director
of Communications where I worked directly with the newspaper and
Channel 8, called ‘Citizen Power Information Network’ founded under
Zelaya’s government.
In May 2009 I was called to work with the
Presidential Palace to coordinate work for production and coverage of
the popular consultation process (‘cuarta urna’) for public Channel 8. I
was assigned a mobile unit to report from the northern municipalities
of Olancho and Francisco Morazán beside the first lady, Xiomara Castro.
That's how I became involved directly in the events during the coup.
UDW:
What happened to you on June 28th?
CS:
Preparations were intense in the days before the coup and increased
when the Armed Forces refused to distribute electoral materials. The
ballot boxes were held at the air base Hernan Acosta. President Zelaya
along with supporters came to rescue the ballots to distribute them
into state cars. From there it was a race of information.
The
night of June 27, I was at the Presidential Palace until midnight and
in the early morning I left towards Olancho. When I passed the town of
Guaimaca (a town 90 km from Tegucigalpa) the President was being
captured. There, police and the army captured me as well. My cameraman,
driver, and assistants managed to escape to warn people what had
happened.
People gathered in Guaimaca at the town's central
park and demanded that the police release me. I was finally released by
noontime because of the people’s pressure. Still, the police called
for reinforcements from another municipality and within a half hour an
army truck arrived and began to repress people in the park and the
police forces chased me down.
People took me from house to
house, jumping lots and properties until I was in a safe place outside
the town. I stayed there until nighttime when presidential house
vehicles (that were still under the legitimate government) came to pick
me up. We had to travel on back roads to evade the army and police
posts to arrive in Tegucigalpa at two in the morning. Since their was a
curfew we had no choice but to reach the presidential palace where
people remained gathered in protest.
They seized the entire
equipment of the team; cameras and microphones. In Olancho they stole
our truck the mobile unit that accompanied the first lady, Xiomara
Castro. On the 29th more chaos came and repression continued.
UDW:
The 5th of July you helped carry the dead body of Isis Obed.
How did it feel to pause from your reporters role to help Isis receive
medical attention?
CS: It is impossible to
separate being a journalist and being a human being. As a reporter I
was interested in taking pictures, and I took the first ones because I
thought that Isis Murillo Obed was dead. Then I approached him and saw
that he was breathing and moving in the density of all the tear gas.
People were shouting that he was dead, but when I took him in my arms
he opened his eyes and tried to say something that molded into a moan
of pain.
There was still army gunfire hitting a small wall near
where Isis Obed fell. We could hear the bullets striking the wall, and
at that very moment there was an explosion and everyone hit the ground.
It turned out to be a motorcycle that had exploded. Consequently, I
gave the camera to a friend and shouted that we needed to move Isis.
With the help of some other guys we carried him about 300 meters to a
car that we found.
I felt anger, pain and helplessness. I
did not know the child's age, and perhaps had never seen him in my
life. I thought he was 10 or 12 years old. He had no weapons, he just
looked helpless. It looked so unfair that I just felt like yelling
"Gorillas assassinate children."
I forgot that I was a reporter
and I just thought of the life of that child. I asked for his family
but nobody knew anything. I hoped he would be saved in the hospital,
but taking the pictures, it seemed impossible for him to live. The shot
impacted his skull. On my chest there were remains of his brain and
his blood.
UDW: After this day, did anything
change about the way you reported on the situation in the country?
CS: I will never forget that moment.
That event drives me to continue so that Isis’s life and others will
not go unpunished. The murderers must pay their crime. Witnessing so
many beatings, so much unjustified repression, it was clear that the
intentions of the coup were to establish a dictatorship. I decided to
continue looking for ways to disseminate what was happening. I started
working for the internet blog and the National Resistance Front Against
the Coup, and freelanced with Radio Globo, Telesur and the History
Channel.
I changed; I am more insistent, I'm more critical.
During the Michelletti regime I collaborated in every way possible to
denounce the coup. We went from neighborhood to neighborhood, people to
people. I grew more into a neighborhood journalist, I just had to be
more creative because they stole or destroyed the equipment we had at
every opportunity.
UDW: As a national
reporter, how did you feel about the international media reporting on
Honduras?
CS: As always there are many
interests. At first it seemed somewhat balanced, but within a few days
it was clear who uninformed and those who told the truth. The big chains
such as CNN, Univision, Telemundo and others within a few days took
off their mask and began calling Michelletti president and considered
it a constitutional succession. Other European countries were more
objective.
The independent press were the ones who maintained
the reality. They called it like it was. Telesur was objective about
the crackdowns and repression, but in fact they were favorable towards
Zelaya.
UDW: Talk about the elections that took
place under the coup regime.
CS: I classify
the elections on November 29th in two scenarios:
1 . The
Resistance and the conscious people knew that the elections were only
to change the face of the coup, but that the situation would stay the
same.
2. The Nationalists interested in winning the elections
wanted to secure work with the new government.
There was a low
turnout. Supporters of the National party took advantage of the
situation because the Liberal party was split and had called on
supporters to boycott the elections. The images speak for themselves.
The streets were full of policemen and soldiers, the military in the
polling areas, and a permanent anxiety in the population; panic, fear,
terror and empty booths.
UDW: When did you
begin to be threatened personally?
CS: The
threats started after July 5 when the police and army did not view me
as a journalist anymore. This increased when I traveled to Nicaragua to
do reports on Zelaya and after the demonstration on August 12 at the
National Congress when Deputy Ramon Velasquez Nassar was kicked. There
was brutal repression that day and I was physically assaulted. The
military forces took pictures and video of me.
In every march
afterwards the police would see me. Also in the eviction of the
peasants from the National Agrarian Institute (INA), the police
assaulted me and took pictures. Later, I would constantly receive
anonymous threatening phone calls. I changed my number, but I was still
being watched and persecuted. I ignored these threats and didn’t take
them seriously because everyday nothing would happen.
Then I
received a call from the Intelligence of the Armed Forces who warned me
to stop doing my work. I denounced this to Cofadeh and CODEH, two
human rights organizations.
UDW: Explain the
events on that day you were kidnapped.
CS: I
was kidnapped on Monday December 29th when I was on my way from the
south where I went to distribute a documentary about the resistance and
met with related colleagues. Arriving in Tegucigalpa, I took a taxi
from ‘Loarque’ on the beltway around the city to my house. Having
traveled less than one kilometer, a vehicle approached us, a beige van,
and individuals drew their weapons from the window ordering the taxi
to pull over. We initially tried to run, but another vehicle crossed us
on the highway and we could not advance.
They approached the
taxi and held the driver at gunpoint, telling him to stay quiet
otherwise they would kill him. They pulled me out of the taxi beating
me up and took me into their car to a remote place in the mountains. We
traveled about an hour while I was beaten inside the car. First they
made me sit with my head between my legs, then they put a hood on me.
The kidnappers did not cover their faces nor were they wearing
military clothes but by their vocabulary and communication by telephone
with the ‘Jackal,’ it was clear they were getting orders. We reached an
area away from the city where they put me in a dark room.
I
was held from December 29 at 9:00am until the December 30th at noon.
During these 27 hours I was interrogated every 45 minutes and punched
in areas that leave no trace; my feet soles, testicles, stomach, and
back, using their fists. I was naked and they kept wetting my body. In a
moment of increased tension they tried to suffocate me with water.
They threw water on my face until I was no longer able to breathe. I
swallowed as much water as possible, but as I felt like I was drowning,
another officer yelled that they would kill me another faster way.
The interrogations were about weapons; where they were, who were my
contacts and how many leaders existed. They also asked where all my
photos and videos were stored and what type of profile information we
had of military leaders. They continued to threaten that I would not
leave there alive and that I'd better trust in God. They offered me
drugs to take to ease the pain of dying which I refused to accept.
On the morning of December 30, one of the officers told me that my
life might be saved but that he wasn’t sure. Then I heard the torturers
begin to plan my death. One of them suggested a shot in the head but
then decided I would not suffer enough that way. Another one said they
would let me hang myself from a tree or that they drag me attached to
the car along the street. Then one of them said they could open my
stomach and slowly pull out my intestines so I could talk as I died.
Hours later they took me out of there blindfolded with a hood and took
me to “throw me out”. They dumped me in Tegucigalpa between the
neighborhood ‘Cerro Grande’ and ‘El Chile,’ in a sector that is
mountainous and very isolated.
UDW: You are
currently living in exile. How much time do you imagine you will need
to live outside your country in order to protect yourself?
CS:
Yes I am in exile now. Human rights organizations supported me to
leave Honduras and my few remaining friends recommended me to do the
same in order to save my life since Renan Fajardo who edited my
documentary was murdered in his apartment and Walter Trochez who helped
distributed the material was also killed. Without a doubt the next one
was me.
I do not know how long I'll be out of the country. I
am anxious to return to be with my family and to continue to produce
reports of the experiences of people in the street, but it is difficult
at this point.
UDW: In what way do you
continue working from exile?
CS: I have been
fortunate to find many people who have been supportive and have invited
me to do lectures in universities and in grassroots organizations. I've
given four lectures with audiovisual students about media coverage in
risky situations.
I also do some radio and television to
discuss my experiences and do political analysis on the situation in
Honduras. I continue to write the chronicles of the coup repression and
am working on a book which I think will be called "Repressed
Honduras," which tells the whole story that people really lived.
UDW:
What is the hardest part of being in exile?
CS:
Maybe it's the hurry of leaving everything abandoned; your home, your
family, the stuff you had a hard time sacrificing and working for. In
my case, I left my loved ones in tears; my mother, my son.
The
difficulty in arriving in the new place is getting rid of the hatred
and to stop thinking of what you left behind. You have to live here as
a ‘nobody’ so that know one can find you and you can avoid the risks.
The dreams abandon you, the uncertainty eats you.
UDW:
As you analyze the difficulties of the 'free press' in Honduras with
the new "unity government" of Pepe Lobo?
CS:
Free Press?! That will be difficult. This government is only the
continuation of the coup d'etat. They are not interested in telling the
truth to the the population. Porfirio Lobo and his people are
interested in being well and having their companies and their
businesses do well.
The independent press will remain at war, but the economically
suffocating private enterprise will remove them within a short time.
Watch Channel 36 and you will realize that the editorial policy has
changed. Although it continues to support the resistance, its profile
is different; it is more ‘pepista’.
The program ‘Habla como
Habla’ of Channel 66 has also changed, it is not with the resistance
anymore, but with the new government. Only Radio Globo stands firm.
Independent journalists and foreigners using their own websites are
those that will continue telling the truth.
Tamar Sharabi is
an environmental engineer and freelance journalist living in Central
America. She is working on media empowerment with human rights
organizations and on a documentary about the Honduran coup detat. To
support her work visit: www.giveforward.com/tamardocuments.
by Tamar Sharabi
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/honduras-archives-46/2362--interview-tortured-exiled-honduran-journalist-recalls-his-experience
Upside Down World: Before the Honduras Coup Detat of June 28th 2009,
tell me a little about your life.
Cesar Silva:
I have always been involved in popular struggles. During university I
was elected Secretary of the University Reform Front (FRU) from where
we constantly held a line of complaints denouncing corruption and
participating in different actions to benefit students. I was also
elected president of Journalism Students for two consecutive terms from
1998 to 2002, during which we founded the "Vanguard University Journal"
and "Magazine Alert" that circulated once a month across the country's
universities.
Upon graduating from the National Autonomous
University of Honduras (UNAH), I worked for six years as a reporter for
Channel 9 TV (Vica TV), the last two years of which I was a news
director for that company in Tegucigalpa. I also worked for Channel 63
for two years, along with Renato Alvarez who is now director of the
news of Televicentro. (Read, ‘Coup Mouthpiece’) I also worked four
years at Channel 54, which produced a program called "The protagonists
of the News.”
In 2006 Jorge Arturo Reina Idiáquez (Ambassador
of Honduras to the UN) offered me a position with the Ministry of
Interior and Justice in the Zelaya Government. My position was Director
of Communications where I worked directly with the newspaper and
Channel 8, called ‘Citizen Power Information Network’ founded under
Zelaya’s government.
In May 2009 I was called to work with the
Presidential Palace to coordinate work for production and coverage of
the popular consultation process (‘cuarta urna’) for public Channel 8. I
was assigned a mobile unit to report from the northern municipalities
of Olancho and Francisco Morazán beside the first lady, Xiomara Castro.
That's how I became involved directly in the events during the coup.
UDW:
What happened to you on June 28th?
CS:
Preparations were intense in the days before the coup and increased
when the Armed Forces refused to distribute electoral materials. The
ballot boxes were held at the air base Hernan Acosta. President Zelaya
along with supporters came to rescue the ballots to distribute them
into state cars. From there it was a race of information.
The
night of June 27, I was at the Presidential Palace until midnight and
in the early morning I left towards Olancho. When I passed the town of
Guaimaca (a town 90 km from Tegucigalpa) the President was being
captured. There, police and the army captured me as well. My cameraman,
driver, and assistants managed to escape to warn people what had
happened.
People gathered in Guaimaca at the town's central
park and demanded that the police release me. I was finally released by
noontime because of the people’s pressure. Still, the police called
for reinforcements from another municipality and within a half hour an
army truck arrived and began to repress people in the park and the
police forces chased me down.
People took me from house to
house, jumping lots and properties until I was in a safe place outside
the town. I stayed there until nighttime when presidential house
vehicles (that were still under the legitimate government) came to pick
me up. We had to travel on back roads to evade the army and police
posts to arrive in Tegucigalpa at two in the morning. Since their was a
curfew we had no choice but to reach the presidential palace where
people remained gathered in protest.
They seized the entire
equipment of the team; cameras and microphones. In Olancho they stole
our truck the mobile unit that accompanied the first lady, Xiomara
Castro. On the 29th more chaos came and repression continued.
UDW:
The 5th of July you helped carry the dead body of Isis Obed.
How did it feel to pause from your reporters role to help Isis receive
medical attention?
CS: It is impossible to
separate being a journalist and being a human being. As a reporter I
was interested in taking pictures, and I took the first ones because I
thought that Isis Murillo Obed was dead. Then I approached him and saw
that he was breathing and moving in the density of all the tear gas.
People were shouting that he was dead, but when I took him in my arms
he opened his eyes and tried to say something that molded into a moan
of pain.
There was still army gunfire hitting a small wall near
where Isis Obed fell. We could hear the bullets striking the wall, and
at that very moment there was an explosion and everyone hit the ground.
It turned out to be a motorcycle that had exploded. Consequently, I
gave the camera to a friend and shouted that we needed to move Isis.
With the help of some other guys we carried him about 300 meters to a
car that we found.
I felt anger, pain and helplessness. I
did not know the child's age, and perhaps had never seen him in my
life. I thought he was 10 or 12 years old. He had no weapons, he just
looked helpless. It looked so unfair that I just felt like yelling
"Gorillas assassinate children."
I forgot that I was a reporter
and I just thought of the life of that child. I asked for his family
but nobody knew anything. I hoped he would be saved in the hospital,
but taking the pictures, it seemed impossible for him to live. The shot
impacted his skull. On my chest there were remains of his brain and
his blood.
UDW: After this day, did anything
change about the way you reported on the situation in the country?
CS: I will never forget that moment.
That event drives me to continue so that Isis’s life and others will
not go unpunished. The murderers must pay their crime. Witnessing so
many beatings, so much unjustified repression, it was clear that the
intentions of the coup were to establish a dictatorship. I decided to
continue looking for ways to disseminate what was happening. I started
working for the internet blog and the National Resistance Front Against
the Coup, and freelanced with Radio Globo, Telesur and the History
Channel.
I changed; I am more insistent, I'm more critical.
During the Michelletti regime I collaborated in every way possible to
denounce the coup. We went from neighborhood to neighborhood, people to
people. I grew more into a neighborhood journalist, I just had to be
more creative because they stole or destroyed the equipment we had at
every opportunity.
UDW: As a national
reporter, how did you feel about the international media reporting on
Honduras?
CS: As always there are many
interests. At first it seemed somewhat balanced, but within a few days
it was clear who uninformed and those who told the truth. The big chains
such as CNN, Univision, Telemundo and others within a few days took
off their mask and began calling Michelletti president and considered
it a constitutional succession. Other European countries were more
objective.
The independent press were the ones who maintained
the reality. They called it like it was. Telesur was objective about
the crackdowns and repression, but in fact they were favorable towards
Zelaya.
UDW: Talk about the elections that took
place under the coup regime.
CS: I classify
the elections on November 29th in two scenarios:
1 . The
Resistance and the conscious people knew that the elections were only
to change the face of the coup, but that the situation would stay the
same.
2. The Nationalists interested in winning the elections
wanted to secure work with the new government.
There was a low
turnout. Supporters of the National party took advantage of the
situation because the Liberal party was split and had called on
supporters to boycott the elections. The images speak for themselves.
The streets were full of policemen and soldiers, the military in the
polling areas, and a permanent anxiety in the population; panic, fear,
terror and empty booths.
UDW: When did you
begin to be threatened personally?
CS: The
threats started after July 5 when the police and army did not view me
as a journalist anymore. This increased when I traveled to Nicaragua to
do reports on Zelaya and after the demonstration on August 12 at the
National Congress when Deputy Ramon Velasquez Nassar was kicked. There
was brutal repression that day and I was physically assaulted. The
military forces took pictures and video of me.
In every march
afterwards the police would see me. Also in the eviction of the
peasants from the National Agrarian Institute (INA), the police
assaulted me and took pictures. Later, I would constantly receive
anonymous threatening phone calls. I changed my number, but I was still
being watched and persecuted. I ignored these threats and didn’t take
them seriously because everyday nothing would happen.
Then I
received a call from the Intelligence of the Armed Forces who warned me
to stop doing my work. I denounced this to Cofadeh and CODEH, two
human rights organizations.
UDW: Explain the
events on that day you were kidnapped.
CS: I
was kidnapped on Monday December 29th when I was on my way from the
south where I went to distribute a documentary about the resistance and
met with related colleagues. Arriving in Tegucigalpa, I took a taxi
from ‘Loarque’ on the beltway around the city to my house. Having
traveled less than one kilometer, a vehicle approached us, a beige van,
and individuals drew their weapons from the window ordering the taxi
to pull over. We initially tried to run, but another vehicle crossed us
on the highway and we could not advance.
They approached the
taxi and held the driver at gunpoint, telling him to stay quiet
otherwise they would kill him. They pulled me out of the taxi beating
me up and took me into their car to a remote place in the mountains. We
traveled about an hour while I was beaten inside the car. First they
made me sit with my head between my legs, then they put a hood on me.
The kidnappers did not cover their faces nor were they wearing
military clothes but by their vocabulary and communication by telephone
with the ‘Jackal,’ it was clear they were getting orders. We reached an
area away from the city where they put me in a dark room.
I
was held from December 29 at 9:00am until the December 30th at noon.
During these 27 hours I was interrogated every 45 minutes and punched
in areas that leave no trace; my feet soles, testicles, stomach, and
back, using their fists. I was naked and they kept wetting my body. In a
moment of increased tension they tried to suffocate me with water.
They threw water on my face until I was no longer able to breathe. I
swallowed as much water as possible, but as I felt like I was drowning,
another officer yelled that they would kill me another faster way.
The interrogations were about weapons; where they were, who were my
contacts and how many leaders existed. They also asked where all my
photos and videos were stored and what type of profile information we
had of military leaders. They continued to threaten that I would not
leave there alive and that I'd better trust in God. They offered me
drugs to take to ease the pain of dying which I refused to accept.
On the morning of December 30, one of the officers told me that my
life might be saved but that he wasn’t sure. Then I heard the torturers
begin to plan my death. One of them suggested a shot in the head but
then decided I would not suffer enough that way. Another one said they
would let me hang myself from a tree or that they drag me attached to
the car along the street. Then one of them said they could open my
stomach and slowly pull out my intestines so I could talk as I died.
Hours later they took me out of there blindfolded with a hood and took
me to “throw me out”. They dumped me in Tegucigalpa between the
neighborhood ‘Cerro Grande’ and ‘El Chile,’ in a sector that is
mountainous and very isolated.
UDW: You are
currently living in exile. How much time do you imagine you will need
to live outside your country in order to protect yourself?
CS:
Yes I am in exile now. Human rights organizations supported me to
leave Honduras and my few remaining friends recommended me to do the
same in order to save my life since Renan Fajardo who edited my
documentary was murdered in his apartment and Walter Trochez who helped
distributed the material was also killed. Without a doubt the next one
was me.
I do not know how long I'll be out of the country. I
am anxious to return to be with my family and to continue to produce
reports of the experiences of people in the street, but it is difficult
at this point.
UDW: In what way do you
continue working from exile?
CS: I have been
fortunate to find many people who have been supportive and have invited
me to do lectures in universities and in grassroots organizations. I've
given four lectures with audiovisual students about media coverage in
risky situations.
I also do some radio and television to
discuss my experiences and do political analysis on the situation in
Honduras. I continue to write the chronicles of the coup repression and
am working on a book which I think will be called "Repressed
Honduras," which tells the whole story that people really lived.
UDW:
What is the hardest part of being in exile?
CS:
Maybe it's the hurry of leaving everything abandoned; your home, your
family, the stuff you had a hard time sacrificing and working for. In
my case, I left my loved ones in tears; my mother, my son.
The
difficulty in arriving in the new place is getting rid of the hatred
and to stop thinking of what you left behind. You have to live here as
a ‘nobody’ so that know one can find you and you can avoid the risks.
The dreams abandon you, the uncertainty eats you.
UDW:
As you analyze the difficulties of the 'free press' in Honduras with
the new "unity government" of Pepe Lobo?
CS:
Free Press?! That will be difficult. This government is only the
continuation of the coup d'etat. They are not interested in telling the
truth to the the population. Porfirio Lobo and his people are
interested in being well and having their companies and their
businesses do well.
The independent press will remain at war, but the economically
suffocating private enterprise will remove them within a short time.
Watch Channel 36 and you will realize that the editorial policy has
changed. Although it continues to support the resistance, its profile
is different; it is more ‘pepista’.
The program ‘Habla como
Habla’ of Channel 66 has also changed, it is not with the resistance
anymore, but with the new government. Only Radio Globo stands firm.
Independent journalists and foreigners using their own websites are
those that will continue telling the truth.
Tamar Sharabi is
an environmental engineer and freelance journalist living in Central
America. She is working on media empowerment with human rights
organizations and on a documentary about the Honduran coup detat. To
support her work visit: www.giveforward.com/tamardocuments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
