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.