Inter-American Press Association Condemns Violations of Rights in Venezuela

The Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) concluded that regional press has experienced a serious backlash

The Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) Tuesday closed its 62nd annual assembly in Mexico by condemning "reiterated" violation by President Hugo Chávez's Government of the principles of freedom of speech and right to information, as provided for under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and ratified its support to reporters and media, hoping that Venezuela restores respect for the rules.

In its final resolution on Venezuela, IAPA rejected "murders, aggressions, intimidation and discrimination against independent reporters and media." It urged the Venezuelan Government to clarify the killings of five reporters as of 2002, including Mauro Marcano, who worked with radio station Maturín, and photographer Jorge Tortoza, who worked with 2001 newspaper.

In the final resolution the regional media editors members of IAPA assessed during five days, they stressed that "freedom of press in the region has experienced serious setbacks." They mentioned killings, threats and aggressions, particularly from drug traffickers, against reporters. "The number of crimes and cases of reporters missing amounted to 15 over the last 12 months," the organization concluded.

IAPA stated that democratically elected government are taking the same moves against the media "the military dictatorships used to employ 30 years ago," DPA reported.

Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico are top in the list of nations where the practice of journalism is at higher risk.

During the assembly, some changes were made to the IAPA board of directors. Gilberto Landaeta (from El Regional del Zulia newspaper) was designated as director of the board of directors. Miguel Otero Silva (El Nacional) was ratified in the board. Andrés Mata Osorio, editor of El Universal newspaper) was ratified in the board, and Eduardo Alemán (El Carabobeño) was elected as IAPA director. David Natera (El Correo del Caroní) was ratified as regional vice-president for freedom of expression.

Venezuelan Communication and Information Minister William Lara disregarded IAPA considerations. "It is a remake."

". . . The catch is that Chavez will not accept even the least criticism, and he deploys his goon squads to harrass, beat, even kill reporters. . . ."

I don't have the time to find the best link on what I'm going to present here, which would be a Spanish language article anyway, about Chavez's goon squads breaking up press coverage of opposition candidate Manuel Rosales's campaign swing last week. When Rosales visited the city of Varela in particular, large crowds came out to meet him, and this is the issue which frightens Chavez and his cronies, there is developing visual evidence that Rosales's campaign is really taking off. In Varela about 80 Chavista goons attacked television reporters, either destroying or damaging their cameras to prevent them from filming the size of the crowds. Here is an English language link to the VCrisis.com site on the events I just described:

Eyewitness Account of Chavistas Attacking Reporters at Campaign Appearance of Manuel Rosales in Varela, 09/30/06

As I mentioned, there is a Spanish language article which is much more informative and, given that VCrisis.com has an "agenda" of stopping Chavez -- may the blessings of God be upon them -- could perhaps be treated as a more objective source.

But just so that no one doubts that Rosales is really turning out the crowds, the two photos below were taken within the past week, and take a close look at the one on the left, that really is a huge crowd for a backwater Venezuelan city in the interior:


Manuel Rosales in Valle de la Pascua, 09/22/06	Manuel Rosales in Chavez's Home State of Barinas, 09/24/06

I think you can see that there is an active opposition in Venezuela, no matter how significant Chavez's abilities to steal the election may be. This Saturday will be a huge day in Caracas, Chavez's real base of support. If the turnout for the Rosales rally scheduled there is large enough, the entire context of this campaign could change. See this thread for more.

He only offers fear
Teodoro Petkoff in Tal Cual
The candidate of continuity is feeling in his spine the chill of uncertainty and the fear of losing. He feels the ground moving and that his gunpowder is wet. Up to now, he has only made two new electoral offers, the creation of a single party and his indefinite reelection. Everything else is the same scratched vinyl that not even his supporters listen to anymore. But, besides this, in the face of this empty electoral offer, he resorts without shame to the use of fear as an electoral instrument. Not happy with having created a generalized atmosphere of fear in the whole country, he now devotes his time to scare his own voters. His last witticism was that of “warning” that if Rosales wins “the Cubans” (That’s exactly what he said, he did not even mention the doctors) would be kicked out of the country and Barrio Adentro would be eliminated.

One would think that such a ridiculous argument would be left aside by the candidate of continuity and given to his minions of fourth or fifth level and he would continue navigating the skies of the debate of ideas that VP Rangel is calling for. The squalidness of his last “massive” rallies, his reluctance to visit the popular barrios, the certainty that recently he has been screwing up way above his usual standards on that matter, have led him to personally assume the handling of the campaign of fear.

He is going to fail. He is sub estimating the intelligence of his listeners; nobody can be that stupid to believe that Rosales, who has presented a social program (“Mi Negra”) aimed at taking care of the needs of the poorest sectors of our society, at the same time that he implements economic and employment programs to promote investment and create jobs, could have in mind eliminating social programs. In fact, the Zulia Governorship maintains a whole set of them, much better implemented than those of the central government, which represent the best counter argument to the strategy of fear.

With respect to the social programs (“Misiones”), the policy will be one of assembling them with “Mi Negra”, freeing them of the corruption, waste and political sectarianism that accompanies them today, to guarantee their clean management and that access to them is not conditioned to any sort of party toll.

Barrio Adentro will be opened to Venezuelan medical doctors, to base it on Venezuelans and not on foreign professionals.

As long as the presence of these is necessary (because the substitution of such numerous personnel is not possible overnight), their contract with them will no longer be a mystery and will be made in an open and clearly budgeted way. Only someone brain dead would eliminate a primary medical assistance system like Barrio Adentro. But you can be sure that Barrio Afuera, that is the hospitals and health clinics that are today bare, will be the subject of a special program for their recovery and endowment.

The serpent has bitten its own tail. Fear has now reached the Great Terrorizer of the county.

http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200609261556

Chavez's native Barinas welcomes Manuel Rosales
Por Aleksander Boyd

Barinas 24.09.06 | Today's rally in Barinas was something especial. First of all this is the state where Hugo Chavez was born. Second his father is meant to be sitting in the state's highest chair, however locals say that is Argenis Chavez, Hugo's little brother, the one in charge. Chavez's own mother is head of Barinas' Children's Foundation (Fundacion del Niño). The people have become a nuisance to this new cast. Emilio Ostos said to me that impoverished mothers keep knocking on Mrs. Chavez door for food, subsidies, grants, etc. but are getting the cold shoulder from Hugo's mum. Emilio also said that the Chavez dinasty has become incredibly wealthy and powerful, owning 4 large hatos, other real state assets and businesses. When I asked him whether the situation had improved he replied "bueno mira las calles p'a que veas como hemos mejorado" (we were in Avenida 1º de Diciembre). Initially a Chavez supporter Emilio thought that the latter's election would bring positive things to Barinas -being his native state- but in fact no improvements or benefits have come their way.

We walked together for a while until we bumped into his friend Pascual Vargas. Same drill with Pascual; i.e. me asking "are you better off/safer today than in 1998?" His answer was "ese coño de su madre es un vendepatria chico, mientras nosotros estamos pelando bola aqui el anda regalando lo que no es de el." Imagine the scene Av. 1º de Diciembre in Barinas and both Pascual and Emilio telling me about Chavez's latest rants in the UN, his deals with Islamofundamentalists and the Cuban dictator... Venezuela's people whether in Araira, Guatire, Antimano, Puerto Cabello or Barinas have had it with Chavez. I'm also asking everywhere I go when was the last time that Chavez walked among them. The answer is, invariably, 1998. The current practice is that he flyes to places around the country to broadcast his dominical charade, the surroundings always cleared so that el pueblo can't touch him, can't criticise him.

Contrastingly Manuel Rosales is visiting barrios for the myth has it that gente de barrio are with Chavez. There's no fear but restlessness: "deje el llano alborotao" quipped opposition candidate Rosales yesterday. Quite frankly I always thought of myself as very irreverent towards chavismo but my fellow countrymen, those who have endured 8 long years of lies and abuses are, understandably, in a league of their own. Chavez's spell has lost all power. The few chavistas that I have encountered can't even tell in what ways their lives have improved.

Another feeling I have gathered is that official propaganda is counterproductive for Chavez. The whole country is covered with it, like a giant billboard. Instead of serving the purpose of enticing people to re-elect him it has upset them for it shows misuse of resources in a country were abject poverty is on the rise. Chavez is so detached that he promotes himself in radio adverts, which are repeated time and again all around the country's network.

In the meanwhile Rosales keeps walking among the poorest, drawing examples from his successful administration in Zulia...

http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200609232119

10/3/2006
CHAVEZ LOSING CHILE

Not that he ever really had it, but President Bachelet was considering supporting Venezuela’s candidacy for a rotating seat on the United Nations security council that’s coming up. Possibly no more.

A.M. Mora y Leon already posted up an article showing Bachelet’s absolute fury over remarks made by the Venezuelan government that the Christian Democrat Party had betrayed Salvador Allende as well as the revolution. The fallout was absolutely astronomical. Relations between the two countries have never been so low. If Chavez ever thought he had a chance of gaining Chile’s support — probably one of the most important countries to get it from — he better think again.

The Christian Democrat Party rules in coalition with Bachelet’s Socialist Party; together called the Concertacion. It has been an alliance that has been incredibly effective and beneficial for the country. But now the CDP is in an uproar and will likely not give their support to any bid which will enable Chavez a seat at the UNSC.

To understand just how deep the hatred of him is now, check out this article I just ran across in The Santiago Times. It’s an interview with former foreign minister Ignacio Walker, a prominent member of the CDP whose voice is definitely being heard. He tells it like it is.

QUESTION: What is your current take on Latin American politics?
IGNACIO WALKER: I’m worried about the resurgence of populism. The true conflict emerging in Latin America today is the battle between democracy and populism. Fifteen years ago, the battle was between democracy and dictatorship, and forty years ago it was between reform and revolution.

The policies that Hugo Chávez, Néstor Kirchner, and Evo Morales have implemented in Venezuela, Argentina, and Bolivia are neo-populist. This worries me because when you encourage a form of democracy that is populist, personal, or based on plebiscites, you create a type of democracy that goes around existing institutions. I’m a firm believer in representative democracy, and in strong institutions.

Chile, along with Brazil and Mexico, has resisted this populist temptation.

QQ: Do you fear that these populist governments could spread to the rest of the continent?
IW: No. Ollanta Humala lost in Peru, López Obrador lost in Mexico, and Otton Solís lost in Costa Rica. Chile has now had four Concertación governments that are not populist. Lula and Cardoso in Brazil are not populists, neither is Colombia’s Álvaro Uribe. It’s not true that leftist populism is spreading in Latin America.

QQ: Has it become a partisan issue in Chile on whether to support Guatemala’s or Venezuela’s bids to win a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council?
IW: We have to take the drama out of this discussion. First of all, this is not a life and death decision for Chile, and whatever decision President Michelle Bachelet makes should be respected. I’ll respect Bachelet’s final decision, even though the Christian Democratic Party, of which I’m a member, voiced its disapproval of Venezuela’s bid ten days ago.

I’m not against Venezuela, but I’m against Chávez’s Venezuela and his foreign policy. He’s recently been in Cuba, in Belarus, Iran, and North Korea. These trips are very complicated from an international perspective. Putting Chavez’s Venezuela on the UN Security Council, whose fundamental purpose is to fight for international peace and security, would be counterproductive. Chávez would use the Security Council to create more instability and less security. It’s wrong to say that all of Latin America is rallying behind Chávez, as the majority of Latin Americans are not leftists.

For example, Chávez’s exportation of the “Bolivarian Revoultion” and his interference in the domestic politics of Mexico, Bolivia, and Peru are concrete acts. He questioned Calderón’s victory in Mexico after the country’s Supreme Court declared him to be the winner. He’s intervened in Peru, mocking Alan García, and a lot more can be said of Bolivia.

What more arguments against Chávez do we need? Look at all his has recently done. He stood in front of the UN and said “The devil’s been here, you can still smell the sulfur” (referring to George W. Bush), he has suggested the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. were perpetrated by the U.S. government, he signed a strategic alliance with the President of Belarus, one of the worst post-Soviet dictators, and he went to Iran, where he aligned himself with that country’s intent to develop nuclear weapons.

QQ: In what situation will Foreign Minister Alejandro Foxley (DC) be placed if Bachelet votes for Venezuela?
IW: I don’t think that it will affect him at all. Foxley implements the policy that the President of the Republic decides, and he has done a great job doing so.

QQ: Was it an error to let the debate on the Venezuela vote simmer for so long?
IW: Perhaps, but on the other hand it has permitted us to debate all sides to this decision. It’s not been easy.

QQ: What do you personally think of Chávez?
IW: I think he’s an anomaly, one produced by a crisis in caused by the Venezuelan political system. I do think, however, that he has a legitimacy that you can’t deny. He was elected in a clean election and won a majority. I have doubts about his democratic convictions in regards to internal politics, and I do not agree with his foreign policy.

QQ: Is it possible that Chile will abstain?
IW: Yes, but I wouldn’t rule out a vote for Guatemala. Why shouldn’t we vote for Guatemala? Just because the U.S. supports it? Give me a break. All of Europe is supporting Guatemala. It could be a more active abstention. We could say that neither country fits the bill. According to my sources, neither Guatemala nor Venezuela have the two-thirds of the total 191 votes that they need. If no winner is declared after three rounds of voting, another candidate will emerge.

QQ: Uruguay and Costa Rica have been mentioned…
IW: Yes, and the Dominican Republic. Any of those three countries would be great choices. Personally, I’m in favor of an active abstention.

QQ: What could happen to the governing Concertación alliance, because of the UN vote and the dispute around the use of the morning after pill?
IW: The President decides, but if Bachelet votes for Venezuela, it will be difficult for the Christian Democrats (DC) and for sectors of the PPD. The opposition will also be very critical, as studies show that 70 percent of the Chilean public is against voting for Venezuela. But in no case is the Concertación in danger.

QQ: What do you think of the recent statements made by Víctor Delgado, the Venezuelan Ambassador to Chile? He compared the DC’s lack of support for the Venezuelan bid to the way in which they acted towards former President Salvador Allende.
IW: The statements made by the ambassador are some of the most offensive statements that have come out of Venezuela in the last couple of months. I can only say that it was a total mistake to make those statements. They went against all normal diplomatic protocol, let alone being totally offensive.

No further comment necessary, I think.

http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=2968

I'm going to help the board with a translation of two sentences from the VCrisis.com article Founding Father posted in #9 above.

From paragraph #2:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . We walked together for a while until we bumped into his friend Pascual Vargas. Same drill with Pascual; i.e. me asking "are you better off/safer today than in 1998?" His answer was "ese coño de su madre es un vendepatria chico, mientras nosotros estamos pelando bola aqui el anda regalando lo que no es de el.". . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The italicized Spanish phrase, which contains some profanity, can be translated as:

This c__t of your mother is a boy selling his country while we're walking around here without money giving away what he doesn't have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Rosales says "giving away what [Chavez] doesn't have," he's obviously implying dignity, honesty, and any other virtue you might want to insert. But there's something that gets lost in the translation of the rest. The Spanish phrase pelando bola, which literally translates as "plucking ball," is an idiomatic expression meaning "walking around without money" -- you could translate it as "hoboing" or "bumming around" -- and it is a phrase poor Venezuelans will identify with at once. The point I'm trying to make here is that this is the kind of language which shows that Rosales is speaking to the poor in their own idiom. He's worth keeping a hopeful eye upon in my opinion.

Once again, great links and info from the Blogosphere FF, well done!

...some news about a neighbor....

Support for Morales Drops Again in Bolivia
October 4, 2006
- Public backing for Evo Morales fell once more in Bolivia, according to a poll by Apoyo, Opinión y Mercado. 52 per cent of respondents approve of their president’s performance, down nine points since August.

Morales—an indigenous leader—won the December 2005 presidential election as the candidate for the Movement to Socialism (MAS), with 53.72 per cent of the vote. He officially took over as Bolivia’s head of state in January.

On Aug. 6, the National Constituent Assembly, tasked with re-writing Bolivia’s constitution, held its first session. The assembly can sit for one year, and its proposed body of law must be approved by two-thirds of the 255 lawmakers, and then ratified in a nationwide referendum.

On Sept. 24, former army chief Marcelo Antezana expressed his views on the National Constituent Assembly, saying, "The government is attempting to earn absolute power to enforce a socialist constitution, and this intention is not democratic. (...) When politicians seek to break the constitutional order, the armed forces have to act. I’m not calling for subversion, but merely alerting those who have to comply with constitutional order."

Bolivian vice-president Álvaro García Linera dismissed Antezana’s comments, saying the former army chief "still owes many explanations" for his performance and decisions. We Can (Podemos) senator Carlos Broth also criticized Antezana’s "extreme positions."

Polling Data

Do you approve or disapprove of Evo Morales’ performance as president?

Sept. 2006
Aug. 2006
Jul. 2006

Approve
52%
61%
68%

Disapprove
38%
33%
24%

No opinion
10%
9%
8%

Source: Apoyo, Opinión y Mercado
Methodology: Interviews with 1,022 Bolivian adults in La Paz, El Alto, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz, conducted from Sept. 11 to Sept. 18, 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13365

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.