December, 17 2008, 11:47am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Miguel Tinker Salas, 909-607-2920
Gregory Wilpert, 646-541-7212
Greg Grandin, 347-804-6851
More Than 100 Latin America Experts Question Human Rights Watch's Venezuela Report
Experts Highlight Exaggerations and Inaccuracies in "Politically Motivated" Study
WASHINGTON
In an open letter to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch, over 100 experts on Latin America criticized the organization's recent report on Venezuela, A Decade Under Chavez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, saying that it "does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility." The signers include leading academic specialists from universities in the United States, including Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and a number of state universities, and academic institutions in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, the U.K., Venezuela and other countries. The letter cites Jose Miguel Vivanco, lead author of the report, saying "We did the report because we wanted to demonstrate to the world that Venezuela is not a model for anyone..."[1], as evidence of its political agenda. The letter also criticizes the report for making unsubstantiated allegations, and that some of the sources that Human Rights Watch relied on in the report are not credible.
"By publishing such a grossly flawed report, and acknowledging a political motivation in doing so, Mr. Vivanco has undermined the credibility of an important human rights organization," the letter states.
The letter notes that numerous sources cited in the report - including opposition newspapers El Universal and El Nacional, opposition group Sumate, and a mentally unstable opposition blogger - have been known to fabricate information, making it "difficult for most readers to know which parts of the report are true and which aren't." The letter also argues that the Human Rights Watch report makes sweeping allegations based on scant evidence. For example, its allegation of discrimination in government services is based on just one person whose nephew claimed she was denied medicine from a government program.
The full text of the letter follows:
December 16, 2008
Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor
New York, NY 10118-3299 USA
To the Board of Directors,
We write to call your attention to a report published by Human Rights Watch that does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility. The document, A Decade Under Chavez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, appears to be a politically motivated essay rather than a human rights report. Indeed, the lead author of the report, Jose Miguel Vivanco, stated as much when he told the press just a few days after its publication, "We did the report because we wanted to demonstrate to the world that Venezuela is not a model for anyone..."[2]
Clearly Mr. Vivanco is entitled to his views about Venezuela, but such statements run counter to the mission of Human Rights Watch and indeed any organization dedicated to the defense of human rights. By publishing such a grossly flawed report, and acknowledging a political motivation in doing so, Mr. Vivanco has undermined the credibility of an important human rights organization.
We do not make these charges lightly and we hope you will understand the seriousness of such grave errors in judgment. As scholars who specialize in Latin America, we rely on what are supposed to be independent, non-partisan organizations such as Human Rights Watch for factual information about human right abuses committed by governments and sometimes non-governmental actors. So do many other constituencies, including the press, government officials, and the public. It is a great loss to civil society when we can no longer trust a source such as Human Rights Watch to conduct an impartial investigation and draw conclusions based on verifiable facts.
The report makes sweeping allegations that are not backed up by supporting facts or in some cases even logical arguments. For example, the report's most important and prominent allegation is that "discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chavez presidency." (p. 1) Yet the report does not show, or even attempt to show, that political discrimination either increased under the current government (as compared to past governments), or is more of a problem in Venezuela than in any other country in the world.
What is the evidence offered for such a broad generalization?
"In most cases, it was not possible to prove political discrimination-with rare exceptions, citizens were given no grounds at all for the actions taken-yet many were told informally that they were losing their jobs, contracts, or services for having signed the referendum petition [to recall President Chavez]. For example, in one case reported to Human Rights Watch, a 98-year-old woman was denied medicines that she had long received from a state development agency because, as her family was told by the program secretary, she had signed the referendum petition." (p.21) (Italics added).
Taking services first, the above paragraph refers to an allegation that one Venezuelan citizen was denied medicines for political reasons. Amazingly, this is the only alleged instance of discrimination in government services cited in the entire 230-page report. In other words, the Barrio Adentro program has provided health services to millions of poor Venezuelans each year since 2003, and the authors found one allegation (as reported to the authors in a phone conversation with the nephew of the alleged victim) of discrimination involving one person. On this basis the authors make the sweeping generalization that "Citizens who exercised their right to call for the referendum-invoking one of the new participatory mechanisms championed by Chavez during the drafting of the 1999 Constitution-were threatened with retaliation and blacklisted from some government jobs and services." (p. 10, italics added).
This is outrageous and completely indefensible. We do not expect a report of this nature to adhere to rigorous academic standards, but there have to be some standards.
With regard to employment, there is no doubt that there were cases where individual government officials discriminated on the grounds of employees' political beliefs. (There were also cases of discrimination and firing of pro-government employees in the private sector, which the report mentions in a parenthesis (p.10) and does not investigate). However, the report does not show that there was any organized or systematic effort to purge the government of anti-government employees. Indeed, as anyone who is familiar with the government of Venezuela knows, after nearly ten years since the election of President Hugo Chavez, the civil service is still loaded with employees who are against the government.
The report does not demonstrate whether the firings that occurred, in both the public and private sector, were simply the result of individual actions in a highly polarized society in which the opposition spent at least four years (according to opposition leader Teodoro Petkoff)[3] trying to dislodge the government though a military overthrow. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine that many government officials would, in such a climate, be apprehensive about employing people who are against the government. The report does not consider this possible cause of observed discrimination. Of course this would not justify such discrimination, but neither would it support the sweeping allegations of this report, which attempts to argue that the government is using its control over employment in the public sector in order to repress political opposition.
Indeed, the report's most serious allegation of discrimination in employment concerns a case where discrimination was not based on political partisanship, but in regards to unlawful subversion that no government would, nor should tolerate: "In the aftermath of the oil strike, PDVSA purged its ranks of thousands of workers who participated in the strike." (p.29). But as anyone who was in Venezuela at the time can attest, this was quite openly a strike to topple the government, which the opposition had succeeded in doing less than eight months earlier. The oil strike devastated the economy - which lost 24 percent of GDP in the resulting recession -- and came close to achieving its goal a second time.
The report implies that public employees, in this case oil workers should have the right to strike for the overthrow of an elected government; we do not support that view. It is especially dubious when that group of employees makes up less than one percent of the labor force, and is using its control over a strategic resource - oil revenues made up nearly half of government revenues and 80 percent of export earnings -- to cripple the economy and thereby reverse the result of democratic elections. The view that such a strike is "a legitimate strike" is not, to our knowledge, held by any democratic government in the world.[4]
But most importantly with regard to the credibility of the HRW report, it is profoundly misleading for the authors to argue that "political discrimination is a defining feature" of a government that is not willing to risk the continuing employment of people who have carried out such a strike.
The report's overwhelming reliance for factual material on opposition sources of dubious reliability also undermines its credibility and makes it difficult for most readers to know which parts of the report are true and which aren't. The most cited source with regard to political discrimination is the newspaper El Universal.[5] This is not only a stridently opposition newspaper, it has also, for the years during which it is cited, repeatedly fabricated news stories. For example, in a typical fabrication of the type deployed to libel government officials, El Universal reported that then Interior Minister Jesse Chacon had purchased a painting for $140,000.[6] This turned out to be completely false. There are many examples of fabrications in El Universal, as well as other opposition sources cited by the report.[7]
We find it troubling that a report on Human Rights depends heavily on unreliable sources. Would a report on human rights in the United States be taken seriously if it relied so heavily on Fox News, or even worse The National Enquirer? Indeed, this report ventures even further into the zone of unreliable sources and cites a mentally unstable opposition blogger as a source. (p. 20, footnote 30). This is a person who indulges not only in routine fabrications and advocates the violent overthrow of the government, but also has publicly fantasized about killing his political enemies and dumping the bodies from helicopters into the slums, and torturing others by "pour[ing] melted silver into their eyes."[8]
A disturbing thing about the report's reliance on these sources is that it indicates a lack of familiarity with the subject matter, or perhaps worse, a deep political prejudice that allows the authors to see most of these sources as unproblematic. Indeed, there is only one passing indication that the newspapers El Universal and El Nacional, are opposition newspapers, and it is a reference to the past[9], which the reader might therefore reasonably judge to be irrelevant. On the other hand, the report refers to the newspaper Ultimas Noticias as "largely sympathetic to Chavez and his government" and "a generally pro-government tabloid." (p.70, p.89) This is a newspaper that prints articles that are harshly critical of the government on a daily basis, and according to polling data in Venezuela is seen as vastly more independent than any other major newspapers. The authors' view of the Venezuelan media seems to mirror the view of the right-wing Venezuelan opposition, or the U.S. Right's view of the "liberal media" in the United States.
Such profound prejudice, in which events are interpreted overwhelmingly through the lens of Venezuela's right-wing opposition, is apparent throughout the document: for example when the authors describe groups that helped organize and supported the April 2002 coup as "new organizations dedicated to the defense of democracy and the rule of law." (p. 203).
But the worst thing about the report's reliance on opposition sources like El Universal, El Nacional, or Sumate, is that these sources have engaged in enough fabrications as to make them unreliable sources for factual material.
In its discussion of the media, the report also paints a grossly exaggerated picture of reality, while presenting some valid criticisms of existing law and practice. It is acknowledged in footnotes buried deep within the text that the opposition still dominates both broadcast and print media (footnote 184, p.74; footnote 181, p.73). Yet the government is reproached for "having significantly shifted the balance of the media in the government's favor" by creating pro-government TV stations since the 2002 coup, when "Chavez faced an almost entirely hostile private media." This is an odd position for a human rights organization to take. While it would be nice if the government could create TV stations that had no bias whatsoever, isn't it better to have some competition in the media - from left-leaning, pro-government stations - than to have a right-wing, anti-democratic, private monopoly? Especially when that right-wing monopoly had, as never before in world history, organized a military coup against a democratically elected government and led a devastating oil strike that nearly toppled the government a second time? Do the authors consider this type of media monopoly to be more protective of human rights than a media that is still dominated by the opposition but also presents some other sources of information?
The report refers repeatedly to the danger of "self-censorship," but does not provide any examples of this actually happening. This is a major weakness in its argument, since it is not that difficult to find examples of self-censorship in response to government pressure in, for example, the U.S. media.
In the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, the Sinclair Broadcast Group of Maryland, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the U.S., planned to show a documentary that accused candidate John Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War. The company ordered its 62 stations to show the film during prime-time hours just two weeks before the election. Nineteen Democratic senators sent a letter to the U.S. F.C.C. https://leahy.senate.gov/press/200410/101504.html calling for an investigation into this proposed intervention by Sinclair in the campaign, and some made public statements that Sinclair's broadcast license could be in jeopardy if it carried through with its plans. As a result of this pressure, Sinclair backed down and did not broadcast the film.
This example is directly relevant to the HRW report on Venezuela, because it shows that, in order to have a broadcast license in the United States and other democratic countries, the licensee is expected to follow certain rules and not to become a major political actor, e.g. by intervening in elections. As Vivanco himself has noted, "lack of renewal of the contract [broadcast license], per se, is not a free speech issue." Yet this report cites the denial of RCTV's broadcast license renewal as a simple, and indeed its primary, example of the Venezuelan government's alleged attack on free speech. It does not seem to matter to the authors that the station had participated in a military coup and other attempts to topple the government and would not receive a broadcast license in any democratic country.
The report even uses innuendo to imply that the government is to blame for attacks on journalists, which have occurred against both opposition and pro-government journalists. The authors state that the opposition TV station Globovision "has received warning letters from CONATEL because of the political tone of its reporting, it has been frequently refused entry to government press conferences, and its reporters and cameramen have been physically attacked and threatened by Chavez supporters." (p. 117) The authors provide no evidence that the government in any way condoned or supported such alleged attacks.
The major media in Venezuela to this day are practically unmatched in this hemisphere, and indeed most of the world, for their vehement, unfettered, and even vicious, libelous, and violence inciting attacks on the government[10]. While the HRW report presents a number of valid criticisms of existing law and a few cases of unwarranted intervention by government officials, it serves no legitimate purpose to hide or distort the actual state of Venezuela's media.
The same can be said for the rest of the report, including its treatment of the judiciary.[11] HRW has an obligation to criticize any laws or practices of the Venezuelan government that it sees as endangering human rights, and we welcome the valid criticisms that it raises in its report. But Mr. Vivanco has gravely undermined the credibility of Human Rights Watch by producing a report that, by his own admission, is politically motivated, as well as grossly exaggerated, based on unreliable sources, and advertises broad and sweeping allegations that are unsupported by the evidence.
We therefore request that HRW retract and revise its report so as to produce a credible document. Mr. Vivanco should also retract his remarks as to the political motivation for the report.
We would be glad to meet with you to discuss this issue further, and would welcome a debate with Mr. Vivanco in any public forum of his choosing, should he be willing to defend his report in public.
We hope you will consider these requests with the seriousness they deserve. Our letter is not meant as a justification for the Venezuelan government's decision to expel the authors of the HRW report from the country. Human rights are too important to be used as a political football, as has so often been the case when Washington singles out another government as an enemy state. This is why we depend on civil society organizations for independent, non-partisan, non-political reporting and investigation.
In the spirit of sharing our concerns with our Spanish-speaking colleagues, we are having this letter translated to be circulated in Latin America.
Sincerely,
1. Rodolfo Acuna, Professor, Chicano/a Studies, California State University , Northridge
2. Federico Alvarez, Professor Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
3. Tim Anderson, Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, University of Sydney , Australia
4. Miguel Angel Herrera, Historia, Universidad de Costa Rica
5. Robert Austin, Ph.D, Honorary Fellow, School of Historical Studies, University of Melbourne
6. Margara Averbach, Professor of Literatura, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
7. William Aviles, Associate Professor, Political Science University of Nebraska , Kearney
8. Mario Ayala, Programa de Historia Oral, Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires
9. David Barkin, Profesor de Economia, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco
10. .Carlos Beas, Activista Movimiento Indigena, Oaxaca-MEXICO
11.. Alejandro Alvarez Bejar, Professor Economics Universidad Autonoma Nacional de Mexico
12. Donald W, Bray, Professor Emeritus, California State University , Los Angeles
13. Marjorie Woodford Bray, Professor, Latin American Studies, California State University , Los Angeles
14. Charles Bergquist, Professor of History, University of Washington
15. Atilio A. Boron Director del PLED, Programa Latinoamericano de Educacion a Distancia en Ciencias Sociales, Buenos Aires, Argentina
16. Chesa Boudin, Yale Law School
17. Clara Mantini Briggs, Associate Researcher, Demography, University of California , Berkeley
18. Charles Briggs, Professor Anthropology, University of California , Berkeley
19. Julia Buxton, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for International Cooperation and Security, Department of Peace Studies, Bradford University
20. Maria Emilia Caballero, Comite '68 Pro Libertades Democraticas en Mexico
21. Marisol de la Cadena, Associate Professor of Anthropology, UC-Davis , CA
22. Jose Calderon, Professor Sociology and Chicano/a Studies, Pitzer College
23. Hernan Camarero, Professor, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
24. Cristina Castello, Poeta y Periodista, Buenos Aires, Argentina
25. Ana Esther Cecena, Instituto de Investigaciones Economicas, UNAM
Observatorio Latinoamericano de Geopolitica
26. Eleonora Quijada Cervoni, School of Language Studies, The Australian National University
27. Julie A. Charlip, Professor, Department of History, Whitman College
28. Norma Stoltz Chinchilla, Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies, California State University Long Beach
29. Christopher Clement, Visiting Professor Politics, Pomona College
30. Ron Chilcote, Professor Economics, University of California Riverside
31. Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
32. Antonia Darder, Professor Educational Policy and Latino Studies, University of Illinois , Urbana-Champaign
33. Michael Derham, University of Northumbria , School of Arts and Social Sciences
34. Monica Dias Martins, Professor Political Science, State University of Ceara , Brazil
35. Hector Diaz-Polanco, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia (CIESAS)
36.Luis Duno, Associate Professor of Hispanic Studies, Rice University , Houston , TX
37. Steve Ellner, Professor Political Science, University of Oriente , Venezuela
38. Arturo Escobar, Kenan Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, UNC-Chapel Hill , NC
39. Raul Fernandez, Professor, School of Social Science , University of California Irvine
40. Sujatha Fernandes, Queens College , City University of New York
41. Bill Fletcher, Jr., Executive Editor, BlackCommentator.com
42. Gabrielle Foreman, Visiting Distinguished Professor of Africana Studies, Bowdoin College
43. Cindy Forster, Associate Professor History, Scripps College
44. Felix Hernandez Gamundi, Comite '68 Pro Libertades Democraticas en Mexico
45. Raul Alvarez Garin, Comite '68 Pro Libertades Democraticas en Mexico
46. Jose Francisco Gallardo Rodriguez, General Brigadier y Doctor en Administracion Publica
47. Marco A. Gandasegui, (h) Professor, University of Panama
48. Lesley Gill, Professor and Chair of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University , Nashville , TN
49. Magdalena Gomez, Columnist, La Jornada
50. Gilbert Gonzalez, Professor School of Social Science, University of California , Irvine
51. Armando Gonzalez-Caban, Latin American Perspective
52. Jeffrey Gould, Professor of History, Indiana University .
53. Greg Grandin , Professor of History, Director of Graduate Studies, New York University
54. Angel Guerra, Journalist, La Jornada
55. Maria Guerra, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
56. Peter Hallward, Professor of Modern European Philosophy, Middlesex University , UK
57. Daniel Hellinger, Professor Political Science, Webster University
58. Ramona Hernandez, Director, CUNY Dominican Studies Institute & Professor of Sociology, The City College of New York
59. Derrick Hindery, Assistant Professor of International Studies and Geography, University of Oregon
60. Forrest Hylton, Ph.D. Candidate, History, NYU
61. Robin D. G. Kelley, Professor of History and American Studies
62. Misha Kokotovic, Associate Professor Department of Literature, UC San Diego
63. Maria Lagos, Associate Professor Emerita, Dept. of Anthropology, Lehman College , CUNY.
64. Sidney Lemelle, Professor of History, Pomona College
65. Deborah Levenson, Professor of History, Boston College
66. Nayar Lopez Castellanos, Universidad Autonoma de la Ciudad de Mexico
67. Gilberto Lopez y Rivas, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Centro Regional Morelos
68. Florencia E. Mallon, Julieta Kirkwood Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison , WI
69. Luis Martin-Cabrera, Assistant Professor, UCSD
70. Jorge Mariscal, Professor, Literature, University of California , San Diego
71. Peter McLaren, Professor, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California , Los Angeles
72. Frida Modak, Chilean Journalist
73. Daniel Molina, Comite '68 Pro Libertades Democraticas en Mexico
74. Jose Mollet, Profesor Asistente y escritor, Director del Centro de Investigaciones Socioculturales, Instituto de Cultura del Estado Falcon, Venezuela
75. Carlos Montemayor, Writer
76. Maricarmen Montes, Nuestra America
77. Josefina Morales, Investigadora UNAM, Mexico
78. Luis Hernandez Navarro, Journalist
79. Fabio Gabriel Nigra, Assistant Professor of History, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
80. Enrique Ochoa, Professor, Latin American Studies, California State University , Los Angeles
81. Elizabeth Oglesby, Department of Geography, University of Arizona
82. Jocelyn Olcott, Department of History, Duke University Press
83. Mercedes Olivera, Centro de Estudios Superiores de Mexico y Centroamerica, Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas.
84. Mark Overmyer -Velazquez, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut
85. Jose Herrera Pena Centro de Investigaciones Juridicas, Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo.
86. Rebeca Peralta, Nuestra America
87. Salvador E. Morales Perez, Instituto de Investigaciones Historicas, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo
88. Hector Perla, Assistant Professor Latin American and Latino Studies, University of California , Santa Cruz
89. John Pilger, journalist and documentary film maker
90. Deborah Poole, Professor, Anthropology, Johns Hopkins
91. Carlos Walter Porto Goncalves Professor do Programa de Pos-graduacao em Geografia da Universidade Federal Fluminense
92. Pablo A. Pozzi, Professor of History, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
93. Vijay Prashad, Professor, International Studies, Trinity College
94. Gerardo Renique, City College , City University of New York
95. William Robinson, Professor Sociology, University of California , Santa Barbara
96. Victor Rodriguez, Professor, Chicano Latino Studies, California State University , Long Beach
97. Rene Patricio Cardoso Ruiz, Director en Estudios Latinoamericanos, Investigador Nacional I del SIN, Facultad de Humanidades, Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Mexico
98. Jan Rus, Latin American Perspectives
99. Emir Sader, Secretario Ejecutivo de CLACSO, Sociologo, Argentina
100. Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of History, Pomona College
101. Rosaura Sanchez, Professor, Literature, University of California , San Diego
102. John Saxe-Fernandez, Essayist, Mexico
103. Alejandro M. Schneider, Assistant Professor of History, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina
104. Enrique Semo, Professor of Economics, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
105. T.M. Scruggs, Associate Professor, Ethnomusicology
106. Jose Steinsleger, Mexican Writer and Journalist
107. Beatriz Stolowicz, Universidad Autonoma Xochimilco
108. Oliver Stone, Filmmaker
109. Sinclair Thomson, Professor History, New York University
110.Steven Topik, Professor, History, University of California , Irvine
111. Jorge Turner, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
112. Carolina Verduzco, Comite '68 Pro Libertades Democraticas en Mexico
113. William H. Watkins, Professor, College of Education , Univ. of Illinois , Chicago
114. Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
115. Dr Stephen Wilkinson Assistant Director International Institute for the Study of Cuba London Metropolitan University
116. Gregory Wilpert, Ph.D, Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Brooklyn College
117. John Womack, Professor, History, Harvard
118. Nahirana Zambrano, Professor of American Studies, University of the Andes, Venezuela
###
[1]"Venezuela no es modelo para nadie," September 21, 2008, El Universal. Since El Universal is not necessarily a reliable source (see below), we confirmed that this quote from Mr. Vivanco was accurate.
[2]"Venezuela no es modelo para nadie," September 21, 2008, El Universal. Since El Universal is not necessarily a reliable source (see below), we confirmed that this quote from Mr. Vivanco was accurate.
[3] Petkoff describes the opposition "strategy that overtly sought a military takeover" from 1999-2003, and also writes about the opposition's use of its control over the oil industry to topple the government. "A Watershed Moment in Venezuela." Inter-American Dialogue Working Paper (July 2008)
[4] The United States has several laws that would have prevented such a strike from even having been carried out, and allowed for firing the participants and even jailing of its organizers.
[5] In addition to these opposition newspapers, the section on political discrimination cites extensively other opposition newspapers (El Nacional, Tal Cual) and the opposition group Sumate.
[6] https://www.eluniversal.com/2004/09/27/pol_art_chacon.shtml
[7] A few more examples: On August 4, 2004, El Universal ran a story on their front page that a recent poll showed the Yes vote against Chavez was winning and that there was "evidence that indicates the exit of Hugo Chavez as president." The poll turned out to be non-existent. Another opposition newspaper cited by HRW, El Nacional, has also fabricated stories in attempts to discredit the government. On January 12, 2003, El Nacional reported that an oil worker had been burned to death in an accident at El Palito oil refinery. On the day that the article ran, the reportedly "dead" worker appeared on television in good health. The HRW report also frequently cites the opposition group Sumate; Sumate maintained, on the basis of faked exit polls (for which it helped gather data), that the 2004 recall referendum was actually stolen by a fantastic electronic fraud. See "Polling and the Ballot in Venezuela www.cepr.net/documents/presentations/venezuela_polling.ppt . The opposition media in general promoted this bizarre conspiracy theory. (Chavez won the referendum, which was certified by international observers including the OAS and the Carter Center, by a margin of 58-41 percent).
[8] See https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/01/friendsinlowplaces
[9] "Two long-established daily newspapers-El Universal and El Nacional-were persistent critics"(p.69)
[10] A recent example is when the Editor of the Newspaper El Nuevo Pais, Rafael Poleo, stated on Globovision's talk show, Alo Ciudadano, that "Hugo is going to end up like Mussolini, hung with his head towards the floor." See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeotfcwBLqI
[11] For a more detailed but still not exhaustive account of the HRW report's exaggerations, errors, and omissions, see Gregory Wilpert, "Smoke and Mirrors: An Analysis of Human Rights Watch's Report on Venezuela" Venezuelanalysis.com October 17, 2008. https://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3882
LATEST NEWS
Indigenous Brazilians Mobilize for Land Demarcation, Tribal Rights
Participants in the 20th Free Land Camp demanded that leftist Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva deliver on his promises to Indigenous people.
Apr 26, 2024
Thousands of people rallied this week in BrasÃlia for the 20th annual Free Land Camp—the largest gathering of Indigenous people in Brazil—where participants demanded that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's administration safeguard their lands and cultural rights
Organized by the Association of Brazil's Indigenous Peoples (APIB), the five-day Free Land Camp—in Portuguese, Acampamento Terra Livre (ATL)—wrapped up Friday after a week of solidarity and action. Activities included rallies and marches; events commemorating slain Indigenous activists; and plenary sessions on the climate emergency, education, mental health, and more.
Some participants criticized Lula—who was notably absent from this year's ATL after attending the previous two camps—for what they said was his failure to fulfill campaign promises to Indigenous Brazilians—although attendees also acknowledged that his administration has taken major steps toward tackling illegal resource extraction and demarcating tribal lands.
Two big issues at this year's ATL—whose theme was "Our Existence is Ancestral: We Have Always Been Here!"—were the demarcation of Indigenous lands and opposition to proposed Amazon megaprojects, especially the plan to build the EF-170 railway through the heart of the imperiled rainforest in order to boost mining, logging, agribusiness, and other resource extraction and exploitation.
Last year, Brazilian lawmakers overruled Lula's partial veto of the highly contentious "Marco Temporal" law, which effectively paused demarcations and potentially opened more Indigenous lands to exploitation.
Demarcation confers legal protections against the illegal logging, mining, and ranching that have plagued rural Brazil for generations. On April 19—Indigenous Peoples Day in Brazil—Lula touted his government's demarcation of Aldeia Velha, land of the Pataxó people, in the northeastern state of Bahia, as well as the territory of the Karajá people in Cacique Fontoura, Mato Grosso.
Lula has acknowledged that his administration is falling short of its own demarcation pledges to Indigenous people and has promised to do more.
Alessandra Korap Munduruku, a member of the Munduruku people and a 2023 winner of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize, criticized the demarcation delay.
"Twenty years of resistance struggle by the Terra Livre camp. For 20 years we've been coming to BrasÃlia, occupying and seeking our rights," she said. "This year, we're waiting for the government to demarcate all our lands. But the government is letting the [state] governors decide for us."
"This is not what we expect. It's not the governor's decision to make. It's the federal government's," Korap Munduruku added. "This is written in the Constitution, and we see that we are being used."
Brazilian and international agribusiness interests, including commodity traders like U.S.-based Cargill, are pushing Lula's administration to proceed with EF-170—commonly called the Ferrogrão—over the objections of Indigenous peoples. Kayapó leader Doto Takak-Ire warned last year that the Ferrogrão threatens the survival of no less than 48 native peoples, calling the project "the railway of Indigenous genocide."
Earlier this year, Brazilian Transport Minister Renan Filho said that building the Ferrogrão is a top administration priority, sparking widespread disappointment and anger among the Kayapó and other Indigenous people who say they'll be adversely affected by the railway.
ATL participants on Thursday led a "train of death" through BrasÃlia's Esplanade of Ministries, a greenway bisecting numerous government buildings, to draw attention to the project's perils.
"Ferrogrão is the train of death, of deforestation," Korap Munduruku said Thursday.
"The railroad is not going to carry people, as they claim, but grain production of international companies that are financing this project," she continued. "It's a project that will affect not only Indigenous people, but also traditional communities and the people who live in the towns alongside its route."
"In addition, it is a project that will affect people all over the world because it would exacerbate climate change with the massive deforestation it would cause," Korap Munduruku added.
APIB executive coordinator Kleber Karipuna said the government did not adequately consult Indigenous peoples when planning the Ferrogrão.
"Hearings have only been held in cities, none in Indigenous villages," the Karipuna tribal leader said. "Once again, we demand that the protocols for consulting Indigenous peoples be respected. Additionally, the absence of a consultation protocol should not be used as an excuse to deny consultation of peoples affected by the project."
Takakpe Tapayuna Metuktire of the Raoni Institute, which promotes Indigenous rights and sustainability, warned that "Ferrogrão represents the death of kilometers and kilometers of forest."
"While we should be thinking about how to preserve what remains and think about alternative infrastructure projects that respect our rights, nature, and Indigenous and traditional peoples," Tapayuna Metuktire asserted. "We are fighting to prevent yet another project of death and destruction from prevailing in the Amazon. With Ferrogrão all that will be left is scorched earth."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Warns of 'Catastrophic' Imminent Escalation in Sudan
Warring factions in North Darfur state must "avoid locating military installations within or near densely populated areas, including towns and camps for internally displaced people," said one U.N. official.
Apr 26, 2024
The United Nations' top humanitarian affairs officials on Friday called for an immediate deescalation of hostilities in Sudan, where rival factions in the military government have been fighting for a year and where an attack on the city of El Fasher is reportedly imminent.
About 800,000 people in the city, the capital of North Darfur state, are in "extreme and immediate danger," U.N. aid operations director, Edem Wosornu, told the U.N. Security Council earlier this week, as she reported that clashes between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group, and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) are nearing El Fasher.
Fighting between the two groups has intensified in recent weeks, forcibly displacing an estimated 40,000 people.
The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said Friday that the security situation in North Darfur has left more than a dozen aid trucks with relief supplies for 122,000 people stranded in neighboring Northern state, unable to proceed into the only capital city in Darfur that is not controlled by RSF.
"A patchwork of armed actors, including the Darfur Joint Protection Forces, the SAF, and the RSF control different parts of the El Fasher area," Human Rights Watch reported this week. "Tense calm alternating with episodic fighting has prevailed for months."
Since April 14, when RSF began to push into El Fasher, at least 43 people—including women and children—have been killed due to fighting between the SAF and RSF.
"Civilians are trapped in the city, afraid of being killed should they attempt to flee," said Seif Magango, spokesperson for the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Volker Türk. "This dire situation is compounded by a severe shortage of essential supplies as deliveries of commercial goods and humanitarian aid have been heavily constrained by the fighting, and delivery trucks are unable to freely transit through RSF-controlled territory."
The lack of humanitarian aid in North Darfur has pushed the state toward a famine, with one child dying of starvation every two hours, according to a February report by Doctors Without Borders.
In December, the U.S. State Department announced an $85 million sale of radar and other military equipment to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which The New York Times reported last year has been covertly supporting the RSF.
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) proposed a joint resolution to block arms sales to the UAE in January, in light of its support for the paramilitary group.
Omar was among several lawmakers who wrote to President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken earlier this week, urging them to "deliver urgently-needed humanitarian assistance" and to help end the hostilities.
Sudanese-Australian writer Yassmin Abdel-Magied urged Americans on Friday to pressure lawmakers and the White House to take more action.
"There is a tiny window of opportunity for us to find a way to get the UAE... to make the RSF to stop in their tracks," said Abdel-Magied. "Maybe there's a way that we can avoid this massacre."
OCHA called on the warring parties to "take constant care to spare civilians and civilian objects in the conduct of military operations."
"They must, to the extent possible, avoid locating military installations within or near densely populated areas, including towns and camps for internally displaced people," said the office. "It is also imperative that the parties allow safe passage for civilians to leave El Fasher for safer areas."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With US Workers on the March, Southern States Take Aim at Unions
GOP leaders in the region are "truly astonished that workers might not trust their corporate overlords with their working conditions, pay, health, and retirement," said one critic.
Apr 26, 2024
Since six Southern Republican governors last week showed "how scared they are" of the United Auto Workers' U.S. organizing drive, Tennessee Volkswagen employees have voted to join the UAW while GOP policymakers across the region have ramped up attacks on unions.
The UAW launched "the largest organizing drive in modern American history" after securing improved contracts last year with a strike targeting the Big Three automakers—General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis. The ongoing campaign led to the "landslide" victory in Chattanooga last week, which union president Shawn Fain pointed to as proof that "you can't win in the South" isn't true.
The Tennessee win "is breaking the brains of Republicans in that region. They're truly astonished that workers might not trust their corporate overlords with their working conditions, pay, health, and retirement," Thom Hartmann wrote in a Friday opinion piece.
"The problem for Republicans is that unions represent a form of democracy in the workplace, and the GOP hates democracy as a matter of principle."
"The problem for Republicans is that unions represent a form of democracy in the workplace, and the GOP hates democracy as a matter of principle," he argued. "Republicans appear committed to politically dying on a number of hills that time has passed by. Their commitment to gutting voting rolls and restricting voting rights, their obsession with women’s reproductive abilities, and their hatred of regulations and democracy in the workplace are increasingly seen by average American voters as out-of-touch and out-of-date."
Just before voting began in Chattanooga, GOP Govs. Kay Ivey of Alabama, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Bill Lee of Tennessee, and Greg Abbott of Texas claimed that "unionization would certainly put our states' jobs in jeopardy" and the UAW is "making big promises to our constituents that they can't deliver on."
The next nationally watched UAW vote is scheduled for May 13-17 at a Mercedes-Benz plant in Vance, Alabama.
"Workers at our plant are ready for this moment," Mercedes employee Jeremy Kimbrell said last week. "We are ready to vote yes because we are ready to win our fair share. We are going to end the Alabama discount and replace it with what our state actually needs. Workers sticking together and sticking by our community."
As workers gear up for the election, the Alabama House of Representatives on Tuesday voted 72-30 for a bill that would withhold future economic incentive money from companies that voluntarily recognize unions rather than holding secret ballots. The state Senate previously passed a version of the legislation but now must consider it with the lower chamber's amendments.
The Associated Pressnoted that "Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed similar legislation on Monday" and that Tennessee already has one on the books.
With his signature on Senate Bill 362, "Kemp's aim is to thwart future organizing attempts by workers at automotive plants in Georgia, such as those operated by Hyundai Motor Group," according toThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
As the newspaper detailed:
Georgia has been a right-to-work state since 1947, when Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, allowing workers to refuse to join a union or pay dues, even though they may benefit from contracts negotiated by a union with their employer. Just 5.4% of workers in the state belonged to a union in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
But the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, protects the right for workers to form a union and collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions.
The new Georgia law is expected to be challenged in court, labor experts have said.
Acting U.S. Labor Secretary Julie Su told the AP on Thursday that she is not sure if the department will challenge the laws, given the National Labor Relations Board's responsibilities, but she stressed that "there are federal standards beneath which no worker should have to live and work."
In terms of joining a union, "that choice belongs to the worker, free from intervention, either by the employer or by politicians, free from retaliation and threats," Su said. "And what we are seeing is that workers who were thought to be too vulnerable to assert that right are doing it, and they're doing it here in the South."
The U.S. labor chief also slammed "unacceptable" union-busting efforts by companies and suggested that protecting the right to unionize is part of President Joe Biden's "promise to center workers in the economy."
"He has said he's the most pro-worker, pro-union president in history, and we are going to make good on that promise. And that includes making sure that workers have the right to join a union," Su said of the president.
Biden's commitment to workers and unionizing rights has caught the attention of GOP leaders. The governors' joint statement nodded to the UAW's January endorsement of the president, who is seeking reelection in November, and South Carolina's leader attacked the administration earlier this year.
During his January State of the State speech, McMaster declared that "we will not let our state's economy suffer or become collateral damage as labor unions seek to consume new jobs and conscript new dues-paying members. And we will not allow the Biden administration's pro-union policies to chip away at South Carolina's sovereign interests. We will fight. All the way to the gates of hell. And we will win."
News From the Statesreported Friday that "of all the foreign-owned automakers in South Carolina, BMW would be the most likely mark in the near term if enough of its workers show interest. The massive plant near Greer—the manufacturer's only U.S. production facility—employs some 11,000 people, twice the number of workers at Volkswagen in Tennessee and Mercedes in Alabama. It has operated in the Upstate for nearly 30 years and is in the process of adding electric vehicle lines."
However, a UAW spokesperson told the outlet that they don't yet have the numbers for the BMW and Volvo facilities in the state, and Marick Masters, a Wayne State University professor who studies the union, said: "I don't think they're writing anybody off but they know the history of unionization. And I would say South Carolina is a very inhospitable place for unions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular