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
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'One Step Closer': Arizona House Votes to Repeal 1864 Abortion Ban
"With a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever," one state campaigner said of a November ballot measure.
Apr 24, 2024
Three Republicans in the Arizona House of Representatives on Wednesday joined with Democrats to advance legislation that would repeal an 1864 ban on abortion—a development rights advocates welcomed while stressing that the fight is far from over.
The 32-28 vote on House Bill 2677—with GOP Reps. Tim Dunn (25), Matt Gress (4), and Justin Wilmeth (2) voting in favor—was the third attempt in as many weeks to pass repeal legislation since the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the ban.
"The state Senate could vote on the repeal as early as next Wednesday, after the bill comes on the floor for a 'third reading,' as is required under chamber rules," according toNBC News. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs on Wednesday toldThe Washington Post that "I am hopeful the Senate does the right thing and sends it to my desk so I can sign it."
Applauding the House passage of H.B. 2677, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona president and CEO Angela Florez said that "today, Arizona is one step closer to repealing the state's Civil War-era total abortion ban. While the repeal still must pass the Senate, this is a major win for reproductive freedom."
"We must celebrate today's vote in support of abortion rights and harness our enthusiasm to spread the word and urge lawmakers in the Senate to support this necessary repeal bill," she continued. "Despite this step forward, Arizonans cannot stop fighting."
Florez noted that "even with the repeal of the Civil War-era ban, the state will still have a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that denies people access to critical care. And lawmakers continue to attack Arizonans' ability to access reproductive healthcare. Our right to control our bodies and lives is hanging on by a thread."
"Thankfully, voters will have the opportunity to take back control if the Arizona Abortion Access Act is on the ballot this November," she added. "Abortion bans are out-of-step with the will of Arizonans and will force pregnant people to leave their communities for essential healthcare. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona will continue fighting to ensure everyone has the right to make decisions about their health and futures."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient.
The coalition supporting the amendment, Arizona for Abortion Access, highlighted on social media that the House-approved bill "did not include the emergency clause required to stop the 1864 ban from taking effect on June 8," meaning H.B. 2677 wouldn't apply until 90 days after the end of the legislative session.
Coalition campaign manager Cheryl Bruce said that "with a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever. We remain committed to taking these decisions out of the hands of extremist politicians."
Arizona is one of multiple states where rights advocates are promoting abortion rights ballot measures this cycle. Reproductive freedom is also dominating political races at all levels, including the presidential contest. Democratic President Joe Biden is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump in November.
"Donald Trump is responsible for Arizona's abortion ban. Women in the state are still living under a ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and have been stripped of the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions," said Julie Chávez Rodriguez, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' reelection campaign manager.
While the presumptive GOP nominee has tried to distance himself from the Arizona Supreme Court's reinstatement of a 160-year-old abortion ban, he has also campaigned on his three appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court who helped reverse Roe v. Wade.
"Trump brags that he is 'proudly' the person responsible for these bans and if he retakes power, the chaos and cruelty he has created will only get worse in all 50 states," Chávez Rodriguez said. "President Biden and Vice President Harris are the only candidates who will stop him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Dodges Growing Calls for Probe of Mass Graves at Gaza Hospitals
"Somehow I don't think the U.S. State Department would defer to Russia as a credible source to investigate itself if a mass grave were discovered in Ukrainian territory it had occupied," said one legal expert.
Apr 24, 2024
While continuing to give Israel billions of dollars in support to wage war on the Gaza Strip, the Biden administration this week has declined to join the growing global demands for an international probe into mass graves discovered at hospitals in the besieged Palestinian enclave.
Two journalists on Tuesday questioned Vedant Patel, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, about the administration's response to the hundreds of bodies found at Gaza City's al-Shifa Hospital and Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis as well as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk's call for an independent investigation.
"Would you support such an independent investigation?" Said Arikat asked during a press briefing. Patel responded, "Right now, Said, we are asking for more information... That is squarely where we are leaving the conversation."
Patel added that "I don't have any details to match, confirm, or offer as it relates to that. We're aware of those reports, and we have asked the government of Israel for additional clarity and information. And that's where I'm at."
When Said asked a follow-up about potential U.S. support for a probe, Patel reiterated that the administration is awaiting information from the Israeli government.
Later, Niall Stanage asked Patel to explain U.S. "resistance" to supporting a probe, the spokesperson insisted that "it's not about resistance to this particular situation, it is me not wanting to speak in detail about something which Said posed as a hypothetical question when, from the United States' perspective, I don't have any additional information on this aside from the public reporting."
After Patel again stressed that the administration has asked Israel for more information, Stanage inquired, "And do you believe the government of Israel is a credible source in enlightening you?"
The spokesperson interrupted Stanage to say, "We do."
While supporting the six-month Israeli assault on Gaza that the International Court of Justice has found to be plausibly genocidal, the Biden administration is also arming Ukrainians' resistance to a Russian invasion. Brian Finucane, a senior adviser for the Crisis Group's U.S. program and a former legal adviser at the State Department, pointed to the latter.
"Somehow I don't think the U.S. State Department would defer to Russia as a credible source to investigate itself if a mass grave were discovered in Ukrainian territory it had occupied," Finucane said on social media in response to Stanage's questioning.
Meanwhile, European Union spokesperson Peter Stano made clear Tuesday that the E.U. supports an independent probe.
"This is something that forces us to call for an independent investigation of all the suspicions and all the circumstances, because indeed it creates the impression that there might have been violations of international human rights committed," Stano said. "That's why it's important to have independent investigation and to ensure accountability."
Human rights groups around the world joined the call for an independent investigation on Wednesday, as the official death toll in Gaza hit 34,262 with 77,229 people injured and thousands more missing and presumed dead beneath the rubble.
In an Arabic statement translated by Al Jazeera, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor said that the number of bodies found in the mass graves is "alarming, and requires urgent international action, including the formation of an independent international investigation committee."
The group added that some of those killed were subjected to "premeditated murder as well as arbitrary and extrajudicial executions while they were detained and handcuffed."
Amnesty International senior director of research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns Erika Guevara Rosas said in a statement that "the harrowing discovery of these mass graves underscores the urgency of ensuring immediate access for human rights investigators, including forensic experts, to the occupied Gaza Strip to ensure that evidence is preserved and to carry out independent and transparent investigations with the aim of guaranteeing accountability for any violations of international law."
"Lack of access for human rights investigators to Gaza has hampered effective investigations into the full scale of the human rights violations and crimes under international law committed over the past six months, allowing for the documentation of just a tiny fraction of these abuses," she noted. "Without proper investigations to determine how these deaths took place or what violations may have been committed, we may never find out the truth of the horrors behind these mass graves."
Guevara Rosas continued:
Mass grave sites are potential crime scenes offering vital and time-sensitive forensic evidence; they must be protected until professional forensic experts with the necessary skills and resources can safely carry out adequate exhumations and accurate identification of remains.
The absence of forensic experts and the decimation of Gaza's medical sector as a result of the war and Israel's cruel blockade, along with the lack of availability of the necessary resources for the identification of bodies such as DNA testing, are huge obstacles to the identifications of remains. This denies those killed the opportunity to have a dignified burial and deprives families with relatives missing or forcibly disappeared the right to know and to justice—leaving them in a limbo of uncertainty and anguish.
Noting that the International Court of Justice directed Israel to preserve evidence in its initial genocide case order, Guevara Rosas said that "amid a total vacuum of accountability and mounting evidence of war crimes in Gaza, Israeli authorities must ensure they comply with the ICJ ruling by granting immediate access to independent human rights investigators and ensuring that all evidence of violations is preserved."
"Third states must pressure Israel to comply with the ICJ orders by allowing the immediate entry into the Gaza Strip of independent human rights investigators and forensic experts, including the U.N.-appointed Commission of Inquiry and investigators of the International Criminal Court," she added. "There can be no truth and justice without proper, transparent independent investigations into these deaths."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular