OAS Report Chastises Venezuela

[Bud Struggle]

It seems Chavez has some problems...human rights abuse...no freedom of thought and expression.

The Organization of American States, in a rare and forceful critique of a member state, on Wednesday issued a scathing report that accuses Venezuela's government of human-rights abuses, political repression, and eroding the separation of powers among government branches in the oil-rich country.

The report, in more than 300 pages, offers a detailed analysis of shortcomings in areas including "political rights and participation in public life," "independence and separation of public powers," and "freedom of thought and expression."

In its sternly worded conclusion, it blames the government of President Hugo Chávez—already reeling from a recession and energy shortages that have undermined his popularity in recent months—for "aspects that contribute to the weakening of the rule of law and democracy."

The report wields significant heft because it bears the stamp of the OAS, a 35-member organization that groups most of the governments in the Americas. The Venezuelan government immediately protested the findings, but it can't easily dismiss a report that came from an independent intergovernmental commission as the work of political rivals...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703510204575085801117383696.html

[RGacky3]

I'd like to know Specifically what is difference in Venezuela from other Latin American countries as far as human rights go, or how specifically the government suppresses freedom of thought and expression. The only thing I can think of is not renewing a licence to a TV station that actively took part in a military coup, in the United States we call that high treason.

[Demogorgon]

Isn't this somewhat undermined by the fact that there is much open criticism of Chavez in Venezuela and that nobody is covering up that his popularity is down?

[Comrade B]

Do you really think people here care very much about the OAS's opinion? They did some great fucking work on Honduras... spec-fucking-tacular.

So what, he shuts down news stations that support violent opposition to him. In the US when Bill Mahr (or whatever the fuck the spelling of his name is) stated that terrorists are not cowards, as Bush has been raving. It is undeniable that it takes some balls to blow yourself up (not that I would at all support the actions on September 11). Because he said this he lost his show. He was rehired later, but as an entertainment program on a private network, not a talk show host.

Imagine if Bill Mahr had celebrated the bombing of the Pentagon. Do you think he would have had a television show? What do you think would happen to the network?
How about if the military had staged a coup and tried to overthrow the government and Bill Mahr had celebrated the new leadership before they had even won the fight?

[RGacky3]

Do you really think people here care very much about the OAS's opinion? They did some great fucking work on Honduras... spec-fucking-tacular.

So what, he shuts down news stations that support violent opposition to him. In the US when Bill Mahr (or whatever the fuck the spelling of his name is) stated that terrorists are not cowards, as Bush has been raving. It is undeniable that it takes some balls to blow yourself up (not that I would at all support the actions on September 11). Because he said this he lost his show. He was rehired later, but as an entertainment program on a private network, not a talk show host.

Imagine if Bill Mahr had celebrated the bombing of the Pentagon. Do you think he would have had a television show? What do you think would happen to the network?
How about if the military had staged a coup and tried to overthrow the government and Bill Mahr had celebrated the new leadership before they had even won the fight?


Exactly, we have to look at it objectivaly, without double standards, thats why I want to know EXACTLY what Venezuela is doing to stop free speach, and whatever it is, is it more than the general practice of most of the Americas?

[Dean]

Venezuela is doing a lot more to protect economic rights in Venezuela than most leaders in s. America are doing, that that isn't saying much. Representative democracy is an inherently bourgeois system, so it was bound to largely be in opposition to his reforms.

As others pointed out, nations like Brazil and Chile don't really need to fight with their domestic corporate powers or other branches of the government, they're in bed with them. I think previous examples of Chavez-style socialism explicitly show that his revolution is doomed to failure. But criticism as represented in the OP is definitely out of line, for the reasons I outlined above.

[Dimentio]

Exactly how democratic are the neighbouring states? In Colombia, they evicted tens of thousands of homeless people recently just because the president wanted a park renovated.

People are also disappearing in Colombia.

[Bud Struggle]

Exactly how democratic are the neighbouring states?

That's a red herring. If Chavez is just as bad as any other Banana Republic dictator--why bother with him? And if he is a Socialist--why should these dictatorial practices occur?

The question becomes is Socialism in practice any better than Capitalism when it comes to human rights?

[Dimentio]

That's a red herring. If Chavez is just as bad as any other Banana Republic dictator--why bother with him? And if he is a Socialist--why should these dictatorial practices occur?

The question becomes is Socialism in practice any better than Capitalism when it comes to human rights?

The thing is not that socialists support Chàvez, but that bourgeois media is focusing on every violation of political plurality that exists in Venezuela, while ignoring worse transgressions in other nations.

I am very critical of Chàvez myself, mostly because of his economic policies and the personality cult around him. But what mainstream media is doing is to exaggerate and desperately trying to paint Venezuela as a dictatorship. While there are authoritarian tendencies which must be criticised, the lack of reports on people who are shot by the government or prisoned because of their views are indicative that there aren't really any serious violations of human rights in Venezuela.

Instead, the media is running stories on Chàvez creating an own time zone for Venezuela, his statements regarding the Haiti Earthquake and his ideas about shower times to try to paint him as erratic and as a dictator. If there had been serious violations, the US media would happily have reported that.

There is actually one example though. Two students were killed in demonstrations last year by state police (like the USA, Venezuela has a federal system). The reason why media did not report it further than that "two students were killed" was that those two students were Pro-Chàvez counter-protesters who were killed by the local police of a state run by a conservative governor.

One of Chàvez predecessors actually killed over a thousand people in a demonstration against the government in 1989, as a side-note.

[Bud Struggle]

The thing is not that socialists support Chàvez, but that bourgeois media is focusing on every violation of political plurality that exists in Venezuela, while ignoring worse transgressions in other nations. You are right there. But is that because Venezuela is Socialist or that Chavez is a bombastic "rock star" that commands media attention to everything he does? In that respect Chavez is his own worst enemy.


I am very critical of Chàvez myself, mostly because of his economic policies and the personality cult around him. But what mainstream media is doing is to exaggerate and desperately trying to paint Venezuela as a dictatorship. While there are authoritarian tendencies which must be criticised, the lack of reports on people who are shot by the government or prisoned because of their views are indicative that there aren't really any serious violations of human rights in Venezuela. That is a fair estimation.


Instead, the media is running stories on Chàvez creating an own time zone for Venezuela, his statements regarding the Haiti Earthquake and his ideas about shower times to try to paint him as erratic and as a dictator. If there had been serious violations, the US media would happily have reported that. Again--Chavez doing those outlandish acts and pronouncements create media attention. I think if the president of Argentinia did and said those kinds of things--it would get noticed, too. They are a bit "nutty" to say the least.


One of Chàvez predecessors actually killed over a thousand people in a demonstration against the government in 1989, as a side-note. That is a good point.

[Dimentio]

You are right there. But is that because Venezuela is Socialist or that Chavez is a bombastic "rock star" that commands media attention to everything he does? In that respect Chavez is his own worst enemy.

That is a fair estimation.

Again--Chavez doing those outlandish acts and pronouncements create media attention. I think if the president of Argentinia did and said those kinds of things--it would get noticed, too. They are a bit "nutty" to say the least.

That is a good point.

Silvio Berlusconi is similar in indulgement into what people may think of as eccentric behaviour. For example, he has had group orgies with young prostitutes in his villa, given out two albums with love songs and legalised fascist militias. He has also tailored laws to both get his allies perpetually reelected and himself freed of charges.

CNN, Fox News and other large media houses in the United States have run stories depicting Berlusconi's eccentrities as well. But the tone is different. Rather than "look here is an erratic madman" it is "look what that whacky prime minister of Italy is doing now". Berlusconi is painted as eccentric, a bit creepy, but ultimately benevolent.

The main reason that Chàvez is disliked is neither for his eccentrities or his socialism in itself, but that he is actively pursuing a course away from the US sphere of interes. What makes the United States dislike him is his close ties with rivals (Russia) or enemies (Iran). He has pursued that course because the fact that the opposition in Venezuela - which has already attempted to topple him once - is on friendly terms with the United States.

As for Chàvez's eccentrities, they are a part of his political style. He's a "pointing with the entire hand"-type populist with loud speeches and sweeping generalisations. While that kind of anti-intellectual style tend to sit bad with intellectuals and educated people, ordinary workers tend to love such leaders (compare Sarah Palin).

[RGacky3]

And if he is a Socialist--why should these dictatorial practices occur?

The question becomes is Socialism in practice any better than Capitalism when it comes to human rights?

What are these dictatorial practices? The question about Socialism? First of all Venezuela is'nt really socialist, it has had some socialistic reform. Venezuela is a republic, that has democratic aspects and none democratic aspects LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE AMERICAS, the difference is though, some socialistic reforms Hugo Chavez is doing.

[Drace]

This is hard to believe, especially when Chavez was voted by a popular vote (63%), and who actively says that the Bolivar socialist government will be the most democratic ever.

Why is it that nation that goes on a socialist route always ends up with some shit evidence of repression of human rights?

[Kingpin]

The "real" reason why Chavez is looked at in a bad light is because he doesn't take orders from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and openly challenges their hegemony.

[Drace]

I don't know though, the OAS has criticized the US a lot too.

[Nolan]

Lol, I wonder how much the governors of Zulia and Tachira payed them to say this.

[Robert]

Human Rights Watch provides some interesting and trustworthy (http://www.hrw.org/en/node/64174/section/2) analysis on Brer Hugo.

HRW is hard on the USA (http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/11/16/fighting-terrorism-fairly-and-effectively-0) too, so that presumably gives them some credibility around this madhou-- that is, this clearinghouse of progressive ideas.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Again--Chavez doing those outlandish acts and pronouncements create media attention. I think if the president of Argentinia did and said those kinds of things--it would get noticed, too. They are a bit "nutty" to say the least.


Aye, but Bud, you know that the claims that Chavez thinks that the Hati eathquake was caused by an America sesmic weapon are total bs.

I started a thread on those claims, and appernetly the "evidence" the paper had that Chavez made them (I think it was the New York Times or something) was some from one article in a random Spanish newspaper...and thats it. No interviews, no videos, no statements from the Venezuelaian government, just some minor article in a tiny Spanish newspaper that the official media picked up and ran with.

It was surprising how obviously dishonest the media were being, even to a commie. So it wouldn't suprise me if the other "nutty" claims Chavez has made are also totally made up.

[Dimentio]

Human Rights Watch provides some interesting and trustworthy (http://www.hrw.org/en/node/64174/section/2) analysis on Brer Hugo.

HRW is hard on the USA (http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/11/16/fighting-terrorism-fairly-and-effectively-0) too, so that presumably gives them some credibility around this madhou-- that is, this clearinghouse of progressive ideas.

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/64174/section/2

Hardly worse than the USA in the 1950's or during the most intense time following 9/11. If there had been any worse violations of Human Rights, I'm sure the HRW would have mentioned it.

Cuba's a dictatorship, Venezuela isn't that (yet anyway).

[RGacky3]

HRW its a respectible organization in my opinion, in the sense that it is consistant.

That being said, what they accuse Chavez of doing is really not much in compairson to the rest of the "representative" nations in the area, is it acceptable? No, is it worse than the rest? Not really.

[Robert]

Cuba's a dictatorship, Venezuela isn't that (yet anyway).

Ban him.

Seriously, why do we get our balls busted for stating the obvious. You they make a moderator.:lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Ban him.

Seriously, why do we get our balls busted for stating the obvious. You they make a moderator.:lol:

Droit de seigneur. :D

[Comrade B]

Ban him.

Seriously, why do we get our balls busted for stating the obvious. You they make a moderator.
Leftists don't all agree on everything. Personally, there are some who I wouldn't call leftists at all on this website, but anarchists are still definitely left, regardless of if you are a communist or not you should recognize that.

I critically support Cuba, but I can sure as hell see where the criticism comes from.
He is an anarchist (I think, sorry if I got that wrong)... his ideology has no connection to Cuba. This website is for militant anti-fascists (mostly anarchists already), anarchists, and communists.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif