Comunicación de Amnistía Internacional

Como quiera que la comunidad internacional está asumiendo un papel cada vez más activo en la crisis que atraviesa Venezuela, Amnistía Internacional ha indicado hoy que a la hora de tratar de encontrar formas de evitar una crisis política y una mayor polarización de la situación se debe partir, entre otros principios rectores, de una orientación global hacia la promoción a largo plazo de los derechos humanos.

La organización ha añadido: "La falta de respeto de los derechos humanos desde hace tiempo es una de las causas de la crisis, por lo que lo normal es que los instrumentos nacionales e internacionales creados para proteger tales derechos sirvan de marco para promover la resolución de esta crisis".

Si bien en estos momentos gran parte del debate se centra en cuestiones electorales, Amnistía Internacional ha instado a la comunidad internacional, y en especial a los países que integran el "grupo de amigos de Venezuela" y a las organizaciones de derechos humanos regionales e internacionales, a que promuevan una estrategia global basada en el pleno respeto de los derechos humanos como elemento fundamental para fortalecer el Estado de derecho.

El programa de derechos humanos propuesto por Amnistía Internacional para resolver la crisis venezolana hace hincapié en los siguientes aspectos:

• reforzar la justicia, entre otras formas, garantizando la independencia del poder judicial, y poner fin a la impunidad de que gozan los responsables de violaciones de derechos humanos cometidas en el pasado y en el presente a través de investigaciones imparciales y exhaustivas y de juicios sin dilación;
• garantizar que las fuerzas armadas y de seguridad no desempeñan una función política, sino que permanecen subordinadas a las autoridades civiles, y que actúan de forma imparcial y ajustándose plenamente a las normas relativas al uso de la fuerza;
• garantizar la libertad de expresión y el derecho a la información;
• permitir que los defensores de los derechos humanos realicen su labor sin temor;
• poner en práctica políticas concretas y eficaces para combatir la pobreza extrema y la exclusión, que han contribuido a la polarización extrema que sufre la sociedad venezolana.

Todos los agentes políticos venezolanos tienen la obligación de garantizar que estas cuestiones señaladas se abordan de forma seria y eficaz. Por su parte, la oposición debe asumir la responsabilidad, cuando ejerza su derecho legítimo a la libertad de expresión, reunión y asociación, de elegir métodos de protesta que no conculquen salvaguardias constitucionales.

Amnistía Internacional ha indicado: "Con demasiada frecuencia todos los partidos implicados en la crisis han instrumentalizado el argumento de los derechos humanos, apropiándose de él, manipulándolo y distorsionándolo para utilizarlo como otro arma más con el que fomentar la polarización y el enfrentamiento".

La organización ha añadido: "Ha llegado el momento de considerar el respeto absoluto de todos los derechos humanos de todos los venezolanos como uno de los pilares sobre el que construir una solución viable y duradera a la crisis. La comunidad internacional tiene un papel importante que desempeñar a este respecto".

Información general César Gaviria, secretario general de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA), ha estado facilitando las negociaciones entre la oposición y el gobierno para lograr una resolución pacífica de la crisis. Hasta el momento estas negociaciones no se han traducido en resultados concretos. La crisis política que venía amenazando la estabilidad política en Venezuela durante el pasado año alcanzó una nueva cota con la huelga general convocada por la oposición que comenzó el 2 de diciembre y que se encuentra actualmente en su octava semana. Se corre el peligro de que la situación de extrema tensión en el país desemboque en graves violaciones de derechos humanos.

Como respuesta a la tensión exacerbada y la aparente renuencia de las dos partes enfrentadas a encontrar una solución pacífica negociada a la crisis, varios gobiernos extranjeros han propuesto la formación de un grupo de países "amigos de Venezuela" que contribuyan a fomentar una solución negociada a la situación. Los países que integran este grupo son: Brasil, Chile, España, Estados Unidos, México y Portugal.

Dear Mr. Weisbrot I read your article on Venezuela that appeared in Sunday's Washington Post ("A Split-Screen in Strike Torn Venezuela" www.washingtonpost.com) and felt compelled to write to you about it. I am a Venezuelan, and I oppose Pres. Chavez, but in this letter, I do not intend to insult you or disregard everything you say. I know you have traveled to Venezuela and are aware of the shouting matches that sometimes pass off as discussions in the current political environment. I would simply like to point out several aspects of your argument that are, in the opinion of many, mistaken.   You state that what is happening is an "oil strike" rather than a general strike. That is probably true, although in Venezuela it is hard to distinguish the two. You also correctly state that private media is controlled by the opposition, and is increasingly biased against the government. What you fail to acknowledge is that, like in any country with a semblance of democracy, they have a right to be biased. Moreover, the state media, which is supported by our tax bolivares, is shamelessly pro-Chavez. You also fail to address why the media is biased against Chavez the way it is. Have you ever wondered what would happen if Pres. Bush continuously denounced CNN as being opposed to his agenda, or blaming NBC news for a strike, for causing economic chaos and the loss of his popularity? What would happen if Republican activists attacked the offices of CNN, or threw rocks at Andrea Mitchell or Wolf Blitzer? What if Mr. Bush were to use NPR as his personal propaganda machine? Do you think this would win Mr. Bush the favor of the media and/or reporters? True, the private media is pretty biased against Chavez. What do you propose to remedy this? Censorship? Takeover of TV stations?   The issue of the media is a complicated one. Ask any government and they will always complain about the media being after them. However, competent governments have an informational strategy that consists  of a bit more than berating, demeaning and threatening major media outlets. That is the least one would expect from a respectable administration - to work with the media in spite of the media's hatred of the government. This, however, is not how the Chavez regime operates.   You talk about the media shamelessly blaming the government for the Plaza Altamira massacre. On January 3rd, two "chavista" supporters were killed, apparently in a shootout that began when they violently confronted a much more numerous opposition march. The president and all his cabinet quickly blamed the Metropolitan Police and used the occasion to "deepen the intervention" of that body, forgetting that many Metropolitan Police officers and opposition marchers were also shot at and wounded. No proof, no fair judgment, no legal process was needed. Why do you not mention this? Is it bad when the media passes judgment without proof, but OK when the President does it? Shouldn't they be held to at least the same standard? Or perhaps, shouldn't the President be held to a higher standard? After all, if one doesn't like a particular channel, one can turn it off. It is much harder to turn off the government. I simply do not understand why you tolerate the behavior of Chavez when you find the same conduct in private media outlets inexcusable.   You say that the view in Caracas' barrios is that the opposition is bent on unfairly overthrowing a government that represents them. Why, then, do all opinion polls give Chavez at the most 30% support? Have the barrios all of the sudden become the minority in Venezuela? Has the country been taken over by the middle and upper classes? Reasonable polling shows that Chavez has minority support even within the poorest. The majority of the population (rich and poor, dark and white) want him out because Chavez has been a terrible President, and you know it. Independent polls state that close to 90% of the populations want early elections to end the standoff. How this is compatible with what you claim is the majority view in the barrios?   You also describe the oil situation saying: "Over the last quarter-century PDVSA has swelled to a $50 billion a year enterprise, while the income of the average Venezuelan has declined and poverty has increased more than anywhere in Latin America. Billions of dollars of the oil company's revenue could instead be used to finance health care and education for millions of Venezuelans." You're right, they could be. The questions is, what has Chavez done with all the oil income he's received? Your paragraph above would also describe the Chavez revolution's economic and social record. Are you aware that since Chavez took office, oil exports have increased 41% relative to the previous four years, public spending has increased (in dollar terms) by 46%, and yet real GDP per capita has declined by 17%, capital flight has increased 950%, the minimum wage has gone from $177 a month to $137 a month, unemployment has gone from 11% to 17% (and climbing), and crime has nearly doubled? Are these not important indicators? Do these seem like indicators of a progressive administration that is addressing poverty? Or, perhaps in your view, the poor don't mind greater unemployment and crime as long as the person on top looks and talks like them.   The Chavez government inherited many social and economic problems. This is undeniable, and is actually the cause of his ascension to power. However, any objective analysis has to conclude that Mr. Chavez has only made matters worse and that poverty has indeed increased, whether it is the fault of striking workers, businesses or his own fault. Moreover, this has happened under favorable external conditions, with a high price of oil. This administration's performance is simply inexcusable considering all the political, institutional and, yes, economic support it had at the beginning of its term. Most of Venezuela's elites and the media were quick to endorse Chavez when it was clear he was going to win comfortably in 1998. For two years, Col. Chavez held sky-high popularity levels, only to squander them due to inefficiency, corruption and permanent confrontation.   You also talk about class and race. Indeed, there are certain levels of classist and racist sentiment among the Venezuelan opposition. These are feelings all mixed societies face: after all, how many poor or black presidents has the U. S. had? However, this didn't prevent people from massively backing Chavez in the beginning. Have we all of the sudden discovered that Chavez is not white and not from the posh neighborhoods of Caracas? I'm afraid your line of argument on this matter cannot overcome the obstacle of Chavez's previous popularity. Nor can it overcome the high social mobility present in Venezuela, at least when compared to other Latin American countries.   Finally, you talk about the U. S. role in this whole crisis. I understand your reasons for criticizing the Bush administration on this matter, since you have an agenda like many Washington think-tanks do. However, the CIA and all its might would have never been able to orchestrate the massive demonstrations against the government taking place all over the country. Your over-emphasis of the U. S. in this crisis undermines the immense effort that millions of Venezuelans are undertaking to get rid of a corrupt, inefficient government that is a threat to its democracy. These people are not being paid, and they are not being manipulated. They are simply expressing their anger and frustration at a government that has simply become unviable and unable to address the basic needs of the Venezuelan people.   And, on a final note, go blue.   Best regards,   Juan C. Nagel Ph. D. Candidate Department of Economics The University of Michigan

www.sfgate.com Tuesday, January 21, 2003

(01-21) 12:22 PST BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) --

Inflation in Brazil for 2003 should drop to 8.5 percent from 12.5 percent in 2002, the country's central bank president said Tuesday.

The 2003 inflation target unveiled by Henrique Meirelles was within analysts' expectations, but is more than double the previous government estimate of 4 percent.

The target for 2004 inflation is 5.5 percent, up from the previous 3.8 percent government estimate, Meirelles said.

Consumer prices soared more than expected last year in large part because of a 35 percent drop in the value of the Brazilian currency, the real.

Investors sent the real plunging and cut off credit lines to Brazilian companies over concerns that Brazil's new leftist president would put in place policies that could lead to a default on the country's massive foreign debt. Brazil was also hit hard by rising oil prices.

Meirelles blamed last year's inflationary pressures on "a crisis of confidence in the Brazilian economy."

The real strengthened somewhat after President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva appointed Meirelles and other fiscal moderates to key economic posts, and pledged to honor Brazil's obligations.

Meirelles said that Brazil's 2003 yearly inflation rate would remain high through the fall, but should drop rapidly in the fourth quarter and meet the year-end target.

But he warned that the inflation targets for 2003 and 2004 could change if outside factors affect Brazilian consumer prices. One possibility cited by analysts is a U.S.-led war with Iraq.

An inflation target of 8.5 percent is compatible with 2003 economic growth in Brazil of 2.5 percent, Meirelles said.

Brazil's economy could contract 7.3 percent if the monetary authority tried to bring inflation down to 4 percent by the end of the year, the central bank said.

www.granma.cu BY MARELYS VALENCIA

o Raúl Dimas, from the United States, has lauded the University for All initiative, a television program involving a diverse array of science, humanities and language courses, including English. In his opinion, none of the courses in the United States has its quality or a profound interactive level.

Dimas asked how one can access Cuban television on the Internet. Let me take advantage of this opportunity to inform all of our readers who have inquired about the Roundtables and other programs. First, you have to download Windows Media Player 7.0; you can get this resource on the www.cubavision.cubaweb.cu website and access this program live, as well as national TV news, most popular videos, Cuban TV guide, etc. On www.tvcubana.com, a good part of our daily Channel 6 programming can be accessed live, along with other materials of general interest, between 6:30 p.m. and 1:00 a.m.

If you only want to catch the Roundtable, please click on www.mesaredonda.cu for details. Here you will find prior editions of this TV program, which you can also access through our www.granma.cu web site.

RECEIVED WITH THANKS

Jussara Seixas from Brazil tells us: "I want to thank Commander Fidel Castro for having honored us with his presence during President Lula's investiture, a show of affection and friendship by Fidel to the Brazilian people. I hope he will always come back."

To Vera Schmidt from Germany: you can familiarize yourself with the different university majors and other related information by contacting www.uh.cu.

From Colombia, Luis Angel Bedoya wishes to obtain a Granma International news summary. The weekly service we offer is on hold due to server deficiencies that are in the process of being ironed out. We soon should have it at your disposal soon and in a variety of different languages.

From the United States, Todd Ricker informs us that he belongs to a solidarity organization in the state of Maine, called Let Cuba Live. He would like to get a hold of an English copy of a recently published supplement on damages inflicted by the blockade against Cuba. Let me recommend the websites www.cubavsbloqueo.cu and www.antiterroristas.com, which contain ample information on this subject, including articles in English.

Also on our website, you can find reading materials in English by accessing the Specials Section.

Carlos Grille from Uruguay is interested in articles on the reorganization of the island's sugar industry. Let me recommend a series published by the Cuban daily Juventud Rebelde along with some recent speeches by Fidel on the Granma International website in the Documents Section. In particular, see the Cuban president's speech at the inaugural ceremony of the Sugar Worker Training Courses at the Eduardo García Lavandero sugar complex, October 21, 2002.

www.dailytimes.com.pk Walden Bello

Since Seattle, the anti-corporate globalisation movement has attained critical mass globally, in the sense that its ability to mass forces at significant junctures, such as the December 1999 Seattle WTO ministerial and the July 2001 Genoa meeting of theG-8, enabled it to effect international developments and acquire a high ideological and political profile globally

The World Social Forum (WSF), to be held on January 23-28 for the third year in Porto Alegre, Brazil, has become the prime organisational expression of a surging movement against corporate-driven globalisation. Since the events of September 11, 2001, it has also acquired a strong anti-war dimension, and opposition to US plans to launch a war on Iraq is expected to dominate this year’s proceedings.

The Porto Alegre phenomenon has had its share of critics, even among progressives. One prominent American intellectual has characterised it as a gathering mainly of people who want to “reform” globalisation. Another has blasted it as a forum dominated intellectually and politically by Northern political and social movements.

These criticisms have not, however, deterred the WSF from drawing widespread adherence globally. This year, some 100,000 people are expected to show up, up from 75,000 in 2002 and this year’s meeting will be the culmination of an exciting year-long global process. A number of cities, including Buenos Aires and Caracas, have held Porto Alegre-style social forums. It was, however, the regional social forums that were the exciting innovation of the year. The European Social Forum (ESF), held in Florence, Italy, on November 6-9, 2002, drew over 40,000 people, more than three times the expected number. Even more amazing was the ESF-sponsored million-person march on November 9 against the planned US war on Iraq, which took place with not one of the incidents of mass violence that scare mongerers like Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci had predicted.

Equally impressive was the recently concluded Asian Social Forum (ASF) that took place in the historic city of Hyderabad, India, from January 2 to 7, which drew over 14,400 registered participants, mostly from the host country, though there was representation from 41 other countries. Topics included resistance to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Dalit (outcaste) rights, the threat of fundamentalist movements, women’s empowerment, food sovereignty, big dams, the Palestinian struggle, natural resource theft, and alternative economics.

Former president of India K.R. Narayanan characterised the message of the ASF as a “voice for human rights, against violence, and against imperialism, and it is only right that it has come from India because it was India that sounded the death knell for an empire on which the sun was never supposed to set.”

One of the main reasons the Porto Alegre process is gaining such momentum is precisely that is provides a venue where movements and organisations can find ways of working together despite their differences. While the usual ultra leftist groups remain defiantly outside it, the Porto Alegre process in Brazil, Europe, and India has brought to the forefront the common values and aspirations of a variety of political traditions and tendencies.

The Porto Alegre process may be the main expression of the coming together of a movement that has been wandering for a long time in the wilderness of fragmentation and competition. The pendulum, in other words, may now be swinging to the side of unity, driven by the sense that in an increasingly deadly struggle against unilateralist militarisation and aggressive corporate globalisation, movements have no choice but to hang together or they will hang separately.

There is another development that is equally significant. Since Seattle, the anti-corporate globalisation movement has attained critical mass globally, in the sense that its ability to mass forces at significant junctures, such as the December 1999 Seattle WTO ministerial and the July 2001 Genoa meeting of theG-8, enabled it to effect international developments and acquire a high ideological and political profile globally.

Yet being a global actor did not necessarily translate into being a significant actor at the national level, where traditional elites and parties continued to be in a commanding position.

Over the last year, however, the movement has achieved critical mass at the national level in a number of countries, most of them in Latin America.

Not only has espousal of neoliberal policies been a sure fire path to electoral disaster, but political parties or movements promoting anti-globalisation policies have achieved electoral power in Ecuador and Brazil, joining the Hugo Chavez government in Venezuela at the forefront of the regional anti-neoliberal struggle. Perhaps most inspiring is the case of Luis Inacio da Silva or Lula in Brazil, who won 63 per cent of the presidential vote last October. Lula is the prime figure in the Workers’ Party (PT), and as everyone knows, the Workers’ Party is the main pillar of the WSF.

Not surprisingly, many of those trekking to Porto Alegre this year will be coming with one question uppermost in their mind: What can the victory of Lula and the PT teach us about coming to power in our countries?

Many personalities of the international progressive movement are slated to come to Porto Alegre. By far the most interesting, most popular, most sought after will be Lula, the personification of the new Latin American left. And this year’s meeting will be, in many ways, a celebration of a movement that, by achieving a remarkable measure of political unity amidst diversity, has changed the face of Brazilian politics. —DT-IPS

Walden Bello is professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines and executive director of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South