www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 8:06:26 AM By: Priscilla West

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:01:36 -0600 From: Priscilla West priwest@tulsaconnect.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Response to Dawn Gable

Dear Editor: Settling into bed last night, I got to wondering about Dawn Gable. What sort of person must she be to write such a bizarre response to my letter?

From her letter we know that Dawn Gable is an American, educated in biology, who lived four years here in Oklahoma. While I understand how the Bible-belt conservatism in this part of the US might send some packing, even the most liberal would not readily trade it for a "mud house" in rural, underdeveloped Venezuela. So I mused that she could be involved with mission or charity work.

One thing that made Dawn Gable's letter stick in my mind was the bizarre implication of my own moral decrepitude based, apparently, on a presumed aversion to "mosquitoes [sic.] ... and taking freezing cold showers." Civilization has come a long way in the past century or so, and many people (including myself) do prefer urban life to rural... but something more was bugging me... it just didn't add up.

Chatting on Instant Messenger that evening, a friend had informed me that Dawn Gable published a letter in the Caracas Daily Journal. He speculated that she could be a figment of the Chavez propaganda machine. Hmm ... an interesting possibility, as several cases of fictitious Chavez supporters with American-sounding names have been reported! It would also make sense, considering her effusive praise of Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution" and her closing quote by Che Guevara...

Finally I could stand it no longer. I threw back the covers, fired up the computer, and did a Yahoo search for "Dawn Gable biologist." I first found a document written by Dawn Gable about "Bolivarian" education reform, which I won't detail here. (Suffice it to say that her vision for the indoctrination Venezuelan youth is a frightening one)  Next, the search yielded an unexpected result: An Amazon.com ("Listmania") list created by Dawn Gable, entitled "Latin American Revolution... a course."

Provided she does not modify or delete the page, you may view Dawn Gable's recommended reading list here.

In the event that she does remove or change her list, I reproduce most of it (with short excerpts) here:

In the Shadow of the Liberator: The Impact of Hugo Chavez on Venezuela and Latin America (Richard Gott) -- This book opens with a famous quote by Hugo Chavez, "In the name of Cuba and of Venezuela, I appeal for the unity of our two peoples, and of the revolution that we both lead..." and goes on in its first pages to describe Fidel Castro as the "most famous revolutionary hero in Latin America."

Latin America in the Era of the Cuban Revolution (Thomas C. Wright) -- This book serves "to illuminate ... revolution in Cuba and the impact of the Cuban model of insurrection upon the rest of Latin America."

Che: Images of a Revolutionary (Fernando Diego Garcia) -- the book's contents are obvious. Dawn Gable herself posts the comment, "indulge..... fall in love with latin americas greatest 20th century hero."

Socialism and Man in Cuba (Che Guevara, Fidel Castro) -- no excerpt available.

Weavers of Revolution: The Yarur Workers and Chile's Road to Socialism (Peter Winn) -- No clear excerpt is available on Amazon.com, but one chapter is titled "The End of the Democratic Road."

Cuba: Talking About Revolution (Juan Antonio Blanco, Medea Benjamin) -- "I had seen a lot of beggars in Havana -- that was a common sight in Cuba before the revolution ... that's when as a young kid I realized that like my parents, I too, was a communist and a revolutionary."

Che Guevara Reader: Writings by Ernesto Che Guevara on Guerrilla Strategy, Politics & Revolution (Che Guevara) -- My carpal tunnel syndrome is kicking in, but by now we all get the picture!

While the more politically savvy Chavez supporter is careful to draw a distinction between "Communism" and "Bolivarianism," the ground-level activist such as Dawn Gable clearly is not. For most readers of the twenty-first century, it is unnecessary to detail Socialism's pitfalls or provide examples of leaders corrupted by absolute power.

I cherish the fact that every American, including Dawn Gable, is entitled to her own opinion. While I will refrain from pronouncing personal judgement, I ask that VHeadline.com readers ... be they rightist, leftist, nudist, etc... simply be aware that Dawn Gable harkens to the seductive call of revolution. Her distinctly anti-capitalism, anti-Democracy, anti-globalization stance is representative of the Chavez regime's. Hugo Chavez has had several years' head start on "posturing" through manipulation of international media. Now that Venezuela has realized its mistake in electing him, it's time for the rest of the world to wake up and smell the Dawn Gables!

Priscilla West priwest@tulsaconnect.com Tulsa OK

www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 7:44:36 AM By: Francisco Toro

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:50:47 -0400 From: Francisco Toro franciscotoro@fastmail.fm To: editor@vheadline.com Subject: How to slide into civil war without really trying...

Dear Editor: I think I'm pretty well covered against charges of alarmism on the subject at hand, though it's definitely the most sensitive on the agenda in Venezuela these days. And the reason I think I'm pretty well covered is that over the last year or so I've argued again and again that, in its first four years in office, the most puzzling thing about the Chavez administration was not how much violence it deployed, but how little.

I've made that point repeatedly, both in print and informally, and it sure hasn't made me any friends.

As far as many people in the opposition are concerned, saying anything that might even indirectly reflect favorably on the government at all is close to heresy. And they could always reply with numerous cases of intimidation, harassment, baton beatings, rubber pelleting, tear gassing and even sporadic shooting to try to paint Chavez' as a kind of mobster regime.

• Of course, I don't dispute that that kind of violence took place, and indeed it continues to take place. Some of my friends have been among the targets. But what I meant was that the widespread, indiscriminate, murderous use of violence to achieve political ends remained oddly absent from the mix.

I say "oddly" because everything else we knew about the regime suggested it should have had no compunctions about using violence -- the theatrical militarism, the cult-of-personality, the autocratic intolerance, the use of threats in place of arguments, the endless chatter about revolutionary this and revolutionary that, the demonization of opponents, the entire ideological structure of chavismo seemed like a complex web of justifications for violence. Yet when the rubber hit the road, when the time came to actually act on that ideological combo-pack, Chavistas seemed weirdly bashful.

What's alarming, though, is that little by little they're getting over it.

You can see it happening in Venezuela these days. The process is gradual, yes, and it doesn't happen all at once. But you can actually see it happening in front of your eyes now, on your TV screen. It's unmistakable. And it's spooky as hell.

When Chavistas first turned their guns on opposition protesters, back on April 11th, the country was so uniformly stunned that Chavez was actually toppled for 48 hours there in response. It was just inconceivable to us back then, that one Venezuelan could shoot another over something so fleeting and banal as a political disagreement. These days, it's become almost routine. It barely elicits outrage anymore, just a grim shake of the head and a knot in the pit of your stomach.

And how could we be surprised at this point?

Ever since August 14th, when the Supreme Tribunal ruled that there had been no military rebellion on April 11th, groups of Chavistas have been using guns on us more and more often. The gunmen have been fully identified several times now, by stunningly brave amateur cameramen. The private TV stations -- you know, the ones Chavez wants shut down (I wonder why?) -- play the videos again and again. Yet the government never acts against these people. The only gunman now in detention is Joao de Gouveia, who wound up in jail merely because he broke the 11th commandment of the Chavista shooter: if you're shooting in an opposition-controlled area, then for chrissake don't get caught by a municipal cop.

Yet, even by the standards of this gradual routinization of violence, the shooting spree against the opposition in Charallave was especially troubling ... on several levels. First off, because the opposition wasn't even ambushed ... as on so many other occasions ... by government supporters waiting at the end of their march path. No, this time, the gunmen were literally delivered to the march's starting point, opening fire from the roofs of speeding jeeps as a huge crowd of all ages and genders was getting ready to start marching. (Again, one very gutsy home video enthusiast has the footage to prove it).

So there was no question of "clashing crowds" here, or "policemen trying to keep the groups apart" or any of the standard repertoire of obfuscation and smoke-screening the government usually employs to keep their denials plausible. None of that ... just a large crowd of people "armed only with flags and whistles" as the cliche goes, suddenly and randomly attacked for no reason at all other than being opposed to the autocrat.

When you peel away all of the nonsense and the visceral outrage and you just stare that situation straight in the face, what word comes to your mind to describe it? And I am mindful of the way the term has been abused for political gain over the last 17 months, but when I look at what happened in Charallave, I can think of only one word to describe it: terrorism ... and state terrorism, at that.

It's not just the incredible cowardice of the attack, its openness, its shamelessness. Perhaps even worse is the way the Chavista mayor of Charallave more or less claimed responsibility for the attacks, in a statement that can't be that far off from what Hezbollah issues after shooting up some Israeli settlers. After proudly announcing that Charallave is "Chavista territory," Mayor Marisela Mendoza said she hoped "it won't even occur to the opposition to try to march here again," apparently not fully aware that she was coming perilously close to confessing to being an accessory to murder. Because, oh yes, did I forget to mention that? Among the dozens of wounded there was one guy who never made it out of that march.

But then, in Venezuela, that barely counts as news these days.

The fear, the very widespread fear, is that we're only starting to see the top few inches of the tip of a distant iceberg here. I don't think there's any doubt anymore that the government has armed many, many of its civilian supporters, trained them, and is now working on getting them used to shooting at us when the order comes without thinking twice.

That charming Mayor Mendoza there makes it achingly clear that some of them no longer feel the need to go through the motions of covering up their tracks. It's a fantastically dangerous situation.

It's just a fantastically dangerous situation.

Francisco Toro franciscotoro@fastmail.fm

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.amnestyusa.org AI Index: AMR 53/002/2003 Publish date: 21 January 2003

As the international community is taking an increasingly active role in the Venezuelan crisis, Amnesty International today said that a long-term, comprehensive human rights vision must be one of the guiding principles in seeking ways to avoid a political breakdown and further polarization of the situation.

"Long-standing disrespect for human rights is one of the roots of the crisis, so it is only natural that national and international instruments set up to protect those rights should provide a framework to promote its resolution," the organization added.

While much of the debate at the moment is focused on electoral issues, Amnesty International urged the international community -- and in particular the "group of friends" and international and regional human rights organizations -- to promote a comprehensive strategy based on the full respect for human rights as a key to strengthening the rule of law.

Amnesty International proposed human rights agenda for the Venezuelan crisis focuses on:

• strengthening justice - including by guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary -- and eradicating impunity for past and present human rights violations through impartial and thorough investigations and prompt trials;

• ensuring that the armed forces and security forces do not play a political role, remain subordinated to the civilian authorities and that they act impartially and in full compliance with standards on the use of force;

• guaranteeing freedom of expression and the right to information;

• enabling human rights defenders to carry out their work without fear;

• implementing concrete and effective policies to combat the extreme poverty and exclusion which has contributed to the extreme polarization of Venezuelan society. It is the responsibility of all political actors in Venezuela to ensure that these issues are seriously and effectively addressed. When exercising their legitimate rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, opposition sectors should take responsibility for choosing protest methods that do not undermine constitutional guarantees.

"Far too often all parties involved in the crisis have made an instrumental use of human rights, appropriating, manipulating and distorting the issue to use it as yet another weapon for polarization and confrontation," Amnesty International said.

"It is now time to see the full respect of all the human rights of all Venezuelans as one of the cornerstones on which to build long-lasting, viable solutions to the crisis. The international community has an important role to play in this respect," the organization added.

Background

César Gaviria, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, has been facilitating negotiations between the opposition and the government in order to achieve a peaceful resolution to the crisis. So far these negotiations have not produced concrete results. The political crisis which has been threatening political stability in Venezuela for the last year reached a new stage with the opposition general strike which began on 2 December and is now in its eighth week. The extremely tense situation is in danger of leading to serious human rights violations.

As a response to the heightened tension and the apparent unwillingness of the two sides to find a peaceful negotiated solution to the crisis, a number of international government have proposed a group of "amigo de Venezuela" countries to further encourage a negotiated solution. The countries which form this group are the USA, Brazil, Spain, Portugal, Mexico and Chile.

Source: Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton Street, WC1X 8DJ, London, United Kingdom