www.vheadline.com Posted: Friday, March 21, 2003 By: Robert Rudnicki

Venezuelan Executive Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel has criticized the US-led war on Iraq insisting "those who believe in peace and international law cannot agree with this act of war." Rangel's comments came during his trip round Latin America to explain Venezuela's political situation to the country's regional neighbors.

President Hugo Chavez Frias also called for peace a respect for the United Nations "we call for peaceful resolution to international conflicts and for respect of international institutions such as the United Nations." The President made his comments during a ceremony where he handed out land titles to poor Venezuelans as part of the government's latest campaign to reduce poverty.

Foreign (MRE) Minister Roy Chaderton Matos also commented on the war hoping that it would end quickly "all that is left is to hope that it ends as soon as possible, there are no good wars."

www.guardian.co.uk By John Aglionby Thursday March 13, 2003

Two years after coming to power with the first ever simple majority in Thailand's political history, populist prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra looks stronger than ever. A spot of coalition building cemented his grip on the lower house and supporters have recently engineered themselves into key leadership positions in the supposedly neutral upper house.

Meanwhile the police colonel-turned telecoms billionaire has engineered a much faster recovery from the 1997 Asian economic crisis than his equally mauled neighbours - growth last year was 4.9 per cent, one of the highest in Asia and Thailand's £3 billion loan to the IMF is all-but repaid.

Populist policies like offering extremely cheap health care to the masses, soft loans to all the 70,000 villages, a debt moratorium for farmers and super-low interest rates have kept him riding high in the polls. This was cemented in January when he announced he was going to declare war onmethamphetamines or speed, known locally as "yaa baa" [crazy pill], which has taken a grip on 10 per cent of the adult population in only a few years and the situation is getting worse.

"What Thaksin has brought is decisive leadership and he has captured the imagination of the Thai population," said a spokesman for Thaksin's ruling Thai Rak Thai [Thais love Thais] party, Suranand Vejjajiva.

And later this year Mr Thaksin is due to host the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders summit, an event that should propel Thailand into the global spotlight. What more could a nation want of its prime minister?

How about respect for the rule of law? A maintenance of checks and balances on executive power? Upholding human rights? A free press? The right to offer constructive criticism?

For the events of the past six weeks should dispel all doubts, critics argue, that far from reforming Thailand into a developed, democratic nation, Mr Thaksin is doing whatever he feels necessary to perpetuate his own power and ensure re-election, a rarity in Thai politics. Fears abound that a new absolutism is emerging in Thailand, only this time the uniforms are no longer the green fatigues of the past military dictators but the sharp suits and ties of the new corporate rulers.

Much writing was already on the wall before the war on drugs began on February 1. In his first year in office Mr Thaksin severely undermined the credibility and effectiveness of both the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Election Commission, by engineering a victory against the former when he successfully appealed against a corruption conviction, and bringing the latter closer into his fold by replacing all the outgoing members when their terms expired.

Parliament's upper house, the senate, was the next target. It is supposed to be one of the main counterbalances to executive power but Mr Thaksin has filled most of its key posts with lackeys so its effectiveness has been greatly reduced.

Mr Thaksin has simultaneously turned his attention on the press with critical journalists being either sweetened or bullied into submission. The latter was done with threats to withhold advertising, two-thirds of which comes from state enterprises and a significant proportion of the rest from companies controlled by Thaksin or his cronies. Even resident foreign journalists were threatened with expulsion for printing mildly critical articles.

The anti-democratic warning bells have risen to a new crescendo in the past month, however. Mr Thaksin's inability to handle criticism reached a new nadir a fortnight ago after a senior member of the national human rights commission, Pradit Charoenthaithawee, raised concerns at a United Nations conference about more than 1,000 apparent extra-judicial killings in the war on drugs.

Rather than engaging Mr Pradit, Mr Thaksin set his pitbulls on him and said he did not have to worry about what the UN thought of his policies. As the outcry mounted, both internationally and domestically, the prime minister then refused to talk to the press on political matters - he now walks past journalists like a spoilt brat who hasn't got his way. One newspaper editorial recently encouraged Mr Thaksin to attend anger management classes and public sensitivity training.

But a much more worrying trend to emerge from the war on drugs is the seemingly complete disregard for the rule of law. No credible effort is being made to investigate the 1,500-plus murders of the past six weeks and it appears the former police colonel is giving officers a free rein. Critics have said the situation is worse than Afghanistan under the Taliban; at least the mullahs sent judges along to oversee executions and give a veneer of legitimacy to proceedings.

A recent survey exemplified the population's growing fears: 90% of respondents said harsh measures were needed to defeat the drugs menace but 70% said they feared being framed or worse by the police.

Kavi Chongkittavorn, a Thaksin critic and senior editor at the Nation newspaper, neatly put the prime minister into a global context. "He's a combination of the corporate dominance of [Italy's Silvio] Berlusconi, [Venezuela's Hugo] Chavez's populist approach and the thuggery of [Zimbabwe's Robert] Mugabe," he said.

It is unclear where this conflict between Mr Thaksin and the pro-democracy movement will end. The war on drugs is set to continue for months and the pressure on the media, human rights organisations and other potential critics continues to mount along the lines of George Bush's "If you're not with us, you're against us" philosophy. In the last few days Mr Thaksin has swapped his prime ministerial limousine for a bullet-proof minivan. He says he fears an attack from drug dealers. Cynics might suggest it's to protect him from the increasingly ferocious brickbats heading his way.

www.vheadline.com Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Pro-government parliamentarians say answers to April 11-14 deaths, looting and other incidents depend on public powers.

Speaking after a forum entitled '11 Months After', Movimiento Quinta Republica (MVR) deputy Dario Vivas says the forum is the threshold to the Americas Social Forum scheduled for April 11-14 in Venezuela.

International organizers describe it as "a chance to build up a network of solidarity with the Bolivarian process … in addition to a cultural and artistic celebration of the victory over the coup, the core of the event will be an international forum on the achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution, the enemies of that Revolution and the struggle against neoliberal globalization.” Poet of the Revolution, MVR deputy Tarek William Saab forecasts that the forum will the best way to seek the truth about April 11.

www.nytimes.com

he particulars of their individual stories vary, but in recent years all five Andean nations of South America have suffered crippling bouts of political violence and instability. President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada's hasty escape from his presidential palace in Bolivia last month — he hid in an ambulance to flee a riot — was only the latest indication of just how tenuous democracy's hold is on the region.

Washington policy makers should approach the Andean region as a whole and work alongside other Latin American nations, like Brazil and Mexico, to strengthen democracy in the region. Too often in the past, America's approach has been scattershot.

Colombia, the third-largest recipient of American foreign assistance, is a case in point. Under Plan Colombia, the Bush and Clinton administrations have poured billions of dollars into fighting that nation's drug trafficking, which finances violent left-wing guerrilla groups and right-wing paramilitaries. The effort is now starting to reduce coca cultivation, but there are signs that such farming is merely shifting to neighboring countries.

Meanwhile, Colombia's guerrillas recently killed one American contract employee and kidnapped three others involved in the antidrug effort. The Bush administration has sent in 150 more military personnel to assist in the search for them, raising the alarming possibility that Americans could become directly engaged in the conflict.

Colombia, a nation where democracy and brutal civil warfare have tenuously coexisted for decades, deserves our support. But Colombians must do their own fighting, and American aid must remained conditioned on the Colombian military's respect for human rights.

Elsewhere, the region is disillusioned with the last decade's free-market reforms. Too often twisted into a corrosive form of crony capitalism, the "Washington consensus" did little to improve living standards or alleviate poverty. The economic disillusionment has devalued the appeal of democracy as a form of governance and empowered once-marginalized political forces.

In Venezuela, a country of great strategic importance given its vast oil reserves, a demagogic president, Hugo Chávez, has shown that a populist backlash can be as destructive as corrupt political establishments that pay lip service to free markets. Encouragingly, Presidents Alejandro Toledo of Peru and Lucio Gutiérrez of Ecuador appear inclined to follow a more responsible middle course.

Their challenge is to please international capital markets and internal demands for a more equitable distribution of national wealth, and to do so simultaneously and at a difficult economic moment. America needs to be sympathetic, providing aid and promoting trade, but without being an overbearing pitchman for any one set of economic policies.

www.weeklystandard.com by Thor Halvorssen 03/11/2003 12:00:00 AM

LATE LAST YEAR, 16 U.S. congressmen voiced their approval for Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. Representatives Barney Frank, John Conyers, Chaka Fattah, Jan Schakowsky, Jose Serrano, and others complained in a letter to President Bush that the United States was not adequately protecting Chavez against a groundswell of internal opposition to his increasingly authoritarian rule--an upsurge that might lead to his ouster. Elected to power in 1998, Lt. Col. Chavez has hijacked democracy in Venezuela and is openly moving the country toward totalitarianism. Beyond Venezuela's borders, he celebrates, protects, and does business with terrorists.

A day after the September 11 terrorist attacks, President Chavez declared that "The United States brought the attacks upon itself, for their arrogant imperialist foreign policy." Chavez also described the U.S. military response to bin Laden as "terrorism," claiming that he saw no difference between the invasion of Afghanistan and the September 11 terrorist attacks.

While the United States considers Saddam Hussein a threat to world peace, Chavez has hailed Saddam as his "brother" and business "partner." In the past two years Chavez has continued to cultivate relationships with the governments listed in the State Department's roll of state sponsors of terrorism--he has been particularly vocal in his support for the Iranian regime.

Last December a high-level Venezuelan military defector gave sworn testimony that terrorist links exist between al Qaeda and the Chavez government. The defector, President Chavez's personal pilot, alleges that one operation involved the transfer of close to $1 million in cash to Osama bin Laden.

In January, Judicial Watch, a public-interest legal organization based in Washington, filed a $100 million suit against Hugo Chavez on behalf of a victim and survivor of the September 11th terrorist attacks. The lawsuit alleges that Chavez provided material, financial, and other support and assistance to the al Qaeda terror network.

In February, a Venezuelan Muslim, Hasil Mohammed Rahaham-Alan, was detained in London's Gatwick airport for stashing a grenade in his luggage. He was apprehended after disembarking from a British Airways flight that originated in Caracas. The British Mail reported that al Qaeda operates a training camp on the Venezuelan island of Margarita. The Venezuelan ambassador in London has obtained a "legal stop" preventing the newspaper from commenting on the article.

Also, the congressional signatories turn a blind eye to mountains of hard evidence--most supplied by U.S. allies in the Colombian government--confirming Chavez's support for the FARC and ELN terrorist networks. The Colombian government declared that the head of the FARC terrorist group, Manual Marulanda, is hiding in Venezuela, and the Colombian embassy in Caracas was bombed a day after Chavez made a blistering speech attacking Colombia. The Financial Times reported last week that the perpetrators of the bombing may be FARC terrorists or even members of the Venezuelan secret police. Yesterday in Colombia, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Roy Chaderton gave a press conference where he unequivocally stated that the Chavez government will not refer to the FARC Colombian terrorists as "terrorists," because the Chavez government wishes to remain "neutral."

It is unthinkable that congressmen who enjoy access to detailed intelligence reports are willing so blithely to disregard the Chavez government's track record on matters that directly affect the national security of the United States.

These congressional Democrats are not alone in their misguided support for Hugo Chavez. For years, Representative Cass Ballenger (R-NC) has had a bizarre relationship with Chavez. Ballenger has emphasized that the "Venezuelan Caucus" he established with Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) exists to "show friendship to President Chavez and to encourage him to embrace democracy." Ballenger and Hunt have embraced Chavez--and served as his U.S. tour guides. In return, Chavez has repeatedly used his friendship with the congressmen to prop himself up by showing strong support from and access to powerful members of the U.S. government.

To their credit, seven of the congressmen who wrote to President Bush have written another letter. On March 6 they wrote Chavez with some questions. They didn't ask about terrorism. Instead they inquired about the arrests and murders of members of the opposition to Chavez's rule. It's progress, of a sort. But we can do better.

Any congressional support of Chavez is particularly galling given that he is vocal about his loathing of the United States and American liberty. Yet unlike Chavez and his paid supporters, the great majority of Venezuelans have great affection for America and its freedoms. A recent Pew survey on "Global Attitudes" demonstrated that, although much of the world--and nearly all of South America--resents and despises America, Venezuelans rank among the greatest admirers of the United States and its people.

Congress should put President Chavez on notice that his dictatorial actions will not be tolerated It should also urge the Organization of American States to expel him, and impose immediate sanctions for his state sponsorship of terrorism. Any appeasement of Chavez sends a comforting message to the enemies of freedom. Additionally, it sends a dispiriting signal to the natural allies of the United States: the millions of Venezuelans who reject the grotesque tyranny of Hugo Chavez.

Thor Halvorssen is a human rights and civil liberties activist in Philadelphia. He grew up in Venezuela.