"He who volunteers to surrender his intellect to that of other, for the sake of an ideology, creed or belief, commits the supreme act of denying its own self."
Some weeks ago I had the pleasure of going to a private exhibition of Venezuelan op-art supremo Carlos Cruz Diez. The encounter was all the more meaningful for me, for I had just handed in an essay entitled "El fracaso de realidades decretadas: arte moderno en espacios publicos en Venezuela", and some of the questions I have posed in it, I wanted to ask directly to one of the remaining Venezuelan artists that had seen their work favoured by the country's top political class in the past.
The gist of my essay, as the title so clearly suggest, was to argue that reality can not be changed by decree. Dictators, caudillos and the like have tried to do so in the past, and given that Cruz Diez thought once that "the artist must be totally committed to its immediate socio-political reality" and that art was "another medium through which to reflect reality and to attain Latin American dignity", clearly stances that identified with prevailing policy, I certainly wasn't going to pass on the opportunity to question him on these issues.
To be frank, it was quite exceptional to hear someone of the stature of Cruz Diez, going against previous ideological positions and actually admitting, rather candidly, that in the case of Venezuela, art had had a negligible, if that, impact on reality. My questions were, of course, aimed at determining whether previous administrations had been successful in altering the socio-political reality of Venezuelans by decree, or whether by commissioning works of art, to be exhibited in public spaces, Venezuelans had in any way changed socially or politically. Cruz Diez said "no chico, si yo hubiera sabido entonces..." meaning that his reasoning in the 60ies and 70ies was informed on a positivist reality that the governments of the time tried to impose, to no avail.
Another question that I posed was the use of red by the current regime. I said to him that the country has turned red and that by associating with or painting Bolivar in red, what the propaganda masters of Chavez had done was actually bank on the capital of an icon already well established in the majority of Venezuelans. Very clever, and targeted specifically to the largely ignorant masses, for whom political messages must be crafted in a language they can easily digest without much questioning: read imagery. In fact, the output of chavismo in this respect surpasses, as intellectual manifestation and by far, literary production, the responsibles of which have failed miserably at coming up with novel and creative ideas/concepts to spread the doctrine of '21st Century Socialism'. I argued that color had been at the forefront of artistic revolutions in Venezuela since a long time, to which he agreed, stressing that that was one of the reasons why he decided to pursue color in itself, rather than color as part of something else.
Within the Venezuelan context, Cruz Diez is of the opinion that the artist and the politico are equally incapable of effecting any long term change in people's behavior, for this can only be achieved through education. He commented about the irony of going from being one of the favorite artists to being an outcast, for the present regime, without having modified his work.
It seems so eerily familiar, this business of lambasting politicians. We Venezuelans have been listening to it, literally nonstop, from our resident caudillo for the last 11 years. Anti politics as a form of doing politics is one of Hugo Chavez’s defining trademarks. In fact, the failed putschist arrived in power via elections in 1998 thanks to a wave of disgust towards politicians and political parties shared by the majority of Venezuelans. I remember vividly how people used to smile and rejoice when hearing Chavez’s electoral promises of frying the heads of corrupt politicians, of eradicating from the face of the earth such scum, of how the whole weight of a new state would uproot institutionalized corruption for good, and make those found guilty pay. As it turns Chavez’s administration is more corrupt than the previous ten combined. Since Chavez got to power, a windfall of more than $700 billion has entered the public coffer, and we ask: where’s all that money gone? Do people around here truly think that the UK's political establishment is utterly corrupt? Think again.
One would believe that citizens of the world’s oldest democracy should know better; alas the angry headlines paint a very different picture. The same media outlets that are today oxygenating the flames of hatred may well be censored tomorrow by those who capitalize on such irresponsible behavior. Of course, criticism is healthy, and the right to it should be defended and promoted. But to foster the notion that all politicians are crooks is to fertilize the soil from which Chavez-like charlatans emerge. Let those who have abused public trust and the system be brought to justice. Let the courts deal with them. Compartmentalization however is a very dangerous double edged sword. Guillotining the entire political class is precisely what the Nick Griffins and Fidel Castros of this world want, they thrive when the majority reject rationalism.
We have been living with the consequences of such a reckless collective attitude in Venezuela for over a decade. Future generations have already missed out on development and bright prospects because of it. Are we better off? Most definitely not. It is for this reason that I see danger ahead. The BNP is already gaining traction and momentum; tellingly those who cringe at the possibility of it expanding its base are the culprits of such expansion.
The Venezuelanisation of politics will bring more harm than good to this country. Brits should pause for a moment and think about the prospects of having anti-politicians in office. History has got plenty of examples to learn from. It’s about time people started acting maturely and reasonably, or are we to believe that the struggle of previous generations were all in vain?
In the presence of remarkable individuals, who were sharing with the Oslo Freedom Forum’s audience harrowing testimonies of survival, the resilience of human dignity and strength of character in conditions beyond hope, I was thinking: “what could I possibly say? What coherent thought could be added, after having heard a series of talks that left everyone pretty much speechless?”
The answer came from some of the speakers. Former Vice President of Bolivia, Victor Hugo Cardenas, spoke about the different nations, or indigenous groups, that form Bolivia’s society. Cardenas belongs to the Aymara nation, same as Evo Morales, but as he would clarify, unlike President Morales, who’s is a brand of sorts in Cardenas’ opinion, he does speak the indigenous language of his ancestors. A mob supportive of Morales recently attacked Cardenas and his family for political reasons: as he would put it, not even in the worse periods of Bolivia’s past dictatorships, against which he made his political career, had his wife and children suffered violence from foes. Racial hatred, the exacerbation of which originates from Bolivia’s highest office, is tearing apart that country’s society. But Cardenas remains hopeful, in the face of adversity, and stressed upon the ability of different nations or indigenous groups to live in peace and harmony.
Former President of Lithuania, Vytautas Landsbergis, expanded upon the need to make the concept of human rights understood and understandable to all, and, more importantly, make every civilised nation accountable to violations of same. The working definition seems accommodative to political expediency and accountability appears to be inversely proportional to the economic power and military might of nations nowadays.
Vladimir Bukovsky said that human rights violators are to be demanded to have, at the very least, the courage of perpetrating their heinous crimes in front of the world, for that, the act of facing international criticism, is more taxing than the actual crimes.
Others stressed the sheer hypocrisy of most governments when asked to reconcile commercial relations with regimes that systematically crush human rights. When it comes to business, it seems most are eager and prepared to deal with thugs so long as gains can be realised.
Benedict Anderson wrote a book called “Imagined Communities”. In it he argues that one of the fundamental principles for nation building is language. Once upon a time Latin was the language of choice of the educated elites in Europe, and regardless of country of origin people would communicate in it. The printing press brought about a significant change, for books started to be printed in vernacular languages, reasserting national identities and contributing with mass distribution or democratization of knowledge.
After listening to some of the speeches I couldn’t help but notice that our gathering was in fact epitomy of Anderson’s “Imagined Communities”, read a group of people sharing fundamental beliefs, principles and a language, in sum a nascent nation. I have more in common with Leyla Zana than with Cilia Flores*. Likewise, I am more inspired by Armando Valladares than by the dictator who incarcerated him for 22 years for refusing to toe the communist line. Palden Gyatso’s suffered prison and torture for 33 years for refusing to renounce his religious beliefs, while Elie Wiesel’s family did not have such luck, if it could be termed as such. Vladimir Bukovsky says that an encounter between torturer and victim is nothing but a clash of wills, whoever comes on top has broken the other’s mind. Armed with nothing but conviction these people have won, which shows that imposed collective thought or group thinkers will never conquer a spirit committed to his own convictions.
I felt that every one of us there in Oslo has been victimised, in different degrees, by the same kind of individual: he who fears our inherent capacity to discern, to reason, to choose and to voice an opinion. For it is not violence they dread, rather it is the expression of a language, i.e. words, that throws enemies of freedom into a spin. A shared language makes us members of an imagined community, that of the advocates of freedom.
But there remains a lot to be done, for our nation to grow strong. As Jack Healey said, only a tiny fraction of the world’s population knows the existence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent treaties. Thus the task of education must start in earnest, for a society where there’s no transfer of knowledge is bound to repeat past mistakes.
We, the undersigned participants of the Oslo Freedom Forum, categorically condemn the detention of Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. We condemn the unjustified charges raised against her by the Burmese military dictatorship, which has imprisoned and charged her with breaching the terms of her house arrest.
We call upon all people who believe in the dignity and rights of the human person to support our urgent demand for the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi and that all charges against her be dropped immediately.
1. Kjell Magne Bondevik 2. Ajay Royan 3. Bodil Fremstad 4. Thrond Berge Larsen 5. Asle Toje 6. Sara Azmeh Rasmussen 7. Lars Fr. H. Svendsen 8. John Zeki 9. Tika Mustika 10. Hans Jørgen Lysglimt 11. Tenzin Kalsang 12. Wenche Thingnes 13. Vytautas Landsbergis 14. Kristin Clemet 15. Zainab Al-Suwaij 16. Tom G. Palmer 17. Mutabar Tadjibayeva 18. Erin Anderson 19. Darye Shut 20. Aliaksandr Bialiatski 21. Chongdak Koren 22. Dechen Pemba 23. Palden Gyatso 24. Hallstein Bjercke 25. Olav Nils Sunde 26. Darla Romfo 27. Ravi Sunder 28. Arne L. Lynngård 29. Christian Charapata 30. Lee Brooks 31. Jonas Braad 32. Lisa-Mari Damgaard 33. James Kirchick 34. Hege Synne Rahm 35. Park Sang Hak 36. Seo Bohee 37. Jan Tore Sanner 38. Camila Payan 39. Pedro Trujillo 40. Victoria Villarruel 41. Erik Storelv 42. Julie M. Remen 43. Therese Thomassen 44. Humberto A. Pujals 45. Louise Halvorssen 46. Jan Christie 47. Anne Elisabeth Hellum 48. Abdel Nasser Ould Ethmane 49. Ragnhild Astrup Tschudi 50. Magne Ove Varsi 51. Stephen R. DeBarre 52. Jackie Monckton DeBarre 53. Katie Coughlin 54. NG Man-Yan 55. Sarah Stemmler 56. Peter Magnuson 57. Tor Jørgen K. Arnesen 58. Vo Van Ai 59. Penelope Faulkner 60. Ola Elvestuen 61. Johnny Syversen 62. Petronella Barker 63. Arnt G. Hartvig 64. Beate Barth-Nossum 65. Kjell Vagle 66. Sarah Bronfman 67. Nadya Berlin 68. Jacqueline Moudeina 69. Axel Halvorssen 70. Eilen Nordlie 71. Alise Davidsen 72. Frederic Hauge 73. Aud Lunde 74. Peder Lunde 75. Viktor E. Jakobsen 76. Alek Boyd 77. Alex Gladstein 78. S. E. Parker 79. Mikkel Dobloug 80. Maria Dahle 81. Roar Hagen 82. Vladimir Bukovsky 83. Friederike Denham 84. Ronald Rich 85. Hilda Denham 86. Jonathan Chen 87. Jared Lapidus 88. Chandler Tottle 89. Kris Anderson 90. David Satter 91. Charles L. Harper Jr. 92. Jan Hedberg 93. Miryam Halvorssen 94. Alexa Katarina Halvorssen 95. Preben Sohlberg 96. Yvonne L. Sohlberg 97. Per Elvestuen 98. Tammy Bruce 99. Bruce Bawer 100. Olaf Halvorssen 101. Marius Doksheim 102. Anders Vollen 103. Leyla Zana 104. Therese Jebsen 105. Ruken Zana 106. Victor Hugo Cardenas 107. Javier Flores 108. Lasse Heimdal 109. Tatiana Yankelevich 110. Robert A. Granier 111. Mary F. Whitney 112. Marc Wachtenheim 113. Harry Wu 114. Nicole Kempton 115. Per H. Houge 116. Torunn Nilsen Houge 117. Emil Constantinescu 118. Marius Doksheim 119. Anders Vollen 120. Jonathan Foreman 121. Elin Skaldebø 122. Glenda M. Aldana 123. Pedro Pablo Alvarez 124. Armando Valladares 125. Jung Chang 126. Ladan Boroumand 127. Jack Healey 128. L. Craig Johnstone 129. Leopoldo López
Oslo 19. May, 2009
Oslo Freedom Forum Empire State Building, Suite 4515 New York, NY 10118 Ph: (212) 246-8486 - Fax: (212) 643-4278 www.oslofreedomforum.com - info@thehrf.org
In the light of the intimidation and harassment of a number of opposition figures in Venezuela, including Manuel Rosales, the elected mayor of the city of Maracaibo, Parliament expresses its "profound concern at the deterioration in the situation and in the quality of democracy in Venezuela", which is being threatened with collapse by "the growing authoritarianism" displayed by President Chávez. The political situation in Venezuela has recently undergone an alarming slide towards authoritarianism, says the resolution, with increased harassment, threats, intimidation, political and criminal persecution directed at the opposition, students, elected officials and journalists. Call for an end to political persecution The case of Manuel Rosales is symbolic of these changes and the increasing political persecution in Venezuela. Rosales is ex-governor of the state of Zulia and the democratically elected mayor of Maracaibo, and has been repeatedly and publicly threatened with imprisonment by President Chávez. As a result of this political persecution, he was granted political asylum in neighbouring Peru, an act which prompted the immediate withdrawal of the Venezuelan Ambassador to Peru. The charges against Rosales, concerning an alleged discrepancy in income declaration whilst he was governor of Zulia, are clearly politically motivated and demonstrate the increasingly worrying trend that the Venezuelan judiciary is controlled by the executive. MEPs express their solidarity with all those suffering from political persecution in Venezuela, including Manuel Rosales and others cited by the resolution. Parliament "strongly condemns the use of threats, violence, the abuse of power, defamation and the exploitation of the legal system as a political weapon designed to intimidate and eliminate opponents." Democracy entails respect for rule of law and right of political opposition Parliament also points out that, under the conditions of the OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter, in order to exercise power in a democracy, there needs to be "a legitimacy of exercise...founded on respect for the established rules, the constitution, the laws and the rule of law", including a respect for democratic political opposition. As such, MEPs call on the President and authorities of Venezuela to show respect for the rule of law and constitutional legality, as well as tolerance of political opponents, to carry out political action through dialogue and to comply fully with international agreements ratified by Venezuela.
–having regard to its previous resolutions on the situation in Venezuela and in particular its resolutions of 24 May 2007 on the Radio Caracas TV channel case in Venezuela[1] and of 23 October 2008 on political disqualifications in Venezuela[2],
–having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,
A.having regard to the tense political situation in Venezuela, a country which in recent times has experienced an alarming slide towards authoritarianism, reflected in the harassment, threats, intimidation and political and criminal persecution directed at the opposition and its democratically elected mayors and governors, the student movement and journalists, and involving changes to the rules on democracy, a total lack of independence on the part of the different state powers and scant respect for the laws and Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
B.having regard to the case of the former Presidential candidate, ex-governor of the State of Zulia, and current democratically elected Mayor of the city of Maracaibo, Manuel Rosales, an opposition leader whom President Chávez has repeatedly and publicly threatened with imprisonment, and against whom he was eventually prompted to initiate legal proceedings based on a 2004 complaint concerning an alleged discrepancy in an income declaration during his time as governor of the State of Zulia, a case which has every appearance of being political persecution, with no regard for due process and proper judicial safeguards, and where the verdict has been determined in advance and is clearly politically motivated,
C.whereas, as a result of this political persecution, Manuel Rosales has requested political asylum in the neighbouring Republic of Peru, which has been granted by the Peruvian authorities in the light of the political and humanitarian aspects of the case, prompting the immediate withdrawal by Venezuela of its Ambassador to Peru,
D.whereas these charges are clearly founded on political motives and the executive largely controls the judiciary and whereas the government of Venezuela is taking new measures which will contribute to reducing the autonomy of the judiciary and therefore a fair trial is hardly to be expected in Venezuela,
E.whereas retired General Raúl Isaías Baduel, who until recently was President Chávez’s Minister of Defence and who has now joined the opposition, was arrested at gunpoint by military intelligence agents on 2 April 2009 and accused of supposedly embezzling funds from the armed forces during his time as Minister of Defence,
F.whereas opposition leader and Mayor of Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, who was democratically elected on 23 November 2008, has been unable to take up his duties as mayor because the City Council premises in the Palacio de Gobierno have been illegally occupied by Bolivarian groups, with the Venezuelan Ministry of the Interior so far having made no effort to remove them; whereas President Chávez has recently enacted a law directly affecting the powers of the Mayor, under which a hierarchical superior chosen by the President of the Republic has been appointed Head of the Government of Caracas, with authority over the Mayor of Caracas, who will be stripped of practically all his powers, including the administration of public finance, the drawing-up and implementation of development plans and supervision of the institutions of the decentralised administration of the Capital District,
G.whereas, in addition to being stripped of practically all his powers, the Mayor of Caracas is being targeted by an aggressive campaign of harassment, threats, insults and intimidation, orchestrated directly by the Presidency of the Republic,
H.whereas, during the month of March 2009, on the orders of the President of the Republic, many ports and airports were occupied by the military, for the most part in regions where the opposition is in power, as a result of a law restoring responsibility for the management of these facilities to the Venezuelan Government; whereas the aim of this measure is the financial restriction and economic strangulation of political opponents; whereas, under Article 164(10) of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the administration of ports, airports, roads and highways is the sole responsibility of state governments in cooperation with the central authorities and under no circumstances the sole responsibility of the latter,
I.whereas, in an unprecedented political sentence handed down by Judge Marjori Calderón, the wife of a senior PSUV leader, police commissioners Ivan Simonovis, Làzaro Forero and Henry Vivas, together with eight metropolitan police officers, were condemned without a shred of reliable evidence to 30 years’ imprisonment, the maximum sentence provided for under the Venezuelan criminal code, after being held in preventive custody for more than five years in police stations without natural light, following what was the longest trial in Venezuelan history and one which was plagued by irregularities and in which the most basic legal rights of the accused were flouted; whereas, furthermore, most of the 19 crimes committed on 11 April 2002, for three of which the accused have now been convicted without any evidence, have remained unpunished, despite extensive testimony, television footage and documentary evidence, demonstrating that clearly identifiable Bolivarian gunmen had been responsible,
J.whereas on various occasions the President of the Republic has spoken offensively and insultingly about any number of foreign dignitaries and yet, when he has been the target of criticism in his own country, he has reacted by ordering the immediate expulsion of any foreign nationals who dared to criticise him, including the violent expulsion of a Member of this Parliament,
K.whereas in February 2009 President Chávez forced through a second referendum to approve indefinite re-election of the President and all elected public officials, despite having lost the December 2007 referendum on constitutional reform which included the same proposal, thereby breaching the Venezuelan Constitution, under which the same reform proposal may not be submitted more than once during the same session of the Assembly,
L.whereas the Venezuelan authorities deemed undesirable the presence of an official European Parliament delegation which was due to visit the country during the first week of March 2009, following several unwarranted postponements of the visit by the Venezuelan authorities,
1.Expresses its profound concern at the deterioration in the situation and in the quality of democracy in Venezuela, which is seriously threatened with collapse as a result of the concentration of power and the growing authoritarianism displayed by the President of the Republic;
2.Expresses its solidarity with all those suffering political persecution in Venezuela, a plight currently symbolised by the person of Manuel Rosales; welcomes the decision taken by the Peruvian Government to grant Manuel Rosales political asylum; strongly condemns the use of threats and violence, the abuse of power, defamation and the exploitation of the legal system as a political weapon designed to intimidate and eliminate opponents;
3.Points out that, under the Organisation of American States (OAS) Inter-American Democratic Charter, in order to gain access to the exercise of power in a democracy, in addition to clear legitimacy of origin, grounded in and obtained at the polls, there must also be legitimacy in the exercise of such power, which must be founded on respect for the established rules, the constitution, the laws, and the rule of law as a guarantee of a fully functioning democracy and that this must of necessity include respect for peaceful and democratic political opposition, especially where that opposition has been elected and enjoys a popular mandate;
4.Calls on the country’s authorities, in particular the President of the Republic, to pursue their political action through dialogue, respect for the rule of law and constitutional legality, and tolerance of political opponents, so as to ensure that the various political choices made and supported by the people of Venezuela enjoy proper influence and representation in political life;
5.Urges the Venezuelan Government, furthermore, to comply with the international agreements signed and ratified by Venezuela, including the American Convention on Human Rights, with specific reference to the provisions on political rights set out in Articles 23(1) and Articles 2 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
6.Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Secretary-General of the Organisation of American States, the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly, the Mercosur Parliament and the Government and National Assembly of the BolivarianRepublic of Venezuela.
The iconic image of Che Guevara found adorning students' walls and t-shirts across the world could be banned in Poland under a government proposal to outlaw materials that incite "fascism and totalitarian systems".
By Matthew Day in Warsaw Last Updated: 5:27PM BST 23 Apr 2009
Poland's equality minister, Elzbieta Radziszewska, wants to expand a Polish law prohibiting the production of fascist and totalitarian propaganda so that it includes clothing and anything else that could carry an image related to an authoritarian system.
Anybody found guilty could face a two-year prison sentence. Mrs Radziszewska said that the proposed amendment to current legislation "would help organisations fighting racism".
The proposal, which could see the faces of some of the leading lights of communist history such as Lenin and Trotsky removed from t-shirts and flags, reflects a Polish view on communism far different from the rose-tinted and romantic images often found in the West.
After experiencing 40 hard years of communism, as well as the horrors of Nazi occupation, few Poles have qualms equating under law the inequities of Nazism and communism.
"Communism was a terrible, murderous system that claimed millions of lives," said Professor Wojciech Roszkowski, a leading Polish historian and member of the European parliament.
"It was very similar to National Socialism, and there is no reason to treat those two systems, and their symbols, differently. Their glorification should be prohibited."
He added communism had accounted for the slaughter of thousands of Poles in the Katyn Massacre while its gulags had consumed countless millions of victims.
The proposed changes, which have already reached the committee stage in the Polish parliament, also testify to Polish determination to ensure that with the passing of time nobody starts to view the country's communist past with nostalgia.
In addition the Polish government hopes that tighter legislation will crack down on the trade in materials bearing Nazi emblems.
Markets in western Poland have profited from German neo-fascists buying Third-Reich memorabilia such as swastikas and pictures of Hitler that are prohibited under their own country's stringent regulations.
It is a fine day when I see my views reprinted, almost word by word, in a NYT's editorial. Long gone are the days when I cringed after reading Juan Forero's coverage. Out with microphone diplomacy and in with pragmatic approaches to deal with tinpot dictators. The word about Chavez is finally out. He can persecute his political foes all he wants, he can become the second serial abuser of INTERPOL's arrest warrants. But everyone has got his number, everyone that matters that is.
A few days ago, I met with a colleague and we took the train up to Cambridge, to visit Vladimir Bukovsky. One can read a great deal about the atrocities perpetrated in communist Russia, but nothing quite prepares one to an encounter with a real life hero that has defeated physical and psychological torture, incarceration, prosecution and years of harassment from, perhaps the world's most effective repressive apparatus (KGB), armed with nothing more than strength of character and dignity. I wanted to pick his brain and try and get some answers, so after the initial formalities we moved to more meaningful conversation.
One of the first things I remember him saying was "it's been 30 years since we defeated Ortega and he's back in power. These guys are indestructible!" We were discussing, of course, Venezuela, Hugo Chavez and its petrodiplomacy. Naturally the topics of Ortega, Morales, Correa, FARC and other unsavory useful idiots popped early. Bukovsky has a keen interest in learning about the advance of socialism/communism anywhere around the world, so we explained to him that the postmodern dictator, embodied by Chavez, does not need to kill or disappear his opponents, as they did in Bukovsky's time, for killing their political and public personae is a much more effective way of getting rid of foes. In this respect I picked up on a comment he had made about one of the methods used by the KGB: that of placing its enemies in INTERPOL's wanted list in order to curtail their activities. For days I had been thinking about Venezuela's novel approach of requesting INTERPOL to include student leader Nixon Moreno in its wanted list --genocide al-Bashir though gets invited to Caracas by Chavez. Mind you this was a first from Chavez's regime, as far as I could tell, and it certainly seemed odd. Bukovsky said "the KGB have been doing this for about 15 years. So if you're lucky enough to get out of the country, your international movements are heavily compromised for you could be arrested anywhere. Probably some Russians are sharing knowledge with Chavez..." In an ideal world, such request from undemocratic and authoritarian regimes should be ignored, especially taking into consideration that not only charges brought against political foes are complete fabrications but the principle of innocence until proved guilty in a court of law is completely trumped. As Bukovsky would explain, fabricating charges is something communist regimes excel at, and Chavez's is not different. He asked about how many political prisoners were there in Venezuela: not a week after Chavez's justice system just confirmed what we said, sentencing a group of innocent men to 30 years imprisonment on trumped charges that could never be demonstrated in court.
Walking around King's College he explained how, after having spent about 12 years in different prisons and psychiatric wards in Russia, he, almost suddenly, found himself in King's peaceful and perfectly mowed lawns in what was the beginning of his academic career. In later years, Bukovsky was invited back to Russia by Yeltsin's government to put his expertise to the service of a Constitutional Court. He told me that, before accepting, he made one request: to be allowed access to classified documents of COMINTERN and other bodies of the Communist party. KGB archives were kept out of reach. Nonetheless he took a laptop and a hand-scanner straight from its inventor, which was a new technology at the time and profitting from the ignorance of Russian politburo apparatchiks, that didn't really understand what was going on, managed to copy thousands of documents, which he used afterwards to write a book entitled Jugement a Moscou. But, as he would relay, the interesting part were not only his findings, but his inability to have the book published in English, owing to legal claims that those Westerners who appear in the documents would bring against him. He says that influential English and American politicians were merrily passing information to KGB and the Politburo and getting kickbacks in return. I asked whether he came across any notorious names in Latin America and Venezuela and he replied by saying that the communist influence, in the form of intelligence sharing, training, weapons provision, advice, etc. was old and widespread. Unfortunately I don't read Russian, but it would surely be fascinating to go through the files to see what's in them.
We shared a few thoughts about life in socialist Europe, Gramsci, and the victory of the Frankfurt School in imposing as norm in our societies its wretched invention: political correctness. We laughed at the naiveté of Western politicians, when it comes to dealing with thugs such as Putin, or Chavez, or Castro, or Mugabe, or Ahmadinejad. Traveling around Latin America, except for Cuba, one gets the impression that us Venezuelans are a few pages ahead in the postmodern dictatorship script. Meeting with Bukovsky however brings us back to an era that most thought ended in 1989: XX century communism. The tactics may be more refined but neo-communists and their 'XXI century socialism' are as effective at crushing the human spirit as their previous counterparts. Bukovsky lamented the fact that, after the Reagan administration, the US government stopped relying on information provided by sources like himself. He said that, for instance, there were many thousands of Russian and Iranian expats living in the USA, yet this huge pool of knowledge is not tapped into by the Department of State or the intelligence agencies, which leads to many blunders and foreign policy failures. In the meantime, words from fundamentalists elected to office, despite their ideological and religious predispostion against Western norms, principles and laws are taken at face value. That shortcoming, or lack of engagement with those in the know, is repeated in other countries. Bukovsky mentioned that for the USA to expect Russia to give a helping hand in nuclear dealings with Iran is beyond naive. Rather, it is stupid.
Curious about his courage and motivation to stand against oppression, Bukovsky gave me a remarkable answer, one that takes the issue to epistemological levels and, in a certain way, coincides with the motto of this blog: "when you're not allowed to think for yourself, when you're not allowed to have, and voice, an opinion, insofar as such opinion is contrary to the diktats of the ruling party, you lose the only thing that makes us human. You become like an object in a meaningless life, and such life is not worth living. So I decided to rebel against that system and I had no fear of dying, for living in such condition was akin to being dead."
Unfortunately, this world of ours is lacking in towering figures, like this Marlon Brando of dignity. For Bukovsky, opposing communism, and its associated ideologies, is not a choice but a moral imperative that reasserts the human spirit.
Luego de una década escuchando al presidente y altas autoridades de su régimen repetir hasta la saciedad que todos los problemas de Venezuela son culpa de la CIA, uno puede afirmar que la identidad del coco ha sido establecida en el vernáculo venezolano. O por lo menos en los hogares donde Chávez es el santo patrón, el que todo lo ve y todo lo sabe. ¿Que no hay leche en el mercado? Esa fue la CIA. ¿Que las lluvias causaron el derrumbamiento de unos ranchos? Esa es la CIA. ¿Que acribillaron a unos estudiantes en Kennedy? La CIA esta infiltrando nuestro barrios. ¿Que los maestros están protestando, los obreros de PDVSA anunciando paros y los damnificados de Vargas clavándose las manos a los arboles en el Rosal? ¡La CIA esta desestabilizando la revolución bolivariana!
La CIA planeó, organizó e intentó tumbar a Chávez en el 2002. La CIA capturó a Rodrigo Granda y casi lleva a la guerra a Venezuela y Colombia, cuando sus operativos mataron a Raúl Reyes en Ecuador. Manuel Rosales está en la nomina de la CIA, y los recoge latas son en realidad agentes secretos de la CIA, que mantienen al imperio informado en todo momento de lo que sucede, en todo lugar, en Venezuela.
¿El referendo revocatorio? No faltaba más, esa fue otra maquinación de la CIA. Ahora bien, a cinco años del RR, la CIA ha decidido declarar, a través de un experto en ciber-seguridad llamado Steve Stigall, que Chávez en realidad se robó la elección y que los resultados anunciados por Francisco Carrasquero y Jorge Rodríguez, otrora dizque autoridades electorales independientes, no son reflejo de la voluntad popular sino producto del chanchullo del CNE con las maquinitas de Smartmatic.
Discúlpenme lectores, pero, este nuevo coco es pura paja. Stigall ha dicho que, hasta donde él sabe, el programa utilizado para determinar aleatoriamente los centros que habrían de auditarse, en la segunda auditoria, fue el que propuso el CNE. Basado en esta información, Stigall concluye que en los centros escogidos no ocurrió ningún guiso, es decir la votación electrónica se llevó a cabo debidamente, por tanto, una auditoria no revelaría nada comprometedor. No obstante si hubo guiso, ya que según Stigall, alterar electrónicamente resultados electorales es fácil.
Pero eso lo sabíamos los venezolanos desde el 2004. Jennifer McCoy, del Centro Carter, admitió en un email dirigido a mi persona, que el programa utilizado, en computadoras del CNE, para seleccionar los centros a ser auditados, era del CNE. La utilización de ese programa fue lo que causó que la oposición se retirara de la auditoria, declarando fraude, puesto que el arreglo entre el CNE, gobierno, oposición y observadores internacionales no contemplaba que fuera el CNE quien decidiera que programa se utilizaría. McCoy afirmó al respecto “en retrospectiva, me gustaría haber insistido en la utilización de nuestro programa, no porque dude del que uso el CNE, sino mas bien por el problema de percepción y la confianza que esta acción hubiera generado. También lamento no haber insistido en negociaciones directas entre el CNE y la Coordinadora Democrática sobre las condiciones de la segunda auditoria. Creímos en aquel momento que era importante realizar una segunda auditoria lo más pronto posible, y de esa forma atender las preocupaciones de la Coordinadora, sobre la posibilidad de que se violara el contenido de las urnas”.
El 3 de octubre del 2004 escribió McCoy esas palabras. Publique mi intercambio con McCoy ese mismo día. Pero le ha tomado casi 5 años a la CIA afirmar públicamente lo que sabíamos. Lo que la CIA no ha dicho explícitamente, es que en esa segunda auditoria, a realizarse en 192 cajas o urnas que serian escogidas dizque al azar, solamente 76 cajas o urnas fueron auditadas. De esas 76 urnas auditadas, la oposición presenció solamente 27, y en esas 27 urnas auditadas el resultado fue el contrario al anunciado por el CNE. Mis preguntas de entonces a McCoy, son validas hoy para la CIA: ¿Por qué no se auditaron las 192 cajas o urnas? ¿Por qué se le permitió a la oposición presenciar solamente 27 de la 76 auditadas? ¿Por qué la OEA y el Centro Carter, violando el acuerdo suscrito, permitieron al CNE utilizar su programa de selección aleatoria de urnas, y no el propuesto por la OEA y el Centro Carter, como exigía la Coordinadora?
Desde luego que con una CIA como esa Hugo Chávez puede dormir tranquilo y seguir ganando tantas elecciones como le plazca.
Alek Boyd created Vcrisis.com and started blogging about Venezuela in Oct. 2002. Since, he has worked as an independent researcher, reporter, lobbyist, civil and political rights activist, and has experience in strategic and political consulting throughout Latin America. In 2006, Alek became the first blogger ever to shadow a presidential candidate in Venezuela. He is currently VP of Program at The Human Rights Foundation.
contact: alek dot boyd at gmail dot com
The views presented here are Alek's own and not representative of any of the organizations he works for.
Some weeks ago I had the pleasure of going to a private exhibition of Venezuelan op-art supremo Carlos Cruz Diez. The encounter was all the more meaningful for me, for I had just handed in an essay entitled "El fracaso de realidades decretadas: arte moderno en espacios publicos en Venezuela", and some of the questions I have posed in it, I wanted to ask directly to one of the remaining Venezuelan artists that had seen their work favoured by the country's top political class in the past.
Posts
