Antisemitism on the rise in Venezuela: Hugo Chavez's supporters beset synanogue in Caracas

This is not an isolated event. As much as Venezuelan Foreign Secretary wants to distance the government from antisemitism, it remains a fact that this is a direct consequence of the constant official onslaught against reason, against civil, political and religious rights in Venezuela. Chavez's antisemitism is a known fact by now, and the picture above [see here for more] is just latest proof of the deteriorating climate, fostered by the Venezuelan caudillo.

Not only the Jewish people are prosecuted and harassed in this manner: a few days ago the Vatican office in Venezuela was attacked again by chavista thugs. Needless to say that purported investigations into these actions are yet to produce any results. And then some idiots have the gall to object Human Rights Watch report about the anti democratic nature of the putschist in office.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) dismisses questions from Venezuela 'experts' as baseless allegations.

Below Human Rights Watch (HRW) response to the more than 100 experts Chavez apologists that questioned protested its damning report on Venezuela. Expectedly, HRW dismissed them again (read first reply here) as unhelpful critics who disseminate baseless allegations. Perhaps someone should inform HRW that that's what some of them do for a living.

January 28, 2009

Miguel Tinker Salas
Professor of History
Pomona College

Gregory Wilpert
Adjunct Professor of Political Science
Brooklyn College

Greg Gandin
Professor of History, Director of Graduate Studies
New York University

Dear Mr. Tinker, Mr. Wilpert, and Mr. Grandin,

I am writing in reply to your January 12 letter, which was a response to our December 29 letter in which we address your December 16 letter and its critique to our report "A Decade under Chavez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela."

Once again we have taken the time to review your criticisms to see if they are well-founded, and once again we have concluded they are not. Your latest letter essentially recycles your previous allegations, which I responded to at length in my previous letter to you. I see no point in recycling that response here.

One observation in your most recent letter that I fully agree with is that anyone interested in evaluating your criticisms should read those earlier letters and, above all, the report itself. I have no doubt that reasonable people may have different views regarding some of the more complex issues we address in the document. But I do not see how scholars who actually read our report can reasonably conclude, as you do, that it "does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility." On the contrary, what they will find is an objective and rigorous analysis of some of the very serious human rights problems facing Venezuela today.

Human Rights Watch welcomes and actively seeks out constructive criticism of our work. We find it helps refine our arguments and correct any errors we may have made in our reporting. Less helpful are critics who opt instead to disseminate baseless allegations regarding our findings, our sources, and our motives.

You claim to be interested in fostering a dialogue. Yet you do so by misrepresenting our work and demanding that I order my colleagues to retract their criticism of the Chavez government. Clearly we have a different notion of what constitutes meaningful dialogue.

It seems to me that there is no purpose in continuing this back and forth any further at this time. However, if in the future you have criticism that actually reflect the content of our work--or other information and analysis that you believe may enhance our understanding of developments in Venezuela-- please do not hesitate to share them with us.

Sincerely,
Kenneth Roth

Gregory Wilpert of Venezuelanalysis married to Chavez's official

In 2004, an investigative report about the Venezuela Information Office (VIO) was published. Public records, from the Foreign Agent Registration Unit of the US Department of Justice, demonstrate that VIO is nothing more than Hugo Chavez's propaganda arm in US soil. Since, it remains a proven fact that most of the benign literature and positive coverage that has been written and published about the Venezuelan pustchist comes either from employees of the Venezuela Information Office, such as Eric Wingerter of BOREV.NET, or from people with suspect relationships with VIO, such as Mark Weisbrot of CEPR.

These propagandists, none of whom are Venezuelan, feed and quote from each other in an attempt to present a coherent, objective and detached image. More often than not, when defending Chavez's stance in international media, they are presented as "independent analysts," in order to dupe the public. This controversial case of misrepresentation is especially significant in the case of one Gregory Wilpert of Venezuelanalysis.com.

Gregory Wilpert is a German-American sociologist, who landed in Venezuela sometime in the early years of this decade. In May 2002, right after the coup of April in which Hugo Chavez was removed from power for three days, a site called Aporrea (http://aporrea.org) was registered by Martin Sanchez, a Venezuelan who was, purportedly, studying IT in the USA (Chicago) at the time. Aporrea came to be Chavez's voice in internet, reason for which it received public funding, however it is published in Spanish. Therefore an English site was also required, and thus Venezuelanalysis.com was registered in August 2003, probably by Martin Sanchez. Gregory Wilpert would soon join Sanchez in Venezuelanalysis, who since November 2004, is quoted in various online publications, among which his own, as Venezuelan Consul in Chicago. Venzuelanalysis is also funded by the Chavez regime, according to another apologist.

There is an evident conflict of interests here, accentuated by the fact that Wilpert is yet to come out of the revolutionary closet and explain his relationship with the Chavez regime. While in Venezuela, Wilpert married, literally, into the revolution. Carol Delgado Arria de Wilpert has had a rather interesting, and meteoric, rise. Mrs Wilpert has performed different roles for the revolution, from International Relations Coordinator for the National Council for the Rights of Children in Venezuela and local contact of pollster Evans & McDonough, where she shared responsibilities with another VIO contractor 'environmentalist' Michael Schellenberger, to PDVSA representative and special advisor to the Venezuelan ambassador to Colombia

In the footsteps of Sanchez, Carol Delgado Arria de Wilpert has recently been appointed as Venezuelan Consul General in New York, where Wilpert is meant to be Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Brooklyn College. Each and every opinion of Greg Wilpert about Venezuela, whether speeches, online articles or books, need to be appraised under this light, that is to say, he is married to a Venezuelan public servant and his work in Venezuelanalysis has been funded with Venezuelan public funds. As any other individual, Wilpert is entitled to his opinions. What is truly despicable, intellectually dishonest and unbecoming of someone in academia, is to cloak clearly compromised views under a mantle of independence. Alas this seems to be a treat of chavistas: the case of tax fraudster Eva Golinger, who misrepresented herself until evidence emerged, springs to mind. Oddly, while evidence of the official appointment of Mrs Wilpert suggests disregard to Venezuelan and American legislation, there does not exist one single reference, official or otherwise, about the designation of Martin Sanchez as Venezuelan Consul in Chicago. Further, it is highly probable that both Martin Sanchez and Carol Delgado Arria de Wilpert have violated US travel regulations for Diplomats and Foreign Government Officials.

There is nothing wrong with being an apologist or a political hack. Gregory Wilpert can present himself as an independent all he wants. It remains factual however that, beyond Wilpert's marriage to a Venezuelan official, his work is geared at extolling a regime led by a putschist militaristic caudillo that funds and protects narco-terrorists, and whose disregard for human, civil and political rights is amply documented.

Venezuela voted against ceasefire in Gaza

Venezuela voted against ceasefire in Gaza (resolution 1860) during the UN's General Assembly celebrated on 16 January. Venezuela's vote, through Ambassador to the UN Jorge Valero, contradicts policy dictated by President Chavez, who had Israel's Ambassador, and its diplomatic corp, expelled from Venezuela on 7 January.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEMANDS FULL RESPECT FOR SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1860

CALLING FOR IMMEDIATE GAZA CEASEFIRE, AS EMERGENCY SESSION CONCLUDES

Resolution Adopted by Vote of 142-4-8, After Two-Day Debate;

Expresses Grave Concern About Developments on Ground Since Council Text’s Adoption

The General Assembly, gravely concerned about the intensified military operations in the Gaza Strip and heavy civilian casualties since last week’s adoption of resolution 1860 by the Security Council, this evening demanded full respect for that text, including its urgent call for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces and unimpeded provision of humanitarian assistance.

Following a two-day emergency special session convened to address the three-week old crisis, the Assembly adopted its own resolution on the issue by a vote of 142 in favour to 4 against (United States, Israel, Venezuela, Nauru), with 8 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Syria). (See Annex II.)

The Assembly called on all parties to exert all efforts to ensure, in cooperation with the Council, full and urgent compliance with resolution 1860. It also expressed support for the Secretary-General’s mission, among other international and regional efforts under way, and called on States to extend support to measures aimed at alleviating the humanitarian and economic situation. Finally, the Assembly held out the possibility of resuming its special session if requested by Member States.

The text adopted this evening, put forward by Egypt, was the result of a lengthy debate over both content and voting procedure, as it displaced a draft put forward yesterday by General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann. The Assembly President withdrew his sponsorship of that draft, after a vote was requested. Ecuador then assumed sponsorship of the text and orally amended it, although it was never brought to a vote. Instead, the Assembly, in a procedural vote, decided it would first take action on the Egyptian text.

Speaking after the vote on resolution A/ES-10/L.21/Rev.1, the Observer of Palestine said the Assembly had tonight sent a very strong message to Israel to end its aggression. He thanked the General Assembly and its President for achieving a nearly unanimous vote calling for an immediate ceasefire, to be followed shortly by Israel’s immediate withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. He thanked all delegations for applying pressure on Israel, isolating that country and compelling it to comply with resolution 1860. If Israel did not comply, his delegation would “go knocking on the door of the Security Council with a Chapter VII draft resolution”. He expected the Assembly to be with the Palestinian people until the gunfire stopped, the siege was lifted and the borders were opened.

Israel’s representative, explaining her vote against the text, said many speakers in today’s “open and endless” session had excelled in rhetoric, but less so in reality. Israel had engaged in the current situation not by choice, but because it had been forced to do so. Hamas had fired numerous rockets and 1 million innocent Israeli civilians had been endangered. The resolution was deeply flawed, in that it did not mention Hamas and its use of civilian homes, schools and mosques to hide weapons and launch terrorist attacks. Nor did it mention Hamas’ enormous efforts to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip. Further, Article 12, section 1 of the United Nations Charter prohibited the Assembly from making recommendations on issues while the Council was still seized of those matters.

Similarly, the United States representative said his delegation voted against the text as the situation in Gaza and southern Israel was a serious matter best dealt with through efforts on the ground. The basic elements for a durable ceasefire had been laid. Moreover, the Memorandum of Understanding on preventing the supply of arms to terrorist groups was signed today between the United States and Israel. A separate General Assembly resolution was neither necessary, nor useful.

Abstaining from the vote, the representative of Canada explained that his delegation supported the text’s call for compliance with resolution 1860 to achieve an immediate ceasefire, but regretted that it failed to recognize that rocket attacks by Hamas had led to the crisis. Those must be stopped.

Weighing in at the end, Egypt’s representative said he believed that the Assembly President had, to some degree, prodded the Security Council to action last week by scheduling the resumed emergency session on the very day the Council was set to meet. He thanked all those that had voted in favour of the text, as well as those that had abstained in the vote. “We’re all in the same boat,” he said, adding that the resolution did not represent a victory for some over others, but it was a victory for all.

In closing the special session, President D’Escoto said he would be less than frank if he did not say he was very disappointed. The Assembly was in far worse shape than he had thought. “We will never make it if we don’t act in a more decisive and affirmative manner.”

Also speaking today were the representatives of Brunei, Jamaica, Switzerland, Venezuela, Libya, Jordan, Sri Lanka, Russian Federation, Nicaragua, Iceland, Kuwait, Oman, Tunisia, China, Mexico, Ecuador, Bolivia, Liechtenstein, Pakistan, Australia, Cape Verde, Chile, Maldives, Norway, Rwanda (on behalf of the African Group), United Kingdom, Japan, Benin, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Republic of Korea, Panama, Grenada (on behalf of the Caribbean Community), Comoros, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Afghanistan, Spain, Slovenia, Ireland, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Cyprus, United Republic of Tanzania, New Zealand, Sweden, Belgium, Malta, Lebanon, France, Czech Republic (on behalf of the European Union), Costa Rica, Djibouti, Gambia, Cuba, Iran, Federated States of Micronesia, Canada, Syria, Indonesia and Bolivia.

The Permanent Observer of the Holy See also spoke.

The General Assembly will reconvene at a date to be announced.

Link to the text: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/ga10809.doc.htm

Venezuela's disgraceful opposition leadership

This is something I was meaning to tell since I came back from Venezuela's presidential race in January 2007. Chavez has been able to do what he has done, for one simple reason: the absolute uselessness of his opposition. Be it student leaders, charismatic mayors, regional governors, media barons, or regular politicians, it is quite hard to find another country where the combined effectiveness of an opposition front is so pathetic. Chavez lost the amendment referendum in 2007, for he messed up with his constituency, with those who get the vote out, and those who protect him. He didn't lose because some posh kids organized a couple of marches. He didn't lose because Raul Baduel threatened him. No. His first lost came about because he alienated his own military, his own governors and public officials, who dreaded giving him enough power to appoint shadow authorities, to create new federal, regional and municipal public institutions that could imperil access and control of easy cash, at respective levels. If results are to be believed, 3 million chavistas sat out the vote and Chavez was forced to concede.

In 2006, the opposition failed to cover 40% of polling booths. 40% opposition no-shows of 33,000 booths 'equaled' 7 million votes for the incumbent. One year after that the opposition still did not manage to cover all stations, but defeat -for Chavez- came from within, for let's face it: Venezuela's opposition are 4.5, maybe 5, million folks, who will vote for anyone but Chavez.

So now the country is facing another election. Having lost control of the most populated cities and states, Chavez needs to get on with the job of approving his indefinite re-election, in light of falling oil prices and ensuing drop in popularity. Without money there's no lost love between the poor and Chavez. It's a very straightforward and mercantilistic relationship, characteristic of the sheer materialism of all Venezuelans. The opposition is prepping for what they do best: fuck things up. Instead on pointing at the obvious, illegality of amendment/constitutional reform and wholesale chavista failure, they are waltzing along at the tunes played by el golpista.

The latest, is an encounter in Maiquetia airport between Alberto Federico Ravell (owner of Globovision), Julio Borges (owner of Primero Justicia), Luis Felipe Planas (head of a political empty shell called COPEI), Omar Barbosa (co-owner of Un Nuevo Tiempo) and a 20-something year old kid, from one of Chavez's hundreds of community media networks. So the group of 'experienced' politicos and media baron were arriving from Puerto Rico, allegedly from a meeting with US DoS officials. In the agenda, strategy to defeat Chavez's indefinite re-election attempt. The conversation goes something like: "hey Alberto, so you got instructed by the US on how to defeat the amendment? How did it go? How are you guys going to do it?" asks the kid. The owner of Venezuela's only 24-hour information channel says "it went well, we won't import radioactive material from Iran, we won't seek Cuba's advice..." Then Ravell says something about the food he had and, in response, the kid accuses him of being on the US payroll. At this point, Ravell loses his temper and swears back, making even homophobic remarks. But it gets worse. The other three imbeciles, Borges, Planas and Barbosa, had been watching the whole thing and, amazingly, could not nail this kid, who, admittedly, is not even a journalist, but a product of Chavez's warrior-like media factory and kept ridiculing them. See the whole thing here.

I happen to be incensed at this, not because of the assaulting non-journalist (obviously he's doing the only thing chavistas are good at), but at Ravell, for he is, let us not forget, the owner of Venezuela's only 24/7, news only, media network. Mind you this is the guy who travels around the world 'advocating' for freedom of expression, while denouncing attacks against himself, his network and staff. This is the guy who goes to Madrid, with the director of El Nacional, to whinge, to the King of Spain, about the political situation. This is the guy who, together with minions of Gustavo Cisneros, has ears and eyes in all opposition meetings, when not witnessing first hand, while his partner is making a fortune from financial deals with the regime. So why is he traveling abroad to political meetings? What's in it for him? Who gave him the right to bring more shame and unnecessary disrepute to us, as opposition? But how about the other three? How can it be explained that a bunch of politicos can't utter a half coherent reply to a kid firing volleys? I'll tell you why, because the kid was speaking the truth, or at least part of it was. As they say in that land were I was born "los agarraron cagando y sin papel".

It is truly a disgrace that the leadership of the opposition is in the hands of such perfidious and intellectually barren fellas. They deserve Chavez, who's already heard the news and will get a lot of mileage from this.