Government Venezuela has expelled the head of the American branch of Human Rights Watch, Jose Miguel Vivanco, accusing him of being "bought by the rule", after the publication of last report that the organization has developed on Venezuela, entitled "A Decade Under Chávez . Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for the advancement of human rights in Venezuela ." This is a really critical report, which accuses the Venezuelan government of neglecting the institutional guarantees and fundamental rights, undermine the independence of the judiciary and union elections, take action against opposition media outlets or to be aggressive against human rights organizations.
On several occasions the report contains criticisms very unfair if we consider the actual context of the same. Only in regard to the issue of media, the executive summary the report accuses the government of "abusing state control over radio and television frequencies to threaten and discriminate against stations with overtly critical programming ." The paradigmatic example of such "abuse" was, as the same report notes over and over again in their pages, Chavez announced that " not renew the broadcast license of RCTV ." Renewing a license radio state is absolutely normal in any civilized country (also in Spain, but here they have been closed several media by court order) but HRW criticizes the other reports, let alone if the station concerned has actively supported (as did the RCTV) a coup such as that suffered by the Venezuelan government and the HRW report itself described as follows: " in April 2002 a coup temporarily removed Chávez from office and replaced him with an unelected president who, in his first act of government, dissolved the country's democratic institutions, suspending the legislature and disbanding the Supreme Court. At 40 hours, the coup ended, Chavez resumed his position and constitutional order was restored . "
But HRW has no choice but to recognize the current media landscape Venezuelan media:
Human Rights Watch acknowledges that today there are anti-government media that" can make their criticism "(presumably without being bothered by this, as HRW does not say otherwise) , so that in Venezuela there is "a vibrant public debate" between pro-government media and media critical of him. He recognizes that while almost all private media were hostile to Chávez in 2002, having that he was elected four years earlier, so then it is assumed that the Venezuelan government did not act against any media during that time.
But after Lime is the sand is said that leaning over the balance in favor of the Government after it has "acted" against the opposition media and by "promoting" pro-government media. And I wonder: if one assumes that it is natural for the media of a society are a reflection of it even in regard to political trends ... HRW considers why natural that "nearly all" of Venezuela's media are hostile to a government that has been voted by the majority of the country? Why do you think that the government has no right to change this situation a little more to balance the scales, using to do the legal means at its disposal?
The report then has no choice but to admit:
Similarly, at the beginning of the report acknowledges what it has meant to the country the Bolivarian constitution promoted by Chavez
So from the beginning HRW admits that the human rights situation in Venezuela is much more favorable than before Chavez's election in 1998, thanks to a new constitution that is actively promoted. should take this into account when assessing the criticism poured in that report, because it means some terms are used as hard on him to criticize a government whose bottom line on human rights is favorable. Nor is it clear why the report personalized in the figure of Chávez all the criticism on it. If you consult any report referred to Spain, we find that HRW does not usually refer to the English government of Zapatero person. Why then mentioned in this report on Chavez to the Venezuelan government itself?
also quite suspect that this report was published just two months of the upcoming Venezuelan elections, scheduled for Nov. 23. But the special sense of opportunity that has come to be HRW commonplace: since the June 17, 2004 (two months before the presidential referendum of August 15) published the report " Judicial Independence threatened in Venezuela."
Vivancos Does this mean that it was in fact, "bought by the rule? Perhaps, but if we have to rule that also harshly criticized a pro-American government so as Colombia. On the other hand the question is not whether you have received money from the U.S. government for making their criticisms as if they are right or wrong. And one can only argue against this serious and reasoned.
why the government Venezuela should not have made the mistake to expel the country Vivanco. Human Rights Watch has such a reputation, deserved or not, to expel its American representative serves up juicy ammunition just Chavez's detractors, who will not hesitate to shout on the intransigence of the "dictator" against criticism. On the other hand, what good is such an expulsion, other than to give a huge worldwide publicity and free to report or to pretend that the harsh criticism of this real? The damage by Vivanco was done and their presence in Venezuela was thereafter fairly harmless, because they do not forget: HRW will continue to issue critical reports anyway.
On several occasions the report contains criticisms very unfair if we consider the actual context of the same. Only in regard to the issue of media, the executive summary the report accuses the government of "abusing state control over radio and television frequencies to threaten and discriminate against stations with overtly critical programming ." The paradigmatic example of such "abuse" was, as the same report notes over and over again in their pages, Chavez announced that " not renew the broadcast license of RCTV ." Renewing a license radio state is absolutely normal in any civilized country (also in Spain, but here they have been closed several media by court order) but HRW criticizes the other reports, let alone if the station concerned has actively supported (as did the RCTV) a coup such as that suffered by the Venezuelan government and the HRW report itself described as follows: " in April 2002 a coup temporarily removed Chávez from office and replaced him with an unelected president who, in his first act of government, dissolved the country's democratic institutions, suspending the legislature and disbanding the Supreme Court. At 40 hours, the coup ended, Chavez resumed his position and constitutional order was restored . "
But HRW has no choice but to recognize the current media landscape Venezuelan media:
"Venezuela still enjoys a vibrant public debate in which opponents of the government media are equally vocal in their criticism and pro-Chavez expressed his government's defense. However, while Chávez faced an almost entirely hostile private media at the time of the 2002 coup, has since achieved the balance of the media tilt, significantly, in favor of the government. This change did not occur because it has promoted more funds are available plural, but because they acted against opposition media outlets and at the same time, state media promoted only reflect the views of supporters of Chavez. "
Human Rights Watch acknowledges that today there are anti-government media that" can make their criticism "(presumably without being bothered by this, as HRW does not say otherwise) , so that in Venezuela there is "a vibrant public debate" between pro-government media and media critical of him. He recognizes that while almost all private media were hostile to Chávez in 2002, having that he was elected four years earlier, so then it is assumed that the Venezuelan government did not act against any media during that time.
But after Lime is the sand is said that leaning over the balance in favor of the Government after it has "acted" against the opposition media and by "promoting" pro-government media. And I wonder: if one assumes that it is natural for the media of a society are a reflection of it even in regard to political trends ... HRW considers why natural that "nearly all" of Venezuela's media are hostile to a government that has been voted by the majority of the country? Why do you think that the government has no right to change this situation a little more to balance the scales, using to do the legal means at its disposal?
The report then has no choice but to admit:
"There is one area in which the government's media policy has had positive results in the transmission of radio and television at the community level. The government has actively supported the creation of radio and TV community, whose transmission contributes to pluralism and diversity of the media in Venezuela. "
Similarly, at the beginning of the report acknowledges what it has meant to the country the Bolivarian constitution promoted by Chavez
" The 1999 Constitution significantly expanded protection of human rights , for example, by giving prevalence to the international legal obligations in this area for over domestic laws. He also created a new Supreme Court and tried to give it the necessary institutional independence to act as the ultimate guarantor of fundamental rights. "
So from the beginning HRW admits that the human rights situation in Venezuela is much more favorable than before Chavez's election in 1998, thanks to a new constitution that is actively promoted. should take this into account when assessing the criticism poured in that report, because it means some terms are used as hard on him to criticize a government whose bottom line on human rights is favorable. Nor is it clear why the report personalized in the figure of Chávez all the criticism on it. If you consult any report referred to Spain, we find that HRW does not usually refer to the English government of Zapatero person. Why then mentioned in this report on Chavez to the Venezuelan government itself?
also quite suspect that this report was published just two months of the upcoming Venezuelan elections, scheduled for Nov. 23. But the special sense of opportunity that has come to be HRW commonplace: since the June 17, 2004 (two months before the presidential referendum of August 15) published the report " Judicial Independence threatened in Venezuela."
Vivancos Does this mean that it was in fact, "bought by the rule? Perhaps, but if we have to rule that also harshly criticized a pro-American government so as Colombia. On the other hand the question is not whether you have received money from the U.S. government for making their criticisms as if they are right or wrong. And one can only argue against this serious and reasoned.
why the government Venezuela should not have made the mistake to expel the country Vivanco. Human Rights Watch has such a reputation, deserved or not, to expel its American representative serves up juicy ammunition just Chavez's detractors, who will not hesitate to shout on the intransigence of the "dictator" against criticism. On the other hand, what good is such an expulsion, other than to give a huge worldwide publicity and free to report or to pretend that the harsh criticism of this real? The damage by Vivanco was done and their presence in Venezuela was thereafter fairly harmless, because they do not forget: HRW will continue to issue critical reports anyway.
0 comments:
Post a Comment