Archive for ‘Insulsa’

April 15, 2010

En el nombre de la Robolucion

Uno a veces se pregunta si la robolucion Bolivariana Chavista Castrista que asola a Venezuela y otros en el continente ya nos hizo tocar fondo. Les tengo malas noticias, historias del siglo 20 en otras latitudes me demuestran que todavía es posible mucho peor. Es posible que estos dementes puedan eliminar el siglo 21 y el siglo 20 del continente sur americano. Las pruebas las pueden leer en este pequeña (pero muy buena) nota aparecida en TalCual. No dejen de leerlo, vale la pena aprender.

—-

Un régimen que sólo sembró muerte
14/04/2010 06:18:37 p.m. | Opinión
El 15 de abril de 1998, una noticia llegaba a las redacciones de los diarios: Pol Pot, el dictador camboyano, el antiguo líder de los Khmer Rouge (jemeres rojos), el responsable de un genocidio que había acabado con uno de cada tres habitantes de Camboya, había muerto de un infarto mientras dormía en un campamento cercano a la frontera tailandesa donde vivía en situación de arresto domiciliario.

Pol Pot se llamaba en realidad Saloth Sar. Bajo su régimen totalitario proclamó el nacimiento de la Kampuchea Democrática y declaró el inicio del “año cero”, en el que la historia del país empezaría a reescribirse. Había que eliminar todos los vestigios del detestable capitalismo: Se destruyeron los vehículos de motor y el carro de mulas fue instituido como medio de transporte nacional. Se suprimió el derecho de propiedad privada. Se quemaron bibliotecas y fábricas de todo tipo. Se prohibió el uso de todo medicamento: Kampuchea estaba en condiciones de reinventar todas las medicinas echando la mano a la sabiduría popular. Sólo los campesinos permanecerían a salvo de la peste capitalista y burguesa. Al resto se le tenía por peligroso despojo de tiempos pasados que había que eliminar.

read more »

December 16, 2009

El camino del calvario

Desde muévete solo podemos implorar por que alguien leyendo esto le tienda una mano al Sr. Brito y su familia. Este es solo uno de los miles de abusos que la OEA y Mercosur se empeñan en ignorar. Sr Insulsa, ni siquiera siento ganas de insultarle. Cumpla su deber, y deje de defender gobiernos.

—-

VenEconomia- Dic.14, 2009

El calvario del biólogo y agricultor venezolano, Franklin Brito, sintetiza dos tristes facetas de esta era de Chávez.

A nivel personal, se tiene el calvario de Franklin Brito, un ciudadano que se atrevió en 2002 a presentar un proyecto para resolver un problema registrado en el Municipio Sucre del Estado Bolívar con unos sembradíos de ñame. El “pecado” de Brito fue diseñar este proyecto con una visión diferente a la del Alcalde de ese Municipio, del partido oficialista MVR, Juan Carlos Figarrella. Brito en ese entonces demostró que el modelo que el Gobierno Municipal de Sucre proponía para superar la enfermedad del sembradío no era recomendable y se corría el riesgo de malversar los fondos que aportaría la Corporación Venezolana de Guayana para su financiamiento. Y aunque Brito logró en ese momento detener el proyecto del Gobierno, ha tenido que pagar desde entonces duras consecuencias.

Brito perdió su trabajo y otras fuentes de su sustento familiar: lo despidieron del Instituto Agrícola de la Alcaldía de Sucre (estado Bolívar). Además, el Ministerio de Educación lo despidió de su cargo de profesor de secundaria, y a su esposa del cargo de maestra de una escuela bolivariana, sin pagarles sus prestaciones sociales.

El INTI de manera arbitraria y violando la Ley de Tierras avaló una invasión al otorgar dos cartas agrarias que abarcaron sus propiedades, destrozaron sus cultivos, y no le han pagado sus bienhechurías.

Desde 2005, Franklin Brito ha emprendido cinco huelgas de hambre para exigir que se cese en la violación de sus derechos. Se ha cosido los labios. Ha llegado al extremo de amputarse un dedo para que el Gobierno oiga sus exigencias. Cinco veces el Gobierno se ha visto obligado a prometer que oirá y resolverá su petitorio. Pero, cinco veces el Gobierno ha roto sus promesas y los compromisos contraídos con Brito.

En la última de las estaciones del vía crucis de Brito, parecía que sus penurias habían llegado a un final feliz cuando el Gobierno, al fin, garantizó devolverle sus tierras para que levantara su quinta huelga de hambre que ya sumaba cinco meses, en frente de la sede de la OEA en Caracas.

Pero, el Gobierno una vez más ignoró sus promesas, lo que llevó a que Brito iniciara el viernes 11 de diciembre su sexta huelga de hambre, otra vez frente a la sede de la OEA en Caracas. Brito aduce que esta vez su protesta es una respuesta a la propuesta que le hicieron para que firmara una carta donde negaría sus denuncias de corrupción, ampliamente documentadas por este, a cambio de la devolución de sus tierras.

Y, a la una de la madrugada de este domingo, el Gobierno llevó a cabo la más vil agresión contra Brito, llevándolo violentamente y a la fuerza desde la sede de la OEA para internarlo en la sección psiquiátrica del Hospital Militar. Ahora Brito teme por su vida, que está en manos del Gobierno o que – al igual que los Nazi de los años 30 – se le declare demente y se le encierre en un manicomio.

Franklin Brito, un ciudadano digno y luchador por la justicia y la libertad, sintetiza la barbarie de la que es capaz un régimen dictatorial como lo es el de Venezuela.

Lo de Franklin Brito no es un caso aislado. Es un ejemplo dramático, e intensamente humano, del día-a-día de un Gobierno que no respeta ley alguna, ni Constitución ni Tratado Internacional ni contrato. Peor, es un Gobierno que ni siquiera cumple su “palabra”.

July 1, 2009

The Wages of Chavismo

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

JULY 1, 2009

The Wages of Chavismo

The Honduran coup is a reaction to Chávez’s rule by the mob. As military “coups” go, the one this weekend in Honduras was strangely, well, democratic. The military didn’t oust President Manuel Zelaya on its own but instead followed an order of the Supreme Court. It also quickly turned power over to the president of the Honduran Congress, a man from the same party as Mr. Zelaya. The legislature and legal authorities all remain intact. We mention these not so small details because they are being overlooked as the world, including the U.S. President, denounces tiny Honduras in a way that it never has, say, Iran. President Obama is joining the U.N., Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and other model democrats in demanding that Mr. Zelaya be allowed to return from exile and restored to power. Maybe it’s time to sort the real from the phony Latin American democrats. Associated Press The situation is messy, and we think the Hondurans would have been smarter — and better off — not sending Mr. Zelaya into exile at dawn. Mr. Zelaya was pressing ahead with a nonbinding referendum to demand a constitutional rewrite to let him seek a second four-year term. The attorney general and Honduran courts declared the vote illegal and warned he’d be prosecuted if he followed through. Mr. Zelaya persisted, even leading a violent mob last week to seize and distribute ballots imported from Venezuela. However, the proper constitutional route was to impeach Mr. Zelaya and then arrest him for violating the law. Yet the events in Honduras also need to be understood in the context of Latin America’s decade of chavismo . Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez was democratically elected in 1998, but he has since used every lever of power, legal and extralegal, to subvert democracy. He first ordered a rewrite of the constitution that allowed his simple majority in the national assembly grant him the power to rule by decree for one year and to control the judiciary. In 2004 he packed the Supreme Court with 32 justices from 20. Any judge who rules against his interests can be fired. He made the electoral tribunal that oversees elections his own political tool, denying opposition requests to inspect voter rolls and oversee vote counts. The once politically independent oil company now hires only Chávez allies, and independent television stations have had their licenses revoked. Mr. Chávez has also exported this brand of one-man-one-vote-once democracy throughout the region. He’s succeeded to varying degrees in Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina and Nicaragua, where his allies have stretched the law and tried to dominate the media and the courts. Mexico escaped in 2006 when Felipe Calderón linked his leftwing opponent to chavismo and barely won the presidency. In Honduras Mr. Chávez funneled Veneuzelan oil money to help Mr. Zelaya win in 2005, and Mr. Zelaya has veered increasingly left in his four-year term. The Honduran constitution limits presidents to a single term, which is scheduled to end in January. Mr. Zelaya was using the extralegal referendum as an act of political intimidation to force the Congress to allow a rewrite of the constitution so he could retain power. The opposition had pledged to boycott the vote, which meant that Mr. Zelaya would have won by a landslide. Such populist intimidation has worked elsewhere in the region, and Hondurans are understandably afraid that, backed by Chávez agents and money, it could lead to similar antidemocratic subversion there. In Tegucigalpa yesterday, thousands demonstrated against Mr. Zelaya, and new deputy foreign minister Marta Lorena Casco told the crowd that “Chávez consumed Venezuela, then Bolivia, after that Ecuador and Nicaragua, but in Honduras that didn’t happen.” It’s no accident that Mr. Chávez is now leading the charge to have Mr. Zelaya reinstated, and on Monday the Honduran traveled to a leftwing summit in Managua in one of Mr. Chávez’s planes. The U.N. and Organization of American States are also threatening the tiny nation with ostracism and other punishment if it doesn’t readmit him. Meanwhile, the new Honduran government is saying it will arrest Mr. Zelaya if he returns. This may be the best legal outcome, but it also runs the risk of destabilizing the country. We recall when the Clinton Administration restored Bertrand Aristide to Haiti, only to have the country descend into anarchy. As for the Obama Administration, it seems eager to “meddle” in Honduras in a way Mr. Obama claimed was counterproductive in Iran. Yet the stolen election in Iran was a far clearer subversion of democracy than the coup in Honduras. As a candidate, Mr. Obama often scored George W. Bush’s foreign policy by saying democracy requires more than an election — a free press, for example, civil society and the rule of law rather than rule by the mob. It’s a point worth recalling before Mr. Obama hands a political victory to the forces of chavismo in Latin America.

July 1, 2009

Honduras’s Coup Is President Zelaya’s Fault

By Alvaro Vargas Llosa
Updated: Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Any time a bunch of soldiers break into a presidential palace, pick up the president and put him on a flight to exile, as happened in Honduras last Sunday, you have a “coup.” But, unlike most coup targets in Latin America’s tortuous republican history, Honduras’s deposed president, Manuel Zelaya, bears the biggest responsibility for his overthrow.

A member of the rancid oligarchy he now decries, Zelaya took office in 2006 as the leader of one of the two center-right parties that have dominated Honduran politics for decades. His general platform, his support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and his alliances with business organizations gave no inkling of the fact that halfway into his term he would become a political cross-dresser.

Suddenly, in 2007, he declared himself a socialist and began to establish close ties with Venezuela. In December of that year, he incorporated Honduras into Petrocaribe, a mechanism set up by Hugo Chávez for lavishing oil subsidies on Latin American and Caribbean countries in exchange for political subservience. Then his government joined the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA), Venezuela’s answer to the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, ostensibly a commercial alliance but in practice a political conspiracy that seeks to expand populist dictatorship to the rest of Latin America.

Last year, following the script originally laid out by Chávez in Venezuela and adopted by Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Zelaya announced that he would hold a referendum to set upa constituent assembly that would change the constitution that barred him from reelection. In the next few months, every legal body in Honduras — the electoral tribunal, the Supreme Court, the attorney general, the human rights ombudsman — declared the referendum unconstitutional. According to the Honduran constitution (articles 5, 373 and 374), presidential term limits cannot be changed under any circumstance; only Congress can modify the constitution; and political institutions are not subject to referendums. Honduras’s Congress, Zelaya’s own Liberal Party and a majority of Hondurans (in various polls) expressed their horror at the prospect of having Zelaya perpetuate himself and bring Honduras into the Chávez fold. In defiance of court orders, Zelaya persisted. Surrounded by a friendly mob, he broke into the military installations where the ballots were kept and ordered them distributed. The courts declared that Zelaya had placed himself outside the law, and Congress began an impeachment procedure.

This is the context in which the military, in an ill-advised move that turned a perfectly legal mechanism for stopping Zelaya into a coup, expelled the president. The fact that the constitutional procedure was subsequently followed by having Congress appoint the head of the legislative body, Roberto Micheletti, as interim president, and that the elections scheduled for November have not been canceled, is not enough to dissipate the cloud of illegitimacy that hangs over the new government. This factor has disarmed Zelaya’s critics in the international community in the face of a well-coordinated campaign led by Chávez to reinstate him and denounce the coup as an oligarchic assault on democracy.

That said, the international response, seeking to reinstate Zelaya without any mention of his illegal acts, has been highly inadequate. The Organization of American States, led by its secretary general, José Miguel Insulza, has acted like Venezuela’s poodle. At Chávez’s request, Insulza went to Nicaragua, where a summit of the anti-democratic ALBA group became the hemisphere’s political center of gravity after the coup. Insulza and other populist presidents said nothing about Zelaya’s dictatorial conduct leading up to last Sunday’s events and simply echoed Venezuela’s self-serving stance. Efforts by other countries, including the United States and many South American governments, to put some nuance into the public statements were neutralized by the spectacle unfolding in Nicaragua, which was widely reported across the Spanish-speaking world. It was sad to see Insulza suddenly remember his organization’s Inter-American Democratic charter in relation to Honduras — the same rules of democratic conduct that Chávez, Morales, Correa and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega have violated on numerous occasions while the OAS looked the other way.

The crisis in Honduras should bring to people’s attention this truth about Latin America today: The gravest threat to liberty comes from elected populists who are seeking to subject the institutions of the law to their megalomaniac whims. Given that scenario, the hemisphere’s response to Honduras’s crisis has undermined those who are trying to prevent populism from taking the region back to the times when it was forced to choose between left-wing revolution and military dictatorships.

Alvaro Vargas Llosa is the editor of “Lessons From the Poor” and director of the Center on Global Prosperity at the Independent Institute. He is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. His e-mail address is AVLlosa@independent.org .

June 12, 2009

Ivan Simonovis to the European Pairlament

My name is Iván Simonovis, 49-year-old and of profession Criminal Investigator. For 23 years uninterrupted I worked in the Police of Criminal investigation of Venezuela and, due to my skills, in the year 2000 I was appointed to take over the Secretary of Public Safety, of the Capital, during the fateful acts of April 11, 2002. My function was the coordination and supervision of the policies of public security of the city of Caracas, Venezuela.

I’m imprisoned in the “General Affairs Department of the Intelligence Services and Prevention of the Interior Ministry and Justice” (DISIP by its initials in Spanish), in Caracas, Venezuela, since November 22, 2004, condemned to 30 years of prison, this actually means death sentence, after 3 years of hearings (the longest judicial litigation of his kind in Venezuelan history), besides 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment without charges, I was sentenced of “complicity” in relation to the death of 2 of the 19 dead in Caracas April 11, 2002.

I am indeed a 4 square meters cell, in the basement of the headquarters of the political police in Caracas, without ventilation or natural light. I only have access to sunlight, 2 hours every 2 weeks. In total 48 hours, [2] days per year of natural light. The place where I am detained is not a jail, is the headquarters of the political police of Venezuela, and these facilities are not designed to have inmates for long periods. Consequently, and given these conditions, my health physical and mental has been deteriorating, and I have had the need for medical attention, in some cases even surgery. There is also a severe restriction of my right to receive visits from family, friends, representatives of NGOs and national or international journalists, violating in fact several articles of the American Convention on Human Rights signed in San José, Costa Rica.

I received a trial with no sense and completely unsubstantiated for the murdered of only 2 of 19 people that unfortunately died in April 11, which developed (the trial) over 225 audiences. This trial was filed in a court located 100 kilometers from Caracas, which is the place where I have been kept, therefore involved traveling over 39,000 kilometers handcuffed.

During the trial, there were hearings from 198 witnesses and 48 experts, there were evaluated more than 250 technical and scientific expertises, and it was analyzed more than 5,700 photographs and videos. None of this evidence proves my guilt as to the facts that I was charged.

In that same period, 67 people were identified, all followers to the President Hugo Chávez, shooting with long and short fire arms against unarmed opposition demonstrators. All these people were acquitted or pardoned by the President of the Republic by an amnesty law issued by the National Assembly after his (the president) request, in December 2007.

On April 3, 2009, I was sentenced to 30 years in prison without any mitigating; on the charge of “complicity correspectiva” without perpetrators, repeat a sentence of death.

This abominable ruling is not even comparable to the recent sentence handed down to former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his intellectual authority, as President, in murder with premeditation, aggravated kidnapping and serious injuries to people during the years 1991 and 1992 in Peru.

Gentlemen, my house has been attacked with Molotov bombs, my family, including my minor children, has been threatened in their physical integrity in public by armed radical groups, affects the national government. My wife, who also acts as my lawyer and like my children, has Spanish citizenship, had been subjected to public scorn, has been threatened in television and radio officers and has been attacked in their person and honor of women in a systematic manner by groups of people followers to the government, whom were mobilized to the outside of the seat of the court for uttering insults and threats during her entries and exits to the hearings.

We’ve all gone to the courts and exhausted all the resources that Venezuelan law provides, with the only hope of being treat with fairness and get some respect for our human rights, which have been unsuccessful.

This letter possibly cause negative consequences to my family and I, but before my growing state of defenselessness and before the systematic violation of my human rights, I respectfully contact you to request that, in attainment of the resolution recently approved by the above-mentioned European Parliament to the situation of political
persecutions in Venezuela, the European Parliament exhausts all the possible mechanisms so that a commission of that Parliament visit our country and for them to be able to verify how the justice is used for political persecution.

The case that I have mentioned is not a unique one. In Venezuela exists more than 40 political prisoners; victims of the punishment for political dissidence.

I will always be thankful of any aid that the Parliament could do in order to help with the protection of the human rights and to avoid that cases like mine continue occurring in Venezuela. My wife, also my lawyer, is at your absolute disposition to keep this conversation in person with who ever are indicated by the Parliament. She is also available to better explain the thousands of details, humiliations and aggressions that this note does not include. Also, to carry all the documents that supports each one of my words. She could also work helping to get any information necessary in order to obtain the aid of the European Parliament that I’m desperately requesting in.

Sincerely
Iván Simonovis
Political Prisoner

January 28, 2009

Washington Times Front Page: The new Che movie, HRF, and the Historical Record

Washington Times Front Page: The new Che movie, HRF, and the Historical Record

WASHINGTON, DC (January 27, 2009)—Human Rights Foundation (HRF) chairman Armando Valladares is extensively quoted in a review of the film Che, published in today’s Washington Times by reporter Sonny Bunch. Che, directed by Steven Soderbergh and released on January 24, depicts the life of Ernesto “Che” Guevara, the Argentine-born Marxist revolutionary best known for his friendship with Fidel Castro. What the film does not depict, however, are the violent tactics Guevara used to crush opposition and dissent to Fidel Castro’s revolution—leaving behind a bloody legacy in Cuba.

Actor Benicio del Toro, who portrays Guevara, walked out of an interview with the Times’s Sonny Bunch after refusing to address the film’s inaccurate portrayal of the historical record and the human rights violations committed by Guevara. Valladares, a survivor of Cuba’s concentration camps, stresses that the film threatens to obscure the reality of Guevara’s extremism and the scores of human rights violations he committed in pursuit of revolutionary ideals. “Che Guevara executed dozens and dozens of people who never once stood trial and were never declared guilty,” Valladares said.

Del Toro maintains that Guevara was simply “for capital punishment.” “That characterization is as absurd as saying that the murders carried out by Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pinochet, Somoza, and Ortega are understandable because these dictators were for capital punishment,” says Valladares.

HRF is an international nonpartisan organization devoted to defending human rights in the Americas. It centers its work on the twin concepts of freedom of self-determination and freedom from tyranny. These ideals include the belief that all human beings have the rights to speak freely, to associate with those of like mind, and to leave and enter their countries. Individuals in a free society must be accorded equal treatment and due process under law, and must have the opportunity to participate in the governments of their countries; HRF’s ideals likewise find expression in the conviction that all human beings have the right to be free from arbitrary detainment or exile and from interference and coercion in matters of conscience. HRF does not support nor condone violence. HRF’s International Council includes former prisoners of conscience Vladimir Bukovsky, Palden Gyatso, Armando Valladares, Ramón J. Velásquez, Elie Wiesel, and Harry Wu.

November 19, 2008

Violaciones a la libertad de prensa; Carta No. 3 del proyecto “La Carta Democrática Interamericana y El Sr. Insulza”

PARA DISTRIBUCIÓN INMEDIATA

350 Fifth Avenue, Ste 809
New York, NY 10118
Voice: (212) 246.8486
Fax: (212) 643.4278
www.laHRF.com

Contacto:
Howard J. Bender
(212) 246.8486
info@thehrf.org

Violaciones a la libertad de prensa; Carta No. 3 del proyecto “La Carta Democrática Interamericana y El Sr. Insulza”


NUEVA YORK (19 de noviembre de 2008) – La Human Rights Foundation (HRF) hizo pública una carta enviada ayer a José Miguel Insulza, Secretario General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA). Mediante esta carta, la HRF busca denunciar la inacción de éste ante violaciones tan flagrantes a la libertad de expresión como lo son los cierres de canales de televisión y emisoras de radio, y agresiones a periodistas, muchas veces incitados por los mismos jefes de Estado.

“Los ataques constantes contra los periodistas y medios de comunicación son el termómetro ideal para medir la situación de los derechos humanos en estos países”, dijo Howard J. Bender, director de investigación de la HRF. “Mientras varios gobernantes en América promueven las agresiones a la prensa y violan abiertamente los elementos esenciales de la democracia, el señor Insulza se niega a cumplir su obligación de aplicar la cláusula democrática. Es un escándalo”, agregó Bender.

En Bolivia, a los discursos del presidente Evo Morales en los que llama a los periodistas “enemigos” y “amigos del imperio”, le siguen ataques físicos a los periodistas y medios de comunicación por parte de los movimientos sociales seguidores. Desde el 8 de octubre de 2008, Jorge Melgar Quette, conductor de un programa televisivo, está preso bajo cargos de terrorismo y sedición. Melgar fue arrestado arbitrariamente por hombres encapuchados luego de que difundiera un video que mostraba a un ministro de gobierno incitando a la violencia criminal.

En Ecuador el presidente Rafael Correa se ha referido a la prensa de su país como “miseria humana” y los ha calificado de “calumniadores” y de ser su opositor principal. El 8 de julio de 2008, el gobierno ecuatoriano cerró arbitrariamente tres canales de televisión (TC Televisión, Cable Visión y Gamavisión).

En Nicaragua el presidente Ortega es el principal incitador a las persecuciones y agresiones contra periodistas y medios de comunicación a cargo de los “camisas azules”, grupo que forma parte de las fuerzas de seguridad del Presidente. Desde diciembre de 2007 se han reportado al menos dos casos de periodistas agredidos por los “camisas azules”.

En Venezuela, las amenazas del presidente Chávez se han materializado a través del cierre del canal de televisión RCTV en el 2007. Las intimidaciones y agresiones verbales contra la prensa por parte del ejecutivo han continuado, mientras que los periodistas que se oponen al gobierno son perseguidos y atacados físicamente por grupos oficialistas.

Mediante la carta, la HRF le exige al Sr. Insulza la aplicación de la cláusula democrática a los países violadores, citando la importancia de la libertad de prensa para la democracia y los derechos humanos. La HRF concluye haciéndole un llamado de conciencia al Sr. Insulza, esperando esto lo lleve a rectificar su inacción al tiempo que le recuerda que lo que está en juego no es su imagen política, sino las vidas de millones de americanos. Esta es la tercera carta de la serie de misivas del proyecto “La Carta Democrática Interamericana y El Sr. Insulza”.

La Human Rights Foundation (HRF) es una organización internacional, apolítica, dedicada a defender los derechos humanos en el continente americano. La Fundación centra su trabajo en los conceptos entrelazados de autodeterminación y libertad. Estos ideales encuentran su más alta expresión en la creencia de que todos los seres humanos tienen derecho a la libertad de expresión, de asociación con personas de ideas afines. Las personas que viven en una sociedad libre deben recibir el mismo trato y debido proceso de conformidad con la ley y deben tener asimismo, la oportunidad de participar en los asuntos públicos de su país. De la misma forma, los ideales de la HRF están determinados por la convicción de que todos los seres humanos tienen el derecho a estar libres de detenciones o exilios arbitrarios, de esclavitud y tortura y de la interferencia y coerción en asuntos de conciencia. El Consejo Internacional de la HRF está constituido por individuos que fueron presos de conciencia como Vladimir Bukovsky, Palden Gyatso, Armando Valladares, Ramón J. Velásquez, Elie Wiesel, y Harry Wu.


Contacto:
Howard J. Bender, Human Rights Foundation, (212) 246.8486, info@thehrf.org

José Miguel Insulza, Organizacion de Estados Americanos, (202) 458.3500, amfernandez@oas.org

Lea la carta enviada por la HRF el 18 de noviembre de 2008 al Sr. Insulza aquí

-30-

October 12, 2008

MY LETTER TO WOLA

By Gustavo Coronel

Dear Sirs:
As you were celebrating your gala event last night, presenting Mr. Jose Miguel Insulza, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, with an award and special recognition as a defender of Human Rights in Latin America and for having succesfully conducted his work at the OAS during the past years, the Human Rights Watch, HRW, a prestigious organization working to combat human rights violations wherever they take place in our planet, was getting ready to make public his Report on the Human Rights situation in Venezuela, a country member of the OAS. They did this today ( HRW (www.hrw.org) ) and presented the world with a report that contains a nightmarish picture of the situation of human rights in Venezuela. There is no way your institution could not have known the dismal situation of human rights in Venezuela. There is no way your institution could not have known how the Secretary General of the OAS has systematically defended the authoritarian Venezuelan regime and has been most enthusiastic about Mr. Chavez’s presidency, with one solitary exception, when he attempted a mild criticism and Chavez called him a “pendejo”, an ***hole.

Mr. Insulza denied emphatically before the U.S. Congress any link of Mr. Chavez with the Colombian terrorist organization FARC, against all evidence to the contrary.

Mr. Insulza applauded the role of Mr. Chavez in the Santo Domingo Summit meeting, just after Chavez had tried to start a war with Colombia and had been the main promoter of the political crisis that was being discussed at that meeting.

Once and again Mr. Insulza has failed to act in the Venezuelan case and has been much more interested in his political future in his native Chile than acting impartially in defense of Latin American citizens, not simply governments. I protest vigorously this award given to Mr. Insulza. I have nothing against him as an individual but I strongly believe that he has failed his duties as an international servant. Although you have perfect right to act as your Board feels justified, I find your decision to honor him a very hard one to explain to outside observers.

Sincerely,
Gustavo Coronel

September 30, 2008

América Latina está gobernada por el Foro de Sao Paulo

Opinion – Antonio Sánchez García
29-09-2008
Salvo dignas y muy escasas excepciones, América Latina está gobernada por el Foro de Sao Paulo y sus vicarios de la izquierda en todos sus matices. En el reparto de roles, como en una película de Hollywood, unos hacen del buen policía, juicioso y moderado, otros el del policía zafio y brutal. El concierto de sus aspiraciones es la misma: controlar la región y avanzar tanto como se pueda en su labor de zapa de la institucionalidad democrática y el descoyuntamiento de nuestra tradición republicana.
No importa que entre unos y otros(as) haya diferencias tácticas en asuntos puntuales. Como por ejemplo el tratamiento de la crisis boliviana – impuesta a macha martillo por Evo Morales – o las relaciones con los Estados Unidos. A efectos de la manada, el propósito no cambia un ápice: desbancar los sistemas prevalecientes desde hace dos siglos, transformar de raíz la constelación de nuestras relaciones internacionales, liquidar las llamadas burguesías locales y montar sistemas de dominación unidimensionales de intensidad variables: abiertamente totalitarias en donde ello sea posible – Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia – caudillescas y opresoras donde la propia tradición imponga dictaduras “perfectas”, como en la Argentina mafiosa y peronista, y socialdemócratas respetuosas a lo interno donde el cuero no de para más, como en Chile y en Brasil.
Si el caso de Venezuela no puede ser más elocuente, el de Bolivia no lo es menos. En el caso venezolano, que vive la peor crisis de su historia, desde Lula a Michelle Bachelet han construido un parapeto protector que consolida la violación de la constitución y los atropellos a los derechos humanos, impidiendo que los organismos multilaterales – desde la ONU a la OEA y desde el ALBA a UNASUR – exijan la aplicación de correctivos enmarcados en sus declaraciones de principio.
Poco importa que entre los atropellados haya altos funcionarios internacionales de su propia ciudadanía, como José Miguel Vivanco y Human Rights Watch. Las Cartas Democráticas de la OEA y de Ushuaia son meramente decorativas: sirven de mascaradas a los miembros del Club, intocables todos y solidarios unos a otros por principio. El de Bolivia reitera el mismo tratamiento: no se va en auxilio del pueblo boliviano, sino de su gobernante. Al que se le tira un salvavidas para que tome un segundo aire y pueda arremeter con los ímpetus de siempre una vez controlado el volcán sobre el que se asienta.
Finalmente sigue Bolivia, como el Ecuador, el mismo guión preestablecido en el Foro y puesto en acción con la asesoría de Fidel Castro y el financiamiento de Hugo Chávez.
El Club acaba de hacer su estreno en las grandes ligas de la diplomacia en la Asamblea General de la ONU en Nueva York. Por cierto: en medio de la crisis financiera global, que viene como anillo al dedo para desviar la atención de los problemas prioritarios de nuestra región, como el terrorismo, el narcotráfico, la inseguridad, las violaciones y sobre todo la pobreza.
Por cierto: con una impudicia indigna de su aparente sobriedad, ha expresado allí uno de los miembros del Club – la Sra. Bachelet – una afirmación no sólo absurda y peregrina, sino insólita: con los 750 mil millones de dólares con que la reserva federal auxilia al sistema financiero de los Estados Unidos se hubiera podido resolver el problema de la pobreza en el planeta.
¿Cinismo o estulticia? Olvida expresamente la Sra. Bachelet que esa es exactamente la cantidad de dinero de que ha dispuesto su par el teniente coronel Hugo Chávez en nueve años de gobierno, durante los cuales no sólo ha agravado el problema de la pobreza, sino que ha arruinado aún más a un modesto país de 1 millón de kilómetros cuadrados y 28 millones de habitantes. Sumiéndolo en la depauperación y la criminalidad. Si el Foro fuera el encargado de repartir ese dinero, a personajes como Mugabe y Daniel ortega, ya nos imaginamos los resultados.
Ahora se reúnen en Manaos. Lula, el director de la orquesta, pedirá que los trombones de Chávez y los charangos de Evo no desentonen demasiado. Que falta todavía un buen trecho por recorrer. De paso se aprovechará de la circunstancia para afianzar sus negocios, que al fin y al cabo sus electores todavía son brasileños: agarrarse el gas para su burguesía neo imperialista y seguir exportando huevos y construyendo puentes en las tierras del mejor presidente de Venezuela en sus últimos cien años. Malos, muy malos tiempos los de estas democracias paridas en el Foro de Sao Paulo. Así no quiera creerlo Teodoro Petkoff: nos llevarán a la ruina.
Antonio Sánchez García
Escritor y analista político
Miembro del Grupo 2D
September 30, 2008

Hugo Chávez es un elemento desestabilizador para la seguridad hemisférica

Por: Coronel Luis Alberto Villamarín Pulido

26/09/08

El reciente anuncio del gobierno ruso de la venta masiva de un millonario cargamento de armas con destino a la injustificada carrera armamentista venezolana, constituye el corolario de una serie de hechos estructurales, que apuntan a demostrar que el controversial presidente Hugo Chávez, es un elemento desestabilizador para la seguridad hemisférica, para la paz del continente y para el equilibrio geopolítico y geoestratégico de las superpotencias.

read more »