June 1st., 2009

Chávez Shies Away From Debate With Vargas Llosa

Chávez refused to debate with Mario Vargas Llosa. Such was the final news of a controversial Forum organized by Cedice, an NGO which promotes liberal thinking. “The Latin American challenge: freedom, democracy, property and fight against poverty” was the theme for analysis. The regime, inexplicably, turned this event into national and international attention focus. Intellectuals and other guests, among them Vargas Llosa, the Mexican ex-chancellor Jorge Castañeda, Bolivian ex-president Jorge Quiroga, Mexican writer Enrique Krauze and Chilean Joaquín Lavín were detained at Maiquetía airport, forced to hand over their passports so that the political police could make copies, were submitted to thorough baggage inspections and were warned that they would be expelled from the country should they express opinions regarding internal politics.  The scandal this produced gave the Forum unexpected publicity. International agencies supplied information, critical comments began to appear in newspapers around the world, including declarations from president Alan García due to the mistreatment of his fellow countryman, of whom Peru felt very proud. In Chile a request was sent to president Bachelet for her to send a note of protest to Caracas regarding the disrespect to Lavín, ex-presidential candidate. The Forum coincided with the Aló Presidente marathon, which Chávez transmitted morning, noon and night, during three days, in order to honor the tenth anniversary of his program. He expressed himself in offensive terms regarding the participants of the Forum and called the people to manifestations. Chávez supporters planted themselves in front of the hotel which was hosting the event, calling out slogans and bearing pickets which requested the expulsion of the famous novelist, first winner of the Rómulo Gallegos Award, the highest distinction which Venezuela grants to a writer. Chávez announced that he was putting together another event, with progressive intellectuals, in order to debate the crisis of capitalism. Aló Presidente became the stage for the performance of such “progressives”, who dedicated their time to insult the participants of the Cedice Forum and present their own, in which Chávez was the central figure, as a true dialogue regarding the Latin American challenge.

The term “dialogue” became of central importance. Castañeda, declared: “It is a good moment for the President to invite us to the Aló Presidente marathon where we could discuss several issues.” Chávez answered that Aló Presidente was available for dialogue among his guests and those of the “reactionary extreme right, Imperialist, Yankee-lovers” having himself as host. From the Forum at Cedice they answered that neither the country nor international opinion had any interest in a discussion whose content was already known, that what Castañeda was proposing was a dialogue with the president. Chávez surprised followers and adversaries by offering Aló Presidente as well as the Miraflores Palace for debating issues such as socialism and liberalism. The surprised Cedice guests initially thought that Vargas Llosa, Krauze and Castañeda should go, but later, thinking in terms of equality they decided that not three should go but rather one, and they decided that the Peruvian writer should be the one to take on the challenge of facing Chávez. Upon hearing this, Chávez replied: “I am a President, I will only debate with Presidents.” The excuse did nothing to dilute the impression given to the world, picked up by almost all the newspapers on the continent and Europe: “Chávez shies away from a debate with Vargas Llosa.”

STUDENTS RESUME THE FIGHT

Students keep up the vanguard in terms of civic resistance, not letting themselves be frightened by violence against their protests. They show power to summon. Civil society accompanies them massively when they organize street actions. In protest of budget mistreatment to the universities and in defense of freedom of expression, they conducted the most concurred street action in the latest times. While the students marched, bands of hooded vandals penetrated the Universidad Central shooting, setting vehicles on fire and causing damages to murals of artistic value. University authorities filed claims before the Attorney General’s office and police organisms, obtaining the same results as always, it is not possible to identify those responsible. In that same week elections were held for the Federation of University Centers (FCU) for the Universidad del Zulia, with a result of 10% for government supporters and 90% for democratic sectors. The losers let their anger be known, with a total of five students injured. In the state of Anzoategui, 17 students were injured with pellets when the police went against young students staging a protest within the Universidad de Oriente, due to budget reductions. The police detained 15 students who were protesting. The Rector of the Universidad de los Andes (ULA) denounced that “the university, its community and goods, have been object of repeated assaults by hooded vandals, who systematically set vehicles on fire, steal units, threaten people and impede the normal functioning of this Institution.”  We are only speaking of the 4 largest public universities of the country, since there are daily news reports of similar behaviors in other universities within the country. An analyst from a Caracas newspaper affirms that the debate regarding the origin of the violence is complex and that whether the authors receive orders from the Ministry of Internal Affairs or whether they are “spontaneous” is irrelevant, since it all has to do with one politic. “It is state terrorism, institutional violence. To the judicial intimidation or intimidation by way of economic harassment the creation of an atmosphere of physical fear is added. This is no longer the disorganized and relatively anarchic violence of the Bolivarian circles, this is organized and controlled violence.”

Student leaders have taken on the mission of not letting the fear sicken the Venezuelan people, prove that institutional violence does not scare them, and that the defense of democratic values demands that they face the intimidating effect of that kind of “state terrorism” which Chávez is enforcing in order to remain forever in power. They affirm that sharing ideological and political diversity is the goal that called them to unity in a civic front against the project of “unique thought” intended by Chávez. They do not deny being a political movement, and many have been incorporated within existing parties, as a message that political party memberships are essential rights within a democracy. Others have opted for preserving their conditions as independent, announcing that that is a space from within they fight for what they call “objectives of our generation.” They all agree that Chávez reached power taking advantage of an environment of anti-politics predominant in that last decades of the past century, and that winning back democracy implies vindicating the dignity of politics in terms of collective interests. They blame “resentment” for Chávez’s obvious hatred towards the universities and students who disagree with XXI Century Socialism. Resentment transformed his hatred into denial of the existing values and in the postulation of a system of anti-values, declared the president of the FCU of the UCAB. “It is the reason for our fight.” The courage and clarity of the student movement has become a national feeling of hope in the recovery of democratic values. It strengthens the conviction that Chávez has failed in his ten year long objective of imposing a unique thought, objective of the “XXI Century Socialism.”

 GLOBOVISIÓN PRESIDENT INCRIMINATED

Globovisión, news channel which transmits programs which are critical of the regime, is a constant source of anger for Chávez. The threats towards independent media channels are permanent. Two years back, when he closed RCTV, he announced that the same measure would be taken against Globovisión. It has been declared a “military objective” by his most radical followers, who often present themselves at the TV station with threats, causing damages and throwing tear bombs into the station’s grounds. In the analysis of Chávez’s defeat of the December 2, 2007 referendum, conducted by Miraflores, Globovisión gets blamed for the upheaval. Weeks later, government supporters declared that “it is time to put an end to a channel which insults the President” and requested the Attorney General’s office to “open an investigation against Globovisión for damaging the President’s image.” The public’s general rejection to the closing of RCTV put a hold on the closing, although the administrative procedures which put the channel in a position very near to closing, continue. In view of Globovisión’s firm stance in not changing its editorial line, one of its directives, Nelson Mezerhane was imprisoned for months, and criminal trials were opened against its director, Alberto Federico Ravell and against Leopoldo Castillo, host of Aló Ciudadano, one of its programs with greater audience.

The person who was now been selected to intimidate Globovisión is its president, Guillermo Zuloaga. A property of Zuloaga’s was raided, a property which was used by his family’s company to park vehicles for sale. The company’s attorneys gave the documents which proved the legitimacy of the business, in spite of this the officers issued declarations accusing Zuloaga of hoarding and usury. The Minister of Internal Affairs declared that a “mafia organization” lead by Zuloaga had been uncovered. Chávez added the insults of thief, corrupt and cheater, “this is a case of one of those oligarchs who consider their name and riches to be a credential for impunity.” He ordered the Attorney General’s office, CONATEL and the Supreme Court of Justice to take actions against the media which “poisons” the people, “fulfill your duties, or else quit, leave your positions and let people with courage take them over.” Immediately the Attorney General accused Zuloaga of “irregular storage” of the confiscated vehicles and he was subpoenaed before the attorneys commissioned to that effect. Other accusations were filed, such as “obstruction of justice” in apparent reference to Zuloaga’s attorneys. Zuloaga, together with those of his children who lead the automobile distributor and the workers of the same, presented the documentation which legitimizes the operations which the regime is trying to penalize. He manifested his disposition to present himself at the subpoena and left for the media a phrase to capture his feelings: “Tell President Chávez that they may close Globovisión, but that Guillermo Zuloaga does not prostitute himself.”The Latin American Association of Information and Communication Rights (AIDIC) rejected the pressures and measures against Globovisión. “Every intimidation which implies a reduction in possibilities of issuing opinions is an attempt against the American Convention for Human Rights, of which Venezuela is member.” AIDIC supported the concern for the measures against Globovisión expressed by the UN reporter for freedom of opinion and expression, and of the special reporter for freedom of expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The great newspapers of the continent and Europe have made reference to these matters, agreeing that the international community cannot remain indifferent with regards to Chávez’s new attack on rights which are inherent to democratic values.