What follows is a great, objective analysis of the human rights situation in Venezuela. Prof. Rochlin thinks that Canadian foreign policy needs to return to the even-handed approach it has had re: Latin America in the past, as was demonstrated during our country's role as a mediator in the Central American conflicts in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as between Cuba and other countries at various instances. He tells the committee that while Chavez has made un-rivaled progress in improving socioeconomic conditions, there has been a concerning trend towards censorship and intimidation of journalists and media critical of his government. However, he wants policy makers to be aware that this "censorship" can be somewhat viewed as suppression of "subversion" in Venezuela given the carelessly untruthful statements many of their journalists make, and the likely real complicity that Globovision had in the US-sponsored coup attempt of 2002.
The discussion of this presentation by the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, and Conservatives can be found here if you scroll down a bit .
"My presentation today is in four brief parts. First, I'll talk about the context from which we should view Venezuelan human rights. I'll then turn to a discussion of the issues, what I view as the positive aspects, the negative aspects, and some of the more ambiguous matters associated with human rights in Venezuela. I'll turn then to a question of points of reference--that is, to what should we compare Venezuelan human rights? Finally, and I think very importantly, is the question of what Canada can do vis-à-vis Venezuelan human rights.
Regarding the context, you probably already know, because I know there have been other speakers prior to me, that whenever we're discussing Venezuelan politics or human rights, the discussion is highly polarized. It is highly polarized within Venezuela and highly polarized outside of Venezuela. Within Venezuela, you have a situation where the recently poor, who benefit from Chávez's economic policies, strongly support him, whereas the middle class, the upper class, or those who might be friendly to local or international business find his policies very antithetical to their own interests.
Outside of Venezuela, I think the discussion on Venezuela is equally polarized from those who represent maybe right-wing forces in the United States, who say highly negative things about Chávez without any mention of positive accomplishments. I think that view tends to dominate in the international, North American, and the western European press.
There's another pole, and that would be the left-wing academics and left-wing NGOs who romanticize Chávez. For them, all the problems of Venezuela have to do with what they call U.S. imperialism. What I would suggest to you is that probably the most prudent path would be somewhere in between those two poles, and not to fall to either extreme but to realize what are the positive accomplishments and what are the negative aspects, in terms of human rights.
I'll begin with some of the positive aspects, then turn to some of the negative aspects and then maybe a discussion of some ambiguous questions. I'll talk about these really in sort of headlines that we might be able to develop more fully afterwards.
When we're looking at positive aspects of human rights in Venezuela, the chief accomplishments have been made in the area of social and economic development, particularly a redistribution of income. Based on ECLAC statistics, President Chávez over the last 11 years has reduced poverty by 34%, between 1999 and 2009. When we look at another measure of poverty reduction and social development, the United Nations Human Development Index, which ranks countries from the very best at number one down to somewhere in the 180s—and I would say it is a more accurate measure—Venezuela ranked at number 58 last year, in 2009. Comparatively, that puts it ahead of Brazil at 75, ahead of Colombia at a rank of 77, ahead of Peru at a rank of 78, and ahead of Ecuador at a rank of 80. Venezuela's human development index has improved from 2005 to 2009. In 2005 it was ranked 75, and in 2009 it was ranked 58.
More specifically, there is greater access for education in Venezuela at all levels, from grammar school to university. There is greater access to medical attention; there have been subsidies for housing, for food. There has been limited land redistribution. I don't think we should underestimate the value of those accomplishments. And I would suggest to you that nobody in my generation, and I'm in my mid-50s, has done more to help the poor than Chavez has. At the same time, there are distinct problems with Venezuelan human rights. A trinity of those, or a related threesome of those, would include impunity. And no matter who you speak with in Venezuela, whether they be NGOs, academics, or people on the street, even the government, impunity for crime seems to be a huge and growing issue. Crimes happen or problems happen and they just don't get investigated or followed up.
In terms of crime, violent crime particularly has risen over the Chavez government. As you may know, Caracas is now rated as the second most violent city in Latin America, second only to Ciudad Juárez--that's the border city with Mexico and the United States, which is on the front line of narco wars.
Related to crime and impunity is the third problem of corruption. There's been a major report on Venezuelan corruption by the Organization of American States in which the government has participated, and again this is something that affects people of all social classes, whether you're dealing with a bureaucracy, a judiciary, the police, and so on.
Another clearly negative aspect in Venezuelan human rights is deteriorating conditions for the prison population, which has doubled over the last 11 years, even though crime has soared.
When we turn to the more nuanced aspects of human rights in Venezuela, that is where there are some debates. One of these would include freedom of expression. When we look at complaints regarding freedom of expression, these tend to be concentrated specifically in terms of the electronic media, television and radio, which is where the masses get their information. Complaints tend not to be aimed at the print media. The fact is that six TV stations and 32 radio stations have been closed by the Chavez government over the last two years. Another fact is that a series of journalists have been attacked with impunity by unknown assailants.
Where is the debate here, then? When we look at what the perspective is from NGOs who represent these journalists and say the TV stations have been closed down, they will tell you there's a problem with freedom of expression, with free speech, and there is a growing totalitarianism in the government that's trying to limit free speech. When you ask the government what the problem is, they will tell you these stations have been closed down because they are spreading subversive messages and trying to foment armed activity against the democratically elected government, that this is not a matter of free expression, this is a matter of terrorism, of subversion, of treason. We can develop that debate later.
There has also been a trend toward a persecution of the political opponents of the government. This would include a recent case, the Azocar case, in which an opponent of Chavez has been forbidden by corruption to run. In a similar case, the former governor of Zulia, a major state in Venezuela where Maracaibo is located, has been charged with corruption and was pressured to flee the country. My perspective is that probably those people are guilty of corruption; however, there's a double standard. That is, supporters of the Chavez government are not charged with corruption and probably many of them are as guilty as his opposition. So it has been easy for him to single out opponents based on corruption, but there is a double standard.
Another nuanced problem with regard to human rights would be the style of democracy in Venezuela. In Canada, in northern developed countries, we're used to a style of democracy that's based on checks and balances. The Venezuelan model and the model in other ALBA countries tends to be a model that's based more on referendum. What you get in this kind of situation, I would suggest, although it's democratic enough in terms of vote per vote, is a tyranny of the majority. That is, the same majority dominates in every election, and the minority is constantly shut out.
When we look at who our minorities are or at the protection of minority rights in a country like Canada, we might be looking at people of colour, ethnic groups, religious minorities, people with alternative sexual orientations, and so forth. When we look at the Venezuelan context, it's important to understand that what's going on is class warfare. That perspective, class analysis, is not one that we typically use in Canada, but I would suggest to you that unless you understand that, you're not going to understand what's going on in Venezuela. When we look at this tyranny of the majority, what we're seeing is that the majority population of the poor, or those who have benefited from Chávez's policies, dominate, while the middle class, the wealthy, and business interests find very little space for expression of their interests, and this seems to be perpetuated.
Finally, with regard to nuanced interests, I began by mentioning some of the positive aspects of the Chávez government in terms of social and economic achievements. What we've seen in the last two years have been errors or mistakes committed by the Chávez government that have clawed back some of those achievements or that are creating serious economic problems. As you may know, the economy of Venezuela declined by 5.9% in the first trimester of this year, witnessing the worst and most serious recession of any South American country at the moment.
Highly socialistic policies work in the oil sector. There's an 86% government take in the oil sector; that is, when you add up all the taxes in the program, it's an 86% government take in the oil sector. The government can get away with that because oil is such a precious commodity. When you try similar ideological perspectives in the agricultural or manufacturing sectors, they don't work. When you try those policies in the agricultural sector, farmers stop producing, and the result that's being witnessed now in Venezuela is constant shortages of food products because of those policies. Similarly, when you try those policies in the manufacturing sector, plants close down. They move instead to, say, Colombia, which has a lower tax system. What I'm suggesting, then, is that the kinds of policies that work in the oil sector do not work in the other sectors. They have created food shortages; they have also created higher unemployment, which has exacerbated this economic situation.
Finally, there is an attempt by the government to control the exchange rate of the country, which I think by any measure has not worked. The official exchange rate is 4.3%; I believe the black market is now about twice that, so you have a parallel market that is viewed as the real economy. When that occurs, and when the government tries to catch up to it, one of the results is high inflation. Venezuela is now witnessing one of the highest inflation rates in Latin America; it is estimated to be at about 30% if it keeps up for the rest of the year, and some place it higher. High inflation affects the poor the most, so while there are many achievements, some of the policies, particularly over the last year, seem to be deteriorating.
I'll move to another major point: what is the point of reference? When we compare any South American or Latin American country to Canada, it's going to come up short. What would be the natural point of reference with which to compare Venezuela? The natural one would be its next-door neighbour. It is one that has a similar geography, a similar size, a similar population, and a similar GDP. It's the country that Canada passed a free trade agreement with in the House of Commons yesterday: Colombia.
Anybody will tell you that when you look at Colombian human rights, on the positive side, the situation is improving. The situation in Colombia is more secure than it's ever been, and I've been working in Colombia since 1987. At the same time, the human rights situation in Colombia is absolutely horrendous. There were 286,000 people forcibly displaced last year, 21 union members were assassinated last year, and 90% of the paramilitaries in Colombia who have surrenders have not been investigated. There have been all kinds of scandals, and I could go on with that.
When we look at Venezuelan human rights and we're looking at it in context, I think the situation in Colombia, objectively, is far worse.
Fourth and finally, what can Canada do? As I mentioned, I wrote a book and began my career looking at Canadian foreign policy in Latin America, and what I noticed is that there's been an attempt by Canada historically to participate in conflict resolution. Dating from the Cuban revolution of 1959 to the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua in 1979–89, we saw the Liberals and the Conservatives, under the Trudeau, Clark, and Mulroney governments, successfully resolve conflict and act as a mediator. When we're looking in South America today, one of the things we observe is a huge arms race to the tune of almost $10 billion on the part of Colombia and Venezuela, each, and an entrenchment of polarization and animosity in the region.
I would strongly suggest and urge Canadian foreign policy to orient itself toward conflict resolution rather than entrenchment of polarization.
Thank you very much."
.svg/785px-Liberal_Party_of_Canada_L_logo-Parti_Liberal_du_Canada_logo_de_L_(1990s-2004).svg.png){kind=logo}
