Venezuela: Chavez in conciliatory mood…
By Aleksander Boyd
London (23.11.03) – President Hugo Chavez granted yesterday an interview to Nelson Bocaranda of Venevision. For the first time in over two years the Venezuelan “caudillo” broke the self-imposed silence and talked to the local press, and no mere press but the news outlet of “arch-enemy” Gustavo Cisneros.
Hugo Chavez is lost, he is about to face the most important “battle” of his miserable existence, the democratic one, and he knows it. It is no secret that the numbers are playing against him. By this time next week, the true nature of the Venezuelan oligarchy will become too evident to be ignored. After all, who is going to believe in Chavez’ conciliatory messages? Did he not have enough opportunities to show respect to democratic principles? Or to honour the promises on which he was elected?
Let us think about it for a minute, here you have a man who has utterly disrespected the will of those who elected him; who is a convicted criminal; a man who -without batting an eyelid- ordered the implementation of a heavily armed military contingency plan to placate a peaceful demonstration; an individual that has broken all previous records of corruption in one THE TEN MOST CORRUPT COUNTRIES OF THE PLANET (no small feat that is!). In sum a pariah without honour. Are we to believe him? Certainly not me…
Some precedent of activities of Amnesty International
AI, commonly known as the über defender of the weak and the oppressed. In what constituted one of the most shocking decisions of the House of Lords, Chilean criminal Augusto Pinochet was not extradited to Spain to face justice owing to the “biased” decision of Lord Hoffman, whom had acted as chairman of Amnesty International. The transcendental resolution to “set aside” Lord Hoffman’s judgement has opened the door for future litigants to contest opinions emanated by the highest court of England. Lord Hoffman’s views –although just for the thousands of victims of the Chilean regime- did not help the cause of justice.
Some Duncan Campbell of the Guardian reports from L.A. that the decision of the Canadian section of AI of not showing Chavez’ propagandistic documentary was based on the premise that it would have presented "some degree of threat to the physical safety" of Amnesty’s Venezuelan staff. Why is it that Amnesty has been oblivious of the fact that “the physical safety” of a considerable number of Venezuelans is under threat on a daily basis? If former directors were rightly biased, should Venezuelans expect that the Lords’ decision has altered the mission of the organization? Why such a lenient stance towards another criminal? I have visited AI’s head office here in London and I have spoken to those “in charge” of Venezuelan issues. They received plenty of evidence by Mohammad Merhi and at a later stage, all sort of documented proof of the gross violations committed by the regime in Los Semerucos to name just one of the cases. Why the silence? Is it that Chavez’ monies are supplanting those of the Rockefeller fund?
Since this site has been listed in the news section of Google, the amount of hate mail coming to my inbox has augmented. Some die-hard “chavista” from Eureka (California) wrote “sycophantic sewer of propaganda...and I'm a conservative ex-banker”. A wittier one sent this “Ustedes lo que son es una cuerda de corruptos ladrones y mal nacidos que no hacen mas que dañar nuestro bello pais. Haganle un favor a la humanidad y mueranse. Viva Chavez por una Venezuela mejor” Worth noting that the second one lives in Ohio...Long live the armchair Venezuelan revolutionaries!!!
send this article to a friend >>