Jesús Dávila
translated by Jan Susler
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico, July 1, 2010 (NCM) – A calculated police operation, according to sworn testimony this morning by one of the agents, left yesterday afternoon in front of the Capitol dozens of demonstrators injured and journalists attacked, and served as a framework so that behind closed doors the legislature could annul the university students’ constitutional rights of assembly and freedom of speech.
The sworn statement— a copy of which NCM News obtained— specifies how the order to disperse the crowd was given at least two hours before more than a hundred Puerto Rico Police, among them the anti-riot force, the horses of the mounted unit and a helicopter, swept with batons, kicks and gas hundreds of demonstrators who insisted on asserting the right that the legislature be open to the public.
To make matters even worse, the first to be violently dispersed were the reporters from the student media, who had gone to the Capitol to cover the events, and whose press credentials the government refused to recognize. Several member of the general press and at least two legislators ended up injured as well.
At the close of this edition, a statement was expected from the media guilds as well as an urgent press conference by the Puerto Rican Independence Party, calling the Puerto Rico Police action “gorilla-like.”
Without knowing that it had all happened in a calculated way by police commands, Capitol employees last night expressed their indignation at the picture of some of their vehicles overturned by the mass of students, professors, and support groups that faced the onslaught of batons and gas by police who had no fear of punishment. A little later, the legislature announced the approval of a new measure that eliminated student assemblies and substituted them with a remote electronic voting system, which any public expression by an official student leader must also be subjected to.
The measure substitutes for another which had proposed the system of internet voting for assemblies of every university organism, including professors, and which a source in the industry estimated would cost over $50 million to establish. That measure would have exempted only the Board of Trustees, which would be the only organism capable of deliberating and decision making without being subjected to the restrictions.
But in fact, a source of the ruling New Progressive Party— which in the past has provided reliable information and even confidential documents— assured days ago that the objective was to change the project to the one that was ultimately adopted. The source indicated that it’s all part of a broader agenda to eliminate in Puerto Rico the old constitutional right of freedom of assembly and substitute it with electronic voting, which would guarantee the preponderance of the so-called silent majority.
Minutes before the new restriction on constitutional rights was approved, the minority opposition Popular Democratic Party had withdrawn from the Senate floor, as a sign of protest. Senate president Thomas Rivera Schatz proclaimed that they had managed to be able to complete the final work of the ordinary session of the Legislature “in this peaceful environment.”
Rivera Schatz himself was an important piece in the entire operation when on Friday last week, in an action for which officials provided contradictory explanations, he ordered the expulsion of all journalists from the Senate sessions. To accomplish this, he used armed police and locks that blocked the press from entering, and it stood out in public opinion that the public galleries in the third floor had been closed since the end of last year.
The PDP minority and the journalists turned to separate legal recourse, still pending in court, while a group of students from the University of Puerto Rico Mayagüez campus called for a demonstration yesterday, at which the student collectives from several campuses throughout the country came together. The Senate, meanwhile, which had gone back to permitting journalists to enter and which had opened its galleries, put the locks back on, and starting early in the afternoon the anti-riot squads, known as the “Shock Troops” entered the building.
The problem of civil rights is crucial for the statehood movement, which has been complaining for years that the social and political institutions don’t recognize its overwhelming majority, as a result of which they have taken steps such as last year’s elimination of compulsory bar association membership for attorneys, because statehood has never gotten a majority at its conventions. On the other hand, the government understands that the student movement carried out a successful two month strike that paralyzed the eleven UPR campuses.
Similarly, the legislature approved another measure, to criminalize any social protest that paralyzes public or private construction sites.
But the isolation of the NPP, barely a year and a half after having won the most sweeping electoral victory in its history, isn’t limited to the student revolt or the political opposition. The party is already showing signs of division, such as growing complaints from important business sectors such as the hotel and insurance industries, as well as small town governments.
The situation has a lot to do with the attempts to increase government funds, while the country continues to be submerged in a galloping economic crisis, with more than 100,000 jobs lost since the beginning of last year. In this context, the divided labor movement continues to be paralyzed, and in the social sphere, only groups like the students present an articulate opposition to governmental plans.
With great difficulty, at the end of the night, the legislature managed to approve a deficit budget for state agencies, from the marble and alabaster building of the Capitol, in whose shadow, even hours after the incidents, the acrid odor of tear gas could still be breathed.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Monsantos Gift Not Needed In Haiti
Contributed by The Epoch Times (Reporter)
Monsanto Company sent more than 60 tons of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds to help with relief efforts in Haiti in May, but the gift was not entirely welcomed. According to numerous media reports, 10,000 members of The Movement of Papay (MMP) lead by Chavannes Jean-Baptiste took to the streets to protest the planting of Monsanto’s crops, which were accepted by the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture.
Monsanto—an American giant of agricultural produce—has a reputation of producing large amounts of hazardous pollution and dispersing branded herbicides, like Roundup, around the world to make resource-poor countries dependant on Monsanto’s supply of the chemical.
Hybrid seeds donated by Monsanto will allow farmers to grow crops for only one year as the plants do not reproduce, thus making the farmers dependent on buying the same crops the following year.
“The aim of Monsanto is to have complete control of the market, the intention is to open markets all around the world for their plants,” said Brenda Biddle, resource faculty for Evergreen State College.
The MMP is the largest grass-roots organization of Haitians in Port-au-Prince, which helps aid organizations bring food, shelter, and resources to locals. MMP leader, Chavannes said “The Haitian government is using the earthquake to sell the country to the multinationals," according to AFP.
Monsanto states that there are no business ties with this gift, and the crops grown can bring in a profit for the farmers. Then the money can be used to buy the next batch of seeds, and so create a market.
Some of the seeds shipped to Haiti were treated with pesticides. Karl Tupper, a staff scientist at Pesticide Action Network of North America, explained that once the pesticide-treated crops enter local markets it will be very hard to go back and this crop will harm the soil.
Monsanto wants to drop off the rest of the 475-ton donation over the next 12 months.
“Big companies try to get farmers to grow the crops but it has devastating effects on the local economies,” said Tupper, who added that companies might be donating seeds that are not the best of quality or are banned in the country where they are produced.
However, there is a possibility for light at the end of the tunnel for Haitian agriculture. “They can rebuild their agricultural market” said Biddle.{mospagebreak}
According to Biddle, Haiti will need help organizing an autonomous farming system that will be able to feed the families first, then the produce can be put on the local market and support whole communities.
Problems of Unwanted Aid
Monsanto seeds are not the only case of unwanted aid. According to relief workers, Haiti received inappropriate, unsolicited supplies that have become a logistical burden to deal with.
Donations that are not used in time, such as food and foreign medicine, also need to be properly disposed of, which takes time, manpower, and funds.
Claire Durham from the Red Cross, described in her blog how fresh food delivered to Haiti sometimes lays in piles for days and rots, while unnecessary medical supplies are stored for long periods of time and expired.
“Unwanted donations create chaos, waste, and confusion for an already stricken country,” according to Durham.
Many cases have been documented where the intent to support a devastated country is initially good, but in the end does not turn out too well. A similar approach to the problem in Kenya was initiated by research and development organization Drumnet in 2008.
The goal of the program was to establish a market for exporting crops, which would bring in more profit for the country as a whole. A year later, because of a change in E.U. regulations, the exporting company stopped buying the crops. The crops were then undersold on the local market, thus creating loans.
Another example of a failed initiative was in Lesotho, which aimed to help locals manage crops and livestock, and build new roads for market access, according to Give Well, an evaluation site for charity work. The project fell apart because farmers were few, weather conditions were inept for crop growth, and the roads which were constructed helped foreign markets to establish themselves and put local farmers out of work. Photo Caption(s) & Photo Location(s)
Monsanto Company sent more than 60 tons of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds to help with relief efforts in Haiti in May, but the gift was not entirely welcomed. According to numerous media reports, 10,000 members of The Movement of Papay (MMP) lead by Chavannes Jean-Baptiste took to the streets to protest the planting of Monsanto’s crops, which were accepted by the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture.
Monsanto—an American giant of agricultural produce—has a reputation of producing large amounts of hazardous pollution and dispersing branded herbicides, like Roundup, around the world to make resource-poor countries dependant on Monsanto’s supply of the chemical.
Hybrid seeds donated by Monsanto will allow farmers to grow crops for only one year as the plants do not reproduce, thus making the farmers dependent on buying the same crops the following year.
“The aim of Monsanto is to have complete control of the market, the intention is to open markets all around the world for their plants,” said Brenda Biddle, resource faculty for Evergreen State College.
The MMP is the largest grass-roots organization of Haitians in Port-au-Prince, which helps aid organizations bring food, shelter, and resources to locals. MMP leader, Chavannes said “The Haitian government is using the earthquake to sell the country to the multinationals," according to AFP.
Monsanto states that there are no business ties with this gift, and the crops grown can bring in a profit for the farmers. Then the money can be used to buy the next batch of seeds, and so create a market.
Some of the seeds shipped to Haiti were treated with pesticides. Karl Tupper, a staff scientist at Pesticide Action Network of North America, explained that once the pesticide-treated crops enter local markets it will be very hard to go back and this crop will harm the soil.
Monsanto wants to drop off the rest of the 475-ton donation over the next 12 months.
“Big companies try to get farmers to grow the crops but it has devastating effects on the local economies,” said Tupper, who added that companies might be donating seeds that are not the best of quality or are banned in the country where they are produced.
However, there is a possibility for light at the end of the tunnel for Haitian agriculture. “They can rebuild their agricultural market” said Biddle.{mospagebreak}
According to Biddle, Haiti will need help organizing an autonomous farming system that will be able to feed the families first, then the produce can be put on the local market and support whole communities.
Problems of Unwanted Aid
Monsanto seeds are not the only case of unwanted aid. According to relief workers, Haiti received inappropriate, unsolicited supplies that have become a logistical burden to deal with.
Donations that are not used in time, such as food and foreign medicine, also need to be properly disposed of, which takes time, manpower, and funds.
Claire Durham from the Red Cross, described in her blog how fresh food delivered to Haiti sometimes lays in piles for days and rots, while unnecessary medical supplies are stored for long periods of time and expired.
“Unwanted donations create chaos, waste, and confusion for an already stricken country,” according to Durham.
Many cases have been documented where the intent to support a devastated country is initially good, but in the end does not turn out too well. A similar approach to the problem in Kenya was initiated by research and development organization Drumnet in 2008.
The goal of the program was to establish a market for exporting crops, which would bring in more profit for the country as a whole. A year later, because of a change in E.U. regulations, the exporting company stopped buying the crops. The crops were then undersold on the local market, thus creating loans.
Another example of a failed initiative was in Lesotho, which aimed to help locals manage crops and livestock, and build new roads for market access, according to Give Well, an evaluation site for charity work. The project fell apart because farmers were few, weather conditions were inept for crop growth, and the roads which were constructed helped foreign markets to establish themselves and put local farmers out of work. Photo Caption(s) & Photo Location(s)
Friday, July 9, 2010
Washington Still Has Problems With Democracy in Latin America
By Mark Weisbrot
This op-ed was distributed by McClatchy Tribune Information Services on July 7, 2010 and published by the Sacramento Bee (CA) and other newspapers. If anyone wants to reprint it, please let CEPR know, by replying to this message.
Imagine that Barack Obama, upon taking office in January 2009, had decided to deliver on his campaign promise to "to end business-as-usual in Washington so we can bring about real change." Imagine that he rejected the architects of the pro-Wall Street policies that had led to economic collapse, such as Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and the stable of former Goldman Sachs employees that runs the U.S Treasury Department, and instead appointed Nobel laureate economists Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz to key positions including the chair of the Federal Reserve.
Instead of Hillary Clinton, who lost the Democratic presidential primary because of her unrelenting support for the Iraq war, imagine that he chose Senator Russ Feingold for Secretary of State, or someone interested in delivering on the popular desire to get out of Afghanistan. Imagine a real health care reform bill, instead of health insurance reform, that didn't give the powerful pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies a veto.
It goes without saying that President Obama would be vilified in the major media outlets. The seething hostility from right-wing blowhards such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would be matched by more mainstream media outlets, who would accuse the president of polarizing the nation and "dangerous demagoguery." With almost all of the establishment media and institutions against him, Obama would likely face a constant battle for political survival - although he might well triumph with direct, populist appeals to the majority.
This is what has happened to a number of the left-of-center governments in Latin America. In Ecuador, President Rafael Correa was re-elected by a large margin in 2009, despite strong opposition from the country's media. In Bolivia, Evo Morales has brought stability and record growth to a country that had a tradition of governments that didn't last more than a year - despite the most hostile media in the hemisphere and unrelenting, sometimes violent opposition from Bolivia's traditional elite. And President Hugo Chavez survived a U.S. backed military coup-attempt and other efforts to topple his government, winning three presidential elections, each time by a larger margin.
All of these presidents took on entrenched oligarchies and fought hard to deliver on their promises. Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous president in a country with an indigenous majority, re-nationalized the hydrocarbons (mostly natural gas) industry and created jobs through public investment, as well as getting a new, more democratic constitution approved. Correa doubled spending on health care and cancelled $3.2 billion of foreign debt found to be illegitimate. Chavez cut poverty in half and extreme poverty by more than 70 percent after getting control over the country's oil industry.
These presidents faced another obstacle that Obama wouldn't have - they had to fight with the most powerful country in the world in order to deliver on their promises. This was also true of President Nestor Kirchner in Argentina (2003-2007), who had to battle the Washington-dominated International Monetary Fund in order to implement the economic policies that made Argentina the fastest growing economy in the hemisphere for six years.
Of course, Hugo Chavez has been the most demonized in the U.S. media - but that is not because of what he has said or done but because he is sitting on 500 billion barrels of oil. Washington has a particular problem with oil-producing states that don't follow orders - whether they are a dictatorship like Iraq, a theocracy like Iran, or a democracy like Venezuela.
All of these leaders - including President Lula da Silva of Brazil - had hoped that President Obama would pursue a more enlightened policy toward Latin America, but it hasn't happened. It seems that Washington, which was comfortable with dictators and oligarchs who ran the show for decades, still has problems with democracy in its former "back yard."
This op-ed was distributed by McClatchy Tribune Information Services on July 7, 2010 and published by the Sacramento Bee (CA) and other newspapers. If anyone wants to reprint it, please let CEPR know, by replying to this message.
Imagine that Barack Obama, upon taking office in January 2009, had decided to deliver on his campaign promise to "to end business-as-usual in Washington so we can bring about real change." Imagine that he rejected the architects of the pro-Wall Street policies that had led to economic collapse, such as Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and the stable of former Goldman Sachs employees that runs the U.S Treasury Department, and instead appointed Nobel laureate economists Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz to key positions including the chair of the Federal Reserve.
Instead of Hillary Clinton, who lost the Democratic presidential primary because of her unrelenting support for the Iraq war, imagine that he chose Senator Russ Feingold for Secretary of State, or someone interested in delivering on the popular desire to get out of Afghanistan. Imagine a real health care reform bill, instead of health insurance reform, that didn't give the powerful pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies a veto.
It goes without saying that President Obama would be vilified in the major media outlets. The seething hostility from right-wing blowhards such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would be matched by more mainstream media outlets, who would accuse the president of polarizing the nation and "dangerous demagoguery." With almost all of the establishment media and institutions against him, Obama would likely face a constant battle for political survival - although he might well triumph with direct, populist appeals to the majority.
This is what has happened to a number of the left-of-center governments in Latin America. In Ecuador, President Rafael Correa was re-elected by a large margin in 2009, despite strong opposition from the country's media. In Bolivia, Evo Morales has brought stability and record growth to a country that had a tradition of governments that didn't last more than a year - despite the most hostile media in the hemisphere and unrelenting, sometimes violent opposition from Bolivia's traditional elite. And President Hugo Chavez survived a U.S. backed military coup-attempt and other efforts to topple his government, winning three presidential elections, each time by a larger margin.
All of these presidents took on entrenched oligarchies and fought hard to deliver on their promises. Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous president in a country with an indigenous majority, re-nationalized the hydrocarbons (mostly natural gas) industry and created jobs through public investment, as well as getting a new, more democratic constitution approved. Correa doubled spending on health care and cancelled $3.2 billion of foreign debt found to be illegitimate. Chavez cut poverty in half and extreme poverty by more than 70 percent after getting control over the country's oil industry.
These presidents faced another obstacle that Obama wouldn't have - they had to fight with the most powerful country in the world in order to deliver on their promises. This was also true of President Nestor Kirchner in Argentina (2003-2007), who had to battle the Washington-dominated International Monetary Fund in order to implement the economic policies that made Argentina the fastest growing economy in the hemisphere for six years.
Of course, Hugo Chavez has been the most demonized in the U.S. media - but that is not because of what he has said or done but because he is sitting on 500 billion barrels of oil. Washington has a particular problem with oil-producing states that don't follow orders - whether they are a dictatorship like Iraq, a theocracy like Iran, or a democracy like Venezuela.
All of these leaders - including President Lula da Silva of Brazil - had hoped that President Obama would pursue a more enlightened policy toward Latin America, but it hasn't happened. It seems that Washington, which was comfortable with dictators and oligarchs who ran the show for decades, still has problems with democracy in its former "back yard."
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
University of Puerto Rico Student Strike Victory Unleashes Brutal Civil Rights Backlash
Maritza Stanchich, Ph.D.
As so many Americans gear up for Fourth of July fireworks this weekend, the U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico roils from a brutal civil rights showdown unleashed by a far-right wing government, now seemingly hell bent on destroying the recent unprecedented victory of a two-month long student strike against privatization of higher education at the University of Puerto Rico.
The broader implications are crucial on numerous fronts, including the struggle to maintain broad access to public higher education and efforts to rein in runaway neoliberal policies that have wreaked havoc on the global economy, resulting in draconian austerity measures worldwide. For the violence and repression seen in Greece and at the G20 in Toronto appears to now be visiting this Caribbean island nation of about four million U.S. citizens, the homeland of more than an additional four million Puerto Ricans in the United States, the second largest U.S. Latino group.
While the economic crisis in Puerto Rico--the worst since the 1940s, if not the 1930s-has been deepening for years, and the current right wing government has aggressively implemented a hard-line, unpopular neoliberal agenda since its broad electoral victory last November, it appears as if the recent UPR student strike victory has touched off a firestorm, with a police attack on peaceful demonstrators at Puerto Rico's Capitol building on Wednesday injuring dozens, some seriously.
The UPR strike concluded June 21 after a tense, two-month shut down of 10 campuses in a system serving nearly 65,000 students at the end of the academic year, with an accord that by all accounts was an unprecedented strike victory, in historic, hemispheric terms. A widely-supported student movement remarkable for its coalition building across traditionally distinct and even contentious social and political sectors coalesced against threatened erosion of broad public access to the widely-regarded state university, as well as its increasing privatization.
With tensions high after police and riot squads had attacked and injured students, their parents and journalists on at least three occasions, an agreement finally reached through judicial mediation met with the students' basic demands, reinstating cancelled tuition waivers, temporarily forestalling a tuition hike or imposition of student fees, and protecting strike leaders from summary suspension reprisals. The accord, signed by a majority of the Board of Trustees, though those refusing included the university and board presidents, was hailed as an achievement in civil conflict resolution, especially in light of the history of previous UPR strikes that had ended in deadly violent repressions.
Immediately after however, the Puerto Rico state legislature, dominated by the extreme right of the local Pro-Statehood party, rapidly expanded the university Board of Trustees, with the governor approving four new appointees, and a new but divided board quickly imposed a $800 student fee starting in January, and made it permanent, reminiscent of the imposition of fees at University of California by then Gov. Ronald Reagan. The legislature also quickly dismantled a long-standing UPR tradition of student assemblies, replacing them with private electronic computer voting devoid of open debate. Other cuts were also implemented affecting professors and adjunct instructors, who now make up about 40 percent of the UPR faculty, following trends in the United States, where 60 percent of all professors occupy such increasingly precarious positions.
In a far worse economic straits than the states of California or Michigan, Puerto Rico is confronting its worst fiscal crisis in decades, and UPR the biggest fiscal crisis of its 100-year existence. As throughout much of the world facing related circumstances, virulent and organized opposition to drastic cuts principally directed at the working and deteriorating middle classes has mushroomed, especially since the current global crisis, in Alan Greenspan's own befuddled words, was caused by greed-induced corruption among the highest echelons of the world economy.
While the neoliberal agenda of Puerto Rico's current political leaders look back to the very doctrines now being challenged in the United States and throughout Latin America, the UPR student movement embodies the vanguard of the contemporary 21st Century, as reflected by their symbols and tactics, including the democratizing internet, egalitarian rainbow flags, sustainable organic farming, an effervescence of alternative arts, and new coalition building among center, right and left, in tandem with occupation practices inspired by international student movements as far as California, Spain, France and Greece.
Though a shocking collective trauma, the violent crackdown at the Capitol Wednesday was not entirely surprising given the current administration's assault on all fronts since coming into power, targeting progressive, cultural and social welfare institutions and agencies with crippling budget cuts, attempting to dissolve Puerto Rico's bar association, lifting environmental protections to whole swaths of protected lands, and passing a now notorious law, called Ley 7, that not only dismisses 20,000 public employees, but declares null and void all public sector union contracts for three years, with the only recourse to challenging the law being to petition the local Supreme Court, now stacked with new appointments in the administration's favor. The governor has also activated the National Guard, amidst criticism from groups such the Puerto Rico chapters of the ACLU and Amnesty International.
Common in Puerto Rico, however, though unusual at most U.S. state universities, is the way political parties assume control of UPR leadership by appointing a new president, also recently achieved. This is in part because the UPR is widely regarded as national patrimony, and is one of the few places left in the country where dissent may be cultivated.
As opposition to these policies expands, as seen in a massive national strike in October which drew a quarter of a million workers into the streets, so has the government's seeming intolerance to any opposition, as Gov. Luis Fortuño, Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz and UPR president José Ramón de la Torre commonly resort to Cold War era red-baiting with media campaigns labeling protestors as Socialists, Communists, and professional rabble rousers out to destabilize the country. The clamp down has so far gone as far as banning journalists from Senate chambers for four days last week during the country's budget sessions, prompting media organizations to petition in court to regain access.
"I don't think there is any doubt that the intention of this government is to set back civil rights," said Judith Berkan, a long-time civil rights attorney and a law professor at University of Puerto Rico and InterAmerican University in San Juan, adding that the administration has enacted a staggering number of measures to neutralize and debilitate all those perceived as a threat to a local oligarchy acting in concert with U.S. interests.
Attempts were made to reach Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico's non-voting representative in the U.S. Congress, and UPR President José Ramón de la Torre for comment, but they were not available at press time.
The irony that the Pro-U.S. Statehood party of Gov. Fortuño is now curtailing the most basic press and civil liberties is not lost on UPR student strike leaders who witnessed and were injured at Wednesday's melee, including those who belong to the pro-Statehood party themselves, and voted for the sitting governor.
"It pains me as a statehooder that this government has not learned the lessons of U.S. civil rights struggles of decades ago," said Aníbal Núñez, a student at the UPR law school and a member of the student negotiating committee.
Núñez acknowledged the participation of students affiliated with Socialist groups among strike leaders and the student negotiating committee, and said they overcame their differences via universal concerns for education as a social necessity, as they gained each others' respect while coalition building together, adding that if he could not overcome ideological differences enough to collaborate, he would still believe in their right to pluralistically exist.
The notion that accessible, quality higher education contributes to economic recovery runs counter to the widening U.S. trend of students graduating with crippling debt, as public education has for years now faced diminishing state support. A common argument used by the administration during the UPR strike was its affordable tuition, at less than $2,000 per year for undergraduates before the recently imposed fees. But while tuition is cheaper than probably any other state university in the United States, average income in Puerto Rico is also far lower than any other U.S. state, with about 48 percent of the population living in poverty as defined by U.S. federal standards, and the cost of living in San Juan at least, far higher than at oft compared institutions in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, or Oxford, Mississippi. This tradition of maintaining broad public access to a quality state institution of higher learning is a hard earned point of pride at UPR, compared to institutions that have recently reneged their public mission with sudden and steep fee/tuition increases, such as at University of California, where students also opposed, occupied and met with police repression, but could not stave off a 32% fee hike imposed in November.
As UPR administrators continue to grapple with what was a nearly $200 million budget shortfall for next year going into the strike, in search of additional or alternative money saving and raising sources, an emboldened student movement will also regroup and weigh all its options. Future conflicts may be averted by altering the very style of governance at UPR, a top-down and paternalistic holdover from the past, as this could go a long way toward making students, as well as professors and staff who also have large stakes at play, part of a give-and-take process.
For come what may in the global fiscal crisis in the coming decade, these students are the future of new Americas of increasingly porous borders and dramatic, rapid demographic, political, cultural, informational and economic shifts, as the old order, the vestiges of the Cold War in Puerto Rico and in South Florida for example, fade into the proverbial sunset.
"We may not hold the power but we have the will power," stated law student Núñez, "and given the choice, I prefer the latter."
UPR administrators and Statehood party leaders would do well to recognize and reach out to the productive potential of this new power, shift gears and learn to act on the principles they purportedly hold dear.
As so many Americans gear up for Fourth of July fireworks this weekend, the U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico roils from a brutal civil rights showdown unleashed by a far-right wing government, now seemingly hell bent on destroying the recent unprecedented victory of a two-month long student strike against privatization of higher education at the University of Puerto Rico.
The broader implications are crucial on numerous fronts, including the struggle to maintain broad access to public higher education and efforts to rein in runaway neoliberal policies that have wreaked havoc on the global economy, resulting in draconian austerity measures worldwide. For the violence and repression seen in Greece and at the G20 in Toronto appears to now be visiting this Caribbean island nation of about four million U.S. citizens, the homeland of more than an additional four million Puerto Ricans in the United States, the second largest U.S. Latino group.
While the economic crisis in Puerto Rico--the worst since the 1940s, if not the 1930s-has been deepening for years, and the current right wing government has aggressively implemented a hard-line, unpopular neoliberal agenda since its broad electoral victory last November, it appears as if the recent UPR student strike victory has touched off a firestorm, with a police attack on peaceful demonstrators at Puerto Rico's Capitol building on Wednesday injuring dozens, some seriously.
The UPR strike concluded June 21 after a tense, two-month shut down of 10 campuses in a system serving nearly 65,000 students at the end of the academic year, with an accord that by all accounts was an unprecedented strike victory, in historic, hemispheric terms. A widely-supported student movement remarkable for its coalition building across traditionally distinct and even contentious social and political sectors coalesced against threatened erosion of broad public access to the widely-regarded state university, as well as its increasing privatization.
With tensions high after police and riot squads had attacked and injured students, their parents and journalists on at least three occasions, an agreement finally reached through judicial mediation met with the students' basic demands, reinstating cancelled tuition waivers, temporarily forestalling a tuition hike or imposition of student fees, and protecting strike leaders from summary suspension reprisals. The accord, signed by a majority of the Board of Trustees, though those refusing included the university and board presidents, was hailed as an achievement in civil conflict resolution, especially in light of the history of previous UPR strikes that had ended in deadly violent repressions.
Immediately after however, the Puerto Rico state legislature, dominated by the extreme right of the local Pro-Statehood party, rapidly expanded the university Board of Trustees, with the governor approving four new appointees, and a new but divided board quickly imposed a $800 student fee starting in January, and made it permanent, reminiscent of the imposition of fees at University of California by then Gov. Ronald Reagan. The legislature also quickly dismantled a long-standing UPR tradition of student assemblies, replacing them with private electronic computer voting devoid of open debate. Other cuts were also implemented affecting professors and adjunct instructors, who now make up about 40 percent of the UPR faculty, following trends in the United States, where 60 percent of all professors occupy such increasingly precarious positions.
In a far worse economic straits than the states of California or Michigan, Puerto Rico is confronting its worst fiscal crisis in decades, and UPR the biggest fiscal crisis of its 100-year existence. As throughout much of the world facing related circumstances, virulent and organized opposition to drastic cuts principally directed at the working and deteriorating middle classes has mushroomed, especially since the current global crisis, in Alan Greenspan's own befuddled words, was caused by greed-induced corruption among the highest echelons of the world economy.
While the neoliberal agenda of Puerto Rico's current political leaders look back to the very doctrines now being challenged in the United States and throughout Latin America, the UPR student movement embodies the vanguard of the contemporary 21st Century, as reflected by their symbols and tactics, including the democratizing internet, egalitarian rainbow flags, sustainable organic farming, an effervescence of alternative arts, and new coalition building among center, right and left, in tandem with occupation practices inspired by international student movements as far as California, Spain, France and Greece.
Though a shocking collective trauma, the violent crackdown at the Capitol Wednesday was not entirely surprising given the current administration's assault on all fronts since coming into power, targeting progressive, cultural and social welfare institutions and agencies with crippling budget cuts, attempting to dissolve Puerto Rico's bar association, lifting environmental protections to whole swaths of protected lands, and passing a now notorious law, called Ley 7, that not only dismisses 20,000 public employees, but declares null and void all public sector union contracts for three years, with the only recourse to challenging the law being to petition the local Supreme Court, now stacked with new appointments in the administration's favor. The governor has also activated the National Guard, amidst criticism from groups such the Puerto Rico chapters of the ACLU and Amnesty International.
Common in Puerto Rico, however, though unusual at most U.S. state universities, is the way political parties assume control of UPR leadership by appointing a new president, also recently achieved. This is in part because the UPR is widely regarded as national patrimony, and is one of the few places left in the country where dissent may be cultivated.
As opposition to these policies expands, as seen in a massive national strike in October which drew a quarter of a million workers into the streets, so has the government's seeming intolerance to any opposition, as Gov. Luis Fortuño, Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz and UPR president José Ramón de la Torre commonly resort to Cold War era red-baiting with media campaigns labeling protestors as Socialists, Communists, and professional rabble rousers out to destabilize the country. The clamp down has so far gone as far as banning journalists from Senate chambers for four days last week during the country's budget sessions, prompting media organizations to petition in court to regain access.
"I don't think there is any doubt that the intention of this government is to set back civil rights," said Judith Berkan, a long-time civil rights attorney and a law professor at University of Puerto Rico and InterAmerican University in San Juan, adding that the administration has enacted a staggering number of measures to neutralize and debilitate all those perceived as a threat to a local oligarchy acting in concert with U.S. interests.
Attempts were made to reach Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico's non-voting representative in the U.S. Congress, and UPR President José Ramón de la Torre for comment, but they were not available at press time.
The irony that the Pro-U.S. Statehood party of Gov. Fortuño is now curtailing the most basic press and civil liberties is not lost on UPR student strike leaders who witnessed and were injured at Wednesday's melee, including those who belong to the pro-Statehood party themselves, and voted for the sitting governor.
"It pains me as a statehooder that this government has not learned the lessons of U.S. civil rights struggles of decades ago," said Aníbal Núñez, a student at the UPR law school and a member of the student negotiating committee.
Núñez acknowledged the participation of students affiliated with Socialist groups among strike leaders and the student negotiating committee, and said they overcame their differences via universal concerns for education as a social necessity, as they gained each others' respect while coalition building together, adding that if he could not overcome ideological differences enough to collaborate, he would still believe in their right to pluralistically exist.
The notion that accessible, quality higher education contributes to economic recovery runs counter to the widening U.S. trend of students graduating with crippling debt, as public education has for years now faced diminishing state support. A common argument used by the administration during the UPR strike was its affordable tuition, at less than $2,000 per year for undergraduates before the recently imposed fees. But while tuition is cheaper than probably any other state university in the United States, average income in Puerto Rico is also far lower than any other U.S. state, with about 48 percent of the population living in poverty as defined by U.S. federal standards, and the cost of living in San Juan at least, far higher than at oft compared institutions in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, or Oxford, Mississippi. This tradition of maintaining broad public access to a quality state institution of higher learning is a hard earned point of pride at UPR, compared to institutions that have recently reneged their public mission with sudden and steep fee/tuition increases, such as at University of California, where students also opposed, occupied and met with police repression, but could not stave off a 32% fee hike imposed in November.
As UPR administrators continue to grapple with what was a nearly $200 million budget shortfall for next year going into the strike, in search of additional or alternative money saving and raising sources, an emboldened student movement will also regroup and weigh all its options. Future conflicts may be averted by altering the very style of governance at UPR, a top-down and paternalistic holdover from the past, as this could go a long way toward making students, as well as professors and staff who also have large stakes at play, part of a give-and-take process.
For come what may in the global fiscal crisis in the coming decade, these students are the future of new Americas of increasingly porous borders and dramatic, rapid demographic, political, cultural, informational and economic shifts, as the old order, the vestiges of the Cold War in Puerto Rico and in South Florida for example, fade into the proverbial sunset.
"We may not hold the power but we have the will power," stated law student Núñez, "and given the choice, I prefer the latter."
UPR administrators and Statehood party leaders would do well to recognize and reach out to the productive potential of this new power, shift gears and learn to act on the principles they purportedly hold dear.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
One Year Later: Honduras Resistance Strong Despite US-Supported Coup
by: Laura Raymond and Bill Quigley, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Demonstrators in Honduras, August 11, 2009. (Photo: CescoMad; Edited: Jared Rodriguez /t r u t h o u t)One year ago, on June 28, 2009, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was awakened by gunfire. A coup was carried out by U.S.-trained military officers, including graduates of the infamous U.S. Army School of the Americas (WHINSEC) in Georgia. President Zelaya was illegally taken to Costa Rica.
Democracy in Honduras ended as a de facto government of the rich and powerful seized control. A sham election backed by the U.S. confirmed the leadership of the coup powers. The U.S. and powerful lobbyists continue to roam the hemisphere trying to convince other Latin American countries to normalize relations with the coup government.
The media has ignored the revival of U.S. hard power in the Americas and the widespread resistance that challenges it.
A pro-democracy movement, the Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular (FNRP) formed in the coup's aftermath. Despite horrendous repression, it has organized the anger and passion of a multitude of mass-based popular movements - landless workers, farmers, women, LGBTQ folks, unions, youth and others - and spread a palpable energy of possibility and hope throughout the country.
These forces of democracy have been subjected to police killings, arbitrary detentions, beatings, rape and other sexual abuse of women and girls, torture and harassment of journalists, judges and activists. Prominent LGBTQ activists, labor organizers, campesinos and youth working with the resistance have been assassinated. Leaders have been driven into exile.
Four judges, including the president of Honduran Judges for Democracy, were fired in May 2010 for criticizing the illegality of the coup. Two of them went on a widely-supported hunger strike in the nation's capital. Judges who participated in public demonstrations in favor of the de facto government remain in power.
In 2010 alone, seven journalists have been murdered. Many others have been threatened. Reporters Without Borders calls Honduras the most dangerous country in the world for journalists.
Why was there a coup? Honduras was planning to hold a June 28 poll on whether or not a referendum for forming a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution should be on the November ballot. Many among the poor correctly view the current constitution as favoring corporations and wealthy landowners. As a result of the constitutional preference for the rich and powerful, Honduras has one of the largest wealth gaps between the rich and poor in Latin America.
Washington and the Honduran elite were also angered that President Zelaya signed an agreement to join the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA). ALBA is a regional trade agreement that provides an alternative to the free trade agreements such as CAFTA that have been pushed by Washington, yet are opposed by many popular movements through the Americas.
Zelaya's proposal to transform Soto Cano Air Base, historically important to the U.S. military, into a much-needed civilian airport was unpopular in Washington, as was his lack of support for the privatization of the telecommunications industry.
Forces in the U.S. provided critical support for the coup. As members of the resistance have explained, coups do not happen in Latin America without the support of those with power in the U.S. Right-wing ideologues and shell NGOs based out of Washington played a critical role in the coup, before and since. A leadership vacuum in the Obama administration regarding Honduras has led to extreme right-wing ideologues directing U.S. policy there. These people are hell-bent on stopping the growing populist movements throughout Latin America from gaining more influence and power. Some, such as Otto Reich and Roger Noriega, have moved from positions in the State Department and United Nations into private lobbying firms or conservative think tanks. Others, such as Robert Carmona-Borjas, who was granted asylum in the U.S. after his involvement in the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez, are working for so-called NGOs that use vague missions such as "anti-corruption" to mask the foreign policy work they do.
In the past year, the business elite in Honduras have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Washington-based lobbying and PR firms to get the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties in line. For example, the Asociación Hondureña de Maquiladoras (Honduran Association of Maquiladoras) hired the Cormac Group to lobby the U.S. government regarding "foreign relations" just days after the coup. Close Clinton confidant Lanny Davis lobbied for the coup powers in DC. A delegation of Republican Senators travelled to Honduras in the fall to support the coup government, and organized for wider Congressional support upon their return.
Despite initially condemning the coup, the Obama administration has completely shifted its position. It provided critical, life-giving approval to the widely denounced elections that were boycotted by much of the Honduran population. The military that was killing people in the streets was also guarding the ballot boxes. Major candidates such as Carlos H. Reyes, now a leader of the resistance, refused to run. The Carter Center, the United Nations, and other respected election observers refused to observe. The FNRP called on people to stay home.
The Organization of American States suspended Honduras and has continued to resist efforts of Secretary of State Clinton to pressure them into readmitting Honduras. However, the U.S. pushed for and was able to secure the formation of a high-level OAS panel to "study" the re-entry of Honduras at its recent meeting in Peru. We may well start to see the international community beginning to normalize relations with this illegitimate government.
As it stands now, the coup government of Honduras' biggest ally is the United States.
A year after the coup, U.S. activists and pro-democracy supporters need to increase their knowledge about what is going on with our neighbors in Honduras and stand in solidarity with the resistance. For democracy to mean anything, it has to mean that plans for a national referendum to rewrite a Constitution to better serve a nation's people should not be met with a U.S.-supported military coup.
Once again the U.S. is on the wrong side in Latin America.
Once again, the U.S. government is undermining democracy and actively supporting a government that is murdering its own people.
Once again, the U.S. has sided with anti-democracy forces and is trying to bully the world into rubber-stamp approval of our mistakes.
Moving forward from this unfortunate anniversary, one thing is certain - the people's movement in Honduras is only growing. The resistance has gone ahead with organizing for a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution. Today, there will be massive demonstrations throughout Honduras. We must stand with this dramatic and powerful social movement and challenge our own government to support the forces of democracy, not destroy them.
CCR will be hosting the NYC premiere of a film about the Resistance on July 7, 7pm at Tribeca Cinemas in lower Manhattan. It will also premiere in DC and Berkeley.
For more information about the Honduran resistance, please see their website (and click on the "English" tab):http://www.resistenciahonduras.net/
Demonstrators in Honduras, August 11, 2009. (Photo: CescoMad; Edited: Jared Rodriguez /t r u t h o u t)One year ago, on June 28, 2009, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was awakened by gunfire. A coup was carried out by U.S.-trained military officers, including graduates of the infamous U.S. Army School of the Americas (WHINSEC) in Georgia. President Zelaya was illegally taken to Costa Rica.
Democracy in Honduras ended as a de facto government of the rich and powerful seized control. A sham election backed by the U.S. confirmed the leadership of the coup powers. The U.S. and powerful lobbyists continue to roam the hemisphere trying to convince other Latin American countries to normalize relations with the coup government.
The media has ignored the revival of U.S. hard power in the Americas and the widespread resistance that challenges it.
A pro-democracy movement, the Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular (FNRP) formed in the coup's aftermath. Despite horrendous repression, it has organized the anger and passion of a multitude of mass-based popular movements - landless workers, farmers, women, LGBTQ folks, unions, youth and others - and spread a palpable energy of possibility and hope throughout the country.
These forces of democracy have been subjected to police killings, arbitrary detentions, beatings, rape and other sexual abuse of women and girls, torture and harassment of journalists, judges and activists. Prominent LGBTQ activists, labor organizers, campesinos and youth working with the resistance have been assassinated. Leaders have been driven into exile.
Four judges, including the president of Honduran Judges for Democracy, were fired in May 2010 for criticizing the illegality of the coup. Two of them went on a widely-supported hunger strike in the nation's capital. Judges who participated in public demonstrations in favor of the de facto government remain in power.
In 2010 alone, seven journalists have been murdered. Many others have been threatened. Reporters Without Borders calls Honduras the most dangerous country in the world for journalists.
Why was there a coup? Honduras was planning to hold a June 28 poll on whether or not a referendum for forming a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution should be on the November ballot. Many among the poor correctly view the current constitution as favoring corporations and wealthy landowners. As a result of the constitutional preference for the rich and powerful, Honduras has one of the largest wealth gaps between the rich and poor in Latin America.
Washington and the Honduran elite were also angered that President Zelaya signed an agreement to join the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA). ALBA is a regional trade agreement that provides an alternative to the free trade agreements such as CAFTA that have been pushed by Washington, yet are opposed by many popular movements through the Americas.
Zelaya's proposal to transform Soto Cano Air Base, historically important to the U.S. military, into a much-needed civilian airport was unpopular in Washington, as was his lack of support for the privatization of the telecommunications industry.
Forces in the U.S. provided critical support for the coup. As members of the resistance have explained, coups do not happen in Latin America without the support of those with power in the U.S. Right-wing ideologues and shell NGOs based out of Washington played a critical role in the coup, before and since. A leadership vacuum in the Obama administration regarding Honduras has led to extreme right-wing ideologues directing U.S. policy there. These people are hell-bent on stopping the growing populist movements throughout Latin America from gaining more influence and power. Some, such as Otto Reich and Roger Noriega, have moved from positions in the State Department and United Nations into private lobbying firms or conservative think tanks. Others, such as Robert Carmona-Borjas, who was granted asylum in the U.S. after his involvement in the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez, are working for so-called NGOs that use vague missions such as "anti-corruption" to mask the foreign policy work they do.
In the past year, the business elite in Honduras have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Washington-based lobbying and PR firms to get the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties in line. For example, the Asociación Hondureña de Maquiladoras (Honduran Association of Maquiladoras) hired the Cormac Group to lobby the U.S. government regarding "foreign relations" just days after the coup. Close Clinton confidant Lanny Davis lobbied for the coup powers in DC. A delegation of Republican Senators travelled to Honduras in the fall to support the coup government, and organized for wider Congressional support upon their return.
Despite initially condemning the coup, the Obama administration has completely shifted its position. It provided critical, life-giving approval to the widely denounced elections that were boycotted by much of the Honduran population. The military that was killing people in the streets was also guarding the ballot boxes. Major candidates such as Carlos H. Reyes, now a leader of the resistance, refused to run. The Carter Center, the United Nations, and other respected election observers refused to observe. The FNRP called on people to stay home.
The Organization of American States suspended Honduras and has continued to resist efforts of Secretary of State Clinton to pressure them into readmitting Honduras. However, the U.S. pushed for and was able to secure the formation of a high-level OAS panel to "study" the re-entry of Honduras at its recent meeting in Peru. We may well start to see the international community beginning to normalize relations with this illegitimate government.
As it stands now, the coup government of Honduras' biggest ally is the United States.
A year after the coup, U.S. activists and pro-democracy supporters need to increase their knowledge about what is going on with our neighbors in Honduras and stand in solidarity with the resistance. For democracy to mean anything, it has to mean that plans for a national referendum to rewrite a Constitution to better serve a nation's people should not be met with a U.S.-supported military coup.
Once again the U.S. is on the wrong side in Latin America.
Once again, the U.S. government is undermining democracy and actively supporting a government that is murdering its own people.
Once again, the U.S. has sided with anti-democracy forces and is trying to bully the world into rubber-stamp approval of our mistakes.
Moving forward from this unfortunate anniversary, one thing is certain - the people's movement in Honduras is only growing. The resistance has gone ahead with organizing for a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution. Today, there will be massive demonstrations throughout Honduras. We must stand with this dramatic and powerful social movement and challenge our own government to support the forces of democracy, not destroy them.
CCR will be hosting the NYC premiere of a film about the Resistance on July 7, 7pm at Tribeca Cinemas in lower Manhattan. It will also premiere in DC and Berkeley.
For more information about the Honduran resistance, please see their website (and click on the "English" tab):http://www.resistenciahonduras.net/
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Backlog of Colombian human rights cases pose a test for new president, the U.S.
By Juan Forero
Washington Post Foreign Service
BOGOTA, COLOMBIA -- The verdict this week was a milestone: A distant court affiliated with the Washington-based Organization of American States held the Colombian government responsible for the 1994 assassination of a prominent senator.
Lion of a radical political party whose members were slain by the hundreds, Manuel Cepeda was shot dead in an operation partly organized by Colombia's army. The case is one of hundreds of murders and massacres, old and new, that have entered the inter-American justice system from Colombia, a nation suffering from a simmering, half-century-old guerrilla conflict.
As President Alvaro Uribe prepares to leave office in August after eight years in power, investigators at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a branch of the OAS, are grappling with many of these cases. The most recent have triggered a national and international firestorm over the army's systematic killing of peasant farmers to inflate combat kills and revelations that Uribe's secret police spied on opponents, foreign diplomats and rights groups.
"If you put all of this together, the extrajudicial executions, the espionage of human rights defenders, it's all really a constant over the years," Santiago Canton, an Argentine who has headed the rights commission for nine years, said by phone from Washington. "That's very dangerous."
The backlog of cases and what they say about Colombia's history of rights violations pose a test for Uribe's successor, Juan Manuel Santos, a former defense minister elected Sunday. Among his priorities is winning U.S. congressional approval of a free-trade pact, which would eliminate tariffs on Colombian exports. So far, the effort has stalled because of Democratic concerns about rights being violated with impunity here.
Colombia's record is also a challenge for the Obama administration as it tries to forge closer ties to the rest of Latin America. The effort has been hamstrung by diplomatic imbroglios, including criticism from some governments of Uribe's rights record and U.S. support for Colombia's army.
"This is a problem for the United States," said Myles Frechette, a former U.S. ambassador here.
Frechette said the Santos administration must also demonstrate a commitment to preventing abuses and ending impunity, which led countries across the hemisphere to create the rights commission in the first place. "He has to say, 'Colombia is a modern country, and we understand all these things about human rights violations, and we're going to stand up and fly right,' " Frechette said.
Luis Alfonso Hoyos, Colombia's ambassador to the OAS, said Colombia, unlike some other countries, readily cooperates with the rights commission's investigations and abides by its rulings and those of a sister organization, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, based in Costa Rica.
Inter-American system
In the inter-American justice system, the commission's seven members study victims' petitions and issue voluminous reports with recommendations on cases involving serious abuses. Particularly egregious cases are taken by the rights court, which can order governments to pay damages to victims, acknowledge state collaboration in crimes or make other gestures.
Although the court and commission do not have the power to imprison guilty parties, the evidence collected by its investigators has been used in successful criminal prosecutions of perpetrators in Peru, Argentina and Chile. The public attention given to these investigations can also spur countries to investigate and prevent crimes more effectively.
Hoyos, the ambassador in Washington, said Colombia's prosecutors, for instance, have vigorously investigated the killings of union activists by right-wing death squads, cases particularly troubling to the commission. Colombian prosecutors in the past eight years have won convictions against 373 people, the government said, a dramatic improvement over the situation in the 1990s.
"We acknowledge that much needs to be done," Hoyos said, "but the advances are indisputable."
1,055 Colombian cases
Investigators from the rights commission examine cases from OAS member states, including the United States, whose operation of a detention center for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been condemned.
The most complaints, 1,400, have come from Peru. Mexico's offensive against drug cartels has generated numerous cases. And in Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez's carefully calibrated repression of opponents is under increasingly close scrutiny.
But Washington's closest ally in the region, Colombia, has been the source of the most serious cases of abuse before the commission, investigators familiar with the cases said. In all, the commission is evaluating 1,055 cases. Dozens of the cases of serious violations took place during Uribe's administration.
In the court's latest ruling on Colombia, the state was ordered to apologize publicly to Cepeda's family, build a monument in his honor and fund a university scholarship in his name.
Ivan Cepeda, the senator's son, welcomed the verdict but said he hoped that it would also spur more resources to improve criminal investigations of rights-related crimes.
"If there were justice in Colombia," he said, "you wouldn't have to go the inter-American system of justice."
Washington Post Foreign Service
BOGOTA, COLOMBIA -- The verdict this week was a milestone: A distant court affiliated with the Washington-based Organization of American States held the Colombian government responsible for the 1994 assassination of a prominent senator.
Lion of a radical political party whose members were slain by the hundreds, Manuel Cepeda was shot dead in an operation partly organized by Colombia's army. The case is one of hundreds of murders and massacres, old and new, that have entered the inter-American justice system from Colombia, a nation suffering from a simmering, half-century-old guerrilla conflict.
As President Alvaro Uribe prepares to leave office in August after eight years in power, investigators at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a branch of the OAS, are grappling with many of these cases. The most recent have triggered a national and international firestorm over the army's systematic killing of peasant farmers to inflate combat kills and revelations that Uribe's secret police spied on opponents, foreign diplomats and rights groups.
"If you put all of this together, the extrajudicial executions, the espionage of human rights defenders, it's all really a constant over the years," Santiago Canton, an Argentine who has headed the rights commission for nine years, said by phone from Washington. "That's very dangerous."
The backlog of cases and what they say about Colombia's history of rights violations pose a test for Uribe's successor, Juan Manuel Santos, a former defense minister elected Sunday. Among his priorities is winning U.S. congressional approval of a free-trade pact, which would eliminate tariffs on Colombian exports. So far, the effort has stalled because of Democratic concerns about rights being violated with impunity here.
Colombia's record is also a challenge for the Obama administration as it tries to forge closer ties to the rest of Latin America. The effort has been hamstrung by diplomatic imbroglios, including criticism from some governments of Uribe's rights record and U.S. support for Colombia's army.
"This is a problem for the United States," said Myles Frechette, a former U.S. ambassador here.
Frechette said the Santos administration must also demonstrate a commitment to preventing abuses and ending impunity, which led countries across the hemisphere to create the rights commission in the first place. "He has to say, 'Colombia is a modern country, and we understand all these things about human rights violations, and we're going to stand up and fly right,' " Frechette said.
Luis Alfonso Hoyos, Colombia's ambassador to the OAS, said Colombia, unlike some other countries, readily cooperates with the rights commission's investigations and abides by its rulings and those of a sister organization, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, based in Costa Rica.
Inter-American system
In the inter-American justice system, the commission's seven members study victims' petitions and issue voluminous reports with recommendations on cases involving serious abuses. Particularly egregious cases are taken by the rights court, which can order governments to pay damages to victims, acknowledge state collaboration in crimes or make other gestures.
Although the court and commission do not have the power to imprison guilty parties, the evidence collected by its investigators has been used in successful criminal prosecutions of perpetrators in Peru, Argentina and Chile. The public attention given to these investigations can also spur countries to investigate and prevent crimes more effectively.
Hoyos, the ambassador in Washington, said Colombia's prosecutors, for instance, have vigorously investigated the killings of union activists by right-wing death squads, cases particularly troubling to the commission. Colombian prosecutors in the past eight years have won convictions against 373 people, the government said, a dramatic improvement over the situation in the 1990s.
"We acknowledge that much needs to be done," Hoyos said, "but the advances are indisputable."
1,055 Colombian cases
Investigators from the rights commission examine cases from OAS member states, including the United States, whose operation of a detention center for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been condemned.
The most complaints, 1,400, have come from Peru. Mexico's offensive against drug cartels has generated numerous cases. And in Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez's carefully calibrated repression of opponents is under increasingly close scrutiny.
But Washington's closest ally in the region, Colombia, has been the source of the most serious cases of abuse before the commission, investigators familiar with the cases said. In all, the commission is evaluating 1,055 cases. Dozens of the cases of serious violations took place during Uribe's administration.
In the court's latest ruling on Colombia, the state was ordered to apologize publicly to Cepeda's family, build a monument in his honor and fund a university scholarship in his name.
Ivan Cepeda, the senator's son, welcomed the verdict but said he hoped that it would also spur more resources to improve criminal investigations of rights-related crimes.
"If there were justice in Colombia," he said, "you wouldn't have to go the inter-American system of justice."
Friday, June 25, 2010
Caracas to take over US-owned rigs
Chavez's socialist revolution has led to banking and power assets being nationalised [AFP]
Venezuela has said that it will nationalise 11 oil rigs owned by a US company.
The takeover of the rigs, owned by the Helmerich and Payne oil firm, is the most recent move in a programme of nationalisation as part of the socialist 'Bolivarian revolution' of Hugo Chavez, the president.
The rigs have been out of use for months due to a dispute over payments by PDVSA, the state oil company.
Helmerich and Payne, which owns other rigs in the country, had said that it would not work at the sites until they were paid the $49 million it was owed. It did not immediately comment on the planned nationalisation.
Rafael Ramirez, the Venezuelan oil minister, said on Thursday that the facilities were being taken over to bring them back into production.
'Weakening government'
Ramirez said that firms like Helmerich and Payne who had refused to put their rigs into production were aiming to weaken the government.
"There is a group of drill owners that has refused to discuss tariffs and services with PDVSA and have preferred to keep this equipment stored for a year," he said.
"That is the specific case with US multinational Helmerich and Payne."
Venezuela has suffered a reduction in oil output since 2008.
Despite having significant oil reserves the country is undergoing economic struggles, with power shortages and low food resources affecting Chavez's promises to pull people out of poverty.
His government has nationalised telecommunications, power and steel firms during the last three years.
The government also nationalised Banco Federal, a mid-sized bank, last week giving the state control of 25 per cent of the banking sector.
Legislative elections are to be held in September and Chavez needs to reverse popularity losses due to Venezuela's recession before then
Oil-giants such as Halliburton, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes also work in Venezuela, although the former pair have avoided public disputes with the government.
Venezuela has said that it will nationalise 11 oil rigs owned by a US company.
The takeover of the rigs, owned by the Helmerich and Payne oil firm, is the most recent move in a programme of nationalisation as part of the socialist 'Bolivarian revolution' of Hugo Chavez, the president.
The rigs have been out of use for months due to a dispute over payments by PDVSA, the state oil company.
Helmerich and Payne, which owns other rigs in the country, had said that it would not work at the sites until they were paid the $49 million it was owed. It did not immediately comment on the planned nationalisation.
Rafael Ramirez, the Venezuelan oil minister, said on Thursday that the facilities were being taken over to bring them back into production.
'Weakening government'
Ramirez said that firms like Helmerich and Payne who had refused to put their rigs into production were aiming to weaken the government.
"There is a group of drill owners that has refused to discuss tariffs and services with PDVSA and have preferred to keep this equipment stored for a year," he said.
"That is the specific case with US multinational Helmerich and Payne."
Venezuela has suffered a reduction in oil output since 2008.
Despite having significant oil reserves the country is undergoing economic struggles, with power shortages and low food resources affecting Chavez's promises to pull people out of poverty.
His government has nationalised telecommunications, power and steel firms during the last three years.
The government also nationalised Banco Federal, a mid-sized bank, last week giving the state control of 25 per cent of the banking sector.
Legislative elections are to be held in September and Chavez needs to reverse popularity losses due to Venezuela's recession before then
Oil-giants such as Halliburton, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes also work in Venezuela, although the former pair have avoided public disputes with the government.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
