An open letter to the more than 100 “experts” from Latin America (read here) where at minute 0:49 Hugo Chávez states, “Anyone who signs against Chávez will have their name recorded for history.” Later, at minute 2:17, President Chávez jokes about the Tascón list and the fear people have of being on it during his Sunday variety show, Aló Presidente (#214). Finally, at minute 3:08, in a public Cabinet meeting, Hugo Chávez states: “We need to archive the famous Tascón list. That’s in the past. Let the Tascón list be buried; it certainly served its purpose at one point, but that’s it now.”
What else could the Venezuelan president have meant when he publicly ordered to “archive” and “bury” that list? Burying it had a very clear meaning: Chávez knew and supported the list for a long time, he never condemned it, and only ordered that it no longer be used. He ordered it buried when local newspapers began publishing dozens of daily cases of discrimination and firings linked to the Tascón/Chávez list. Many of these cases are well documented in “La Lista”.
However, for the sake of accuracy, perhaps everyone could have simply taken the time to download the Tascón/Chávez database and play with it. This perverse use of technology represents an abominable example of what humanity can do in the name of ideology and politics. It categorizes millions of Venezuelans as either supporters or opponents of Hugo Chávez. Those in favor are called “Patriots,” of course, and to ensure appropriate pressure can be applied to those against this empty revolution, it includes everyone’s address, voting center, and a powerful search function.
Just think: you can spy on your family and neighbors from the comfort of your own laptop and discover if they signed against Chávez (if you’re against him) or if they benefited from government direct assistance programs (if you’re against them), creating a tool of division and hate for all Venezuelans.
The very existence and compilation of such a list by a government that claims to be democratic is a violation of the rights enshrined in the Venezuelan Constitution, as well as in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And remember, Chávez ordered it buried, but never condemned it.
Yes, indeed, Venezuela is not a political model for anyone, as clearly stated by HRW and José Miguel Vivancos. The country is a signatory to these international agreements and declarations that you did not take into account in your letter. But being unaware is no excuse, especially when demanding the rigor that an academic peer-review process should have.
And yes, in most cases, it cannot be proven that discrimination occurred. When one of us was denied a passport, they were not given a paper stating it was because they had signed against Chávez; they were only told verbally that this was the real reason. This happened to thousands of Venezuelans who could not obtain a passport or ID card for months after the 2004 recall referendum.
Regarding government work contracts, even after Chávez called for burying the list, it was used to oust state enemies working at the Sincor oil company when the government nationalized it. The newly appointed president of that company left no doubt: “This is a state matter. There is a list circulating in the press, and it is real. It came from here; we are investigating, and whoever leaked it will go to jail; it will apply to key personnel whether inside or outside the company.” And yes, people were fired, both through inaccuracies and rumors, right?
Then there’s the case of Rocío San Miguel and two other lawyers (featured in “La Lista”) who worked at the Border Council, who coincidentally recorded 55 minutes of phone conversations with their superiors, who explained they were being fired for signing against Hugo Chávez, with the direct approval of the Venezuelan vice president. This case is now in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
While it is indeed true that the government had the right to dismiss oil workers for striking, it overlooks the not-so-irrelevant fact that it did so illegally, disregarding strict Venezuelan labor laws, and confiscated severance pay (which is also illegal) along with voluntary contributions to pension funds and savings from these workers without any court order permitting this. These workers ranged from low-level messengers to secretaries and even high-ranking executives. Venezuelan labor courts have not processed a single appeal in these cases since 2003. If that’s not blatant discrimination and a violation of due process and the rule of law, then what is?
As for the self-censorship that you so carelessly dismiss, you fail to recognize the dozens of reporters whose programs have been canceled in media that decided to “obey orders” from the government, in contrast to the illegal termination of RCTV’s broadcasting license and the seizure of the channel’s assets for refusing to follow orders from the upper echelons of power in Venezuela.
And it’s absolutely ridiculous when you claim, “the report even uses insinuations to suggest that the government is to blame for the attacks on journalists,” when the Venezuelan government has not provided protection to over 250 reporters as requested by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, among the treaties that Venezuela is a signatory to.
Finally, you criticize HRW for using a report from an “opposition blogger,” calling him mentally unstable, of which there is no proof, as no professional has declared so, yet you do not question a single fact from the reference cited by HRW. You will find this very difficult to do since that reference is a factual description of the Tascón/Chávez database and evidence that the Electoral Board authorized the release of copies of all signatures to pro-Chávez deputy Luis Tascón.
And I find it remarkable that you present as evidence that some individuals have called for the violent overthrow of the Venezuelan government led by Hugo Chávez, who supported two violent coup attempts and indeed led one of them, which left more than 200 Venezuelans dead in the streets, including children. An interesting double standard you all have in the defense of human rights, to say the least.
In the end, your letter is a poor attempt to discredit HRW, which curiously defended Mr. Chávez in 2002 despite the deaths induced by the Venezuelan president against a peaceful march. Your letter fails precisely where it attempted to critique the HRW report; it lacks rigor, is superficial, and represents a significant mistake on your part to sign such a partisan document.
Meanwhile, back in Venezuela, Hugo Chávez seeks his indefinite reelection despite a referendum denying it in 2007 and contrary to the express prohibition of the Venezuelan Constitution (Title IX) to consider the same issue twice in the same constitutional period. Furthermore, Hugo Chávez issued 26 bills in July 2008 that contain provisions also rejected in the same referendum.
This is the large-scale violation of the democratic rights of the majority of Venezuelans who voted against such provisions in December 2007.
It has already been 10 years since the empty Chavista revolution. Venezuela has had revenues of over US$800 billion comparable to the financial system’s bailout package in the United States. Despite this unexpected windfall, poverty numbers barely improve, nutrition and health rates are low, the Venezuelan hospital system is in ruins, and crime has tripled under Chávez’s watch. Yet the country certainly boasts a very modern arsenal of military weapons, and Chávez regularly threatens the opposition with the fact that his revolution “is armed,” while corruption is so rampant that suitcases filled with cash fly on official government flights, with some caught red-handed detailing how they earned hundreds of millions of dollars due to their close ties with Venezuelan government officials under Chávez. Moreover, Hugo Chávez and his government openly support Colombian guerrillas.
Surprisingly, there are still those like you “experts” who have barely scratched the surface of what’s going on in our besieged country, continuing to defend the indefensible and supporting a lawless government that lacks the backing of academics and Venezuelan students, yet you haven’t even asked why this is the case.
Ironically, while you sit comfortably in your offices supporting Chávez’s revolution and working on your academic projects, your social sciences colleagues in Venezuela receive scant funding, and the annual social sciences award has not been granted for the past two years.
It is truly sad when, in the name of academia, serious and unique institutions dedicated exclusively to the defense of human rights are attacked politically in such a cheap and superficial manner. But it is even sadder and more shameful when the systematic and well-organized violations of human rights by the Venezuelan government led by Hugo Chávez are ignored by those who claim to dream and believe in the dignity and basic rights of all human beings.