.
Comment on:Senator Dodd's Bizarre Campaign Against Venezuela
A useful article that attempts to grapple with the question - why are ostensibly independent organisations - Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, Campaign for the Protection of Journalists etc etc - all of whom have, to varying degrees at different times, criticised the US government for its human rights abuses. Why then jump on the US government bandwagon and engage in completely ungrounded campaign against Venezuela?
Why not condemn Peru for shutting down 6 media outlets in April - for criticising the government according the El Universal? (Link) I haven’t read anywhere any details of the these moves by the Peruvian government, and given that El Universal said the same thing about the Venezuelan government’s decision, so perhaps it should be taken with a grain of salt that it was simply “criticizing the government”. But, even in the best case scenario, that the government is acting both legally and with justification, they have still done what the Venezuelan government has done, only six times over! Surely if it is wrong for the Chavez government to do it, all those speaking out should also be criticising Peru at least as much.
I can't find any evidence Amnesty International has, for instance, although El Universal reported on the public criticism of the decision as an attack on free speech made by Amnesty International director Ismael Vega on May 23 while speaking from… Lima, Peru. (Link). Did Vega not flick on a TV at all during his stay and notice less options while channel surfing?
Washington-based Human Rights Watch has released a statement slamming the Chavez government, which is prominent on their website, but there is nothing on the site in relation to Peru. (Link ).
Reporters Without Borders has a series of articles on harassment and violence against journalists in Peru, including by thugs linked to the government. Nothing, however, about the non-renewal of licenses of shutting down on any media outlets by the government that I could see. They do however, have the European Union motion, passed with a tiny minority of deputies present, against the government’s RCTV decision the most prominent article on their home page. (Link).
New York-based Campaign for the Protection of Journalists? They have a “special report” prominent link on their home page highlighted by a picture of Chavez looking kinda nasty. They also have statements relating to the murder of and violent harassment against journalists. But again, no mention of any shutting down of media outlets. (Link)
I think the with the US Democrats, also raised by this article, the issue is more clear cut, but organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have real credibility with a lot of people. The article below begins to attempt to figure out what explains their “bizarre” behaviour re: Venezuela. It would be interesting to hear what others think.
The article makes some interesting points, which may be contribute to understanding the psychology and process involved. But it would seem to me that possibly the key underlying factor is that, when push comes to shove, there isn't a middle ground between oppressor and oppressed, the struggle between the two forces choices to be made, and the more a revolutionary process like in Venezuela challenges and undermines the position of the oppressor, the greater the pressure to either fall in behind the oppressor or else make a much more decisive break with the existing system. Either would force these groups to abandon the "objective" position in the middle ground, and the greatest pressure and pull is coming from the more powerful oppressor.]
