|
February 9, 2010 - No. 29
Quebec Party Financing Bill
Increasing Public Funding to Political
Parties
Will Not Strengthen the Democratic Institutions!
Finance the Process, Not the Parties!
Quebec Party Financing Bill
• Increasing Public Funding to Political
Parties Will Not Strengthen the Democratic Institutions! Finance the
Process, Not the Parties!
• PMLQ Brief on Bill 78
Venezuela
• Day of National Dignity: More than 100,000
March in Support of Chavez - Kiraz Janicke,
Venezuelanalysis.com
• Oppose Canada's Interference in Venezuela's
Internal Affairs!
• U.S. Continues Attempts to Destabilize
Venezuela
Quebec Party Financing Bill
Increasing Public Funding to Political Parties
Will Not Strengthen the Democratic Institutions!
Finance the Process, Not the Parties!
Last fall the government of Quebec tabled a bill to
reform the Election Act that modifies the electoral map, bans
anonymous political contributions, adds new penalties for violations of
the rules on political party financing and increases public funding to
political parties. The work on the bill, said to be the first major
change to the Quebec Election Act of
1977, began in 2005 in the wake of the
"sponsorship scandal" and the Gomery Commission's
revelations. The bill
was tabled last November after large scale revelations of financial
irregularities and corruption in the
2009
municipal elections across Quebec. The bill also comes in
the context of decreasing voter turnout for the political
parties and their programs over which the people exercise no control.
The Quebec Minister responsible for Canadian
Intergovernmental Affairs and the Reform of Democratic Institutions
Claude Béchard claims the purpose of Bill 78 is "to preserve
the
confidence of citizens in our institutions and laws." He claims it will
make the
financing of political parties more transparent by increasing public
funding for political parties. According to
Minister Béchard this reform will "reduce the dependence
of the political parties on private funding" and thereby ostensibly
alleviate
the corruptive pressure and mentality that political favours are made
according to the size of financial contributions.
When tabling the bill Béchard noted: "Our
aim is to improve our system, to put an end to the loopholes, because
there were quite a few. We saw these loopholes firsthand in recent
months, notably with regards to leadership campaigns as well as at the
municipal level."
Bill 78, An Act Amending the Election Act with
Regard to Electoral Representation and Political Party Financing Rules
and Other Legislative Provisions, will be debated by the
Institutions Commission when the Quebec National Assembly returns from
recess this month.
Individuals and organizations were
invited to submit briefs on the basis of which they may be called as
witnesses. While there have been no public hearings, Quebec's
Chief
Electoral Officer (DGEQ) Marcel Blanchet assembled a "Citizens' Jury"
at the initiative of the Institut du Nouveau Monde to answer the
question: "Should the financing of political
parties be reopened to corporations?" No other option as to how
financing might be organized was presented for deliberation. Not
surprisingly, the Citizens'
Jury presented its report on February 1 in which it says: No, political
financing should not be reopened to corporations; and the DGEQ issued a
communiqué in which he agrees with the jury's "verdict."
The Marxist-Leninist Party of Quebec (PMLQ) submitted a
brief to the Institutions Commission in which it points out
emphatically that the crisis of confidence in the democratic
institutions will not be sorted out by increasing public financing to
political parties or by introducing more severe penalties for
violating rules on political financing. It writes: "First of all, it is
ridiculous to conclude that the reason political parties or individuals
resort to corruption is because of 'the dependence of the political
parties on private funding.' This diverts from one essential issue,
which is that the problem of corruption in relation
to party financing is not a new one and penalties existed in the past
as well but also have not been enforced and, instead, the parties
allocate themselves more and more state funds." The brief argues that
political parties, whose total membership represent less than 2 percent
of the population, are for all intents and purposes
private organizations operating in the public domain and that it is
therefore not appropriate that they be financed by public money. It
proposes instead that the same public funds be used to finance the
process and not the parties and that such an approach would go a long
way towards strengthening democratic
institutions and achieving political renewal.
Contents of Bill 78
Bill 78 bans anonymous contributions towards all
political activities, including party leadership campaigns. While the
parties
themselves are
to determine the
maximum amount a candidate
can collect during a leadership campaign, individual contributions must
not exceed $1,000 municipally or $3,000
provincially. Parties will also have to disclose the identity of
contributors to leadership campaigns.
Fines
for violating financing rules will be increased from
$1,000 to $10,000 in the case of a first offence. A person found guilty
of an offence could also lose his or her eligibility to bid for
government contracts for five years.
As a means of encouraging small contributions, the
scheme for tax credits would be improved for small donations: the rate
will increase from 75 percent to 85 percent for the first $100 at the
provincial level and for the first $35 at the municipal level.
Finally, the bill provides for increased public funding
of political parties. At present, the total annual allocation paid by
the DGEQ to the parties is based on 50 cents for each eligible voter
(i.e., 50 cents times the number of total eligible voters). Each party
then
receives an amount based on the percentage of valid votes cast for them
in the last election. The bill proposes that this rate of subsidy would
be increased to 82 cents per eligible voter.
Some Figures
During the last provincial elections of December 8,
2008, only 57 percent of registered voters cast their ballots.
Consequently,
Jean Charest's
Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ) was elected with just 23.8 percent of the
total
registered voters. Nonetheless, based on the current funding regime,
between
December 9, 2008
and December 8, 2009,
the PLQ received $1,209,861.87, or 42.16 percent of the public
financing dispersed in that period. Similarly, altogether the PLQ, the
Parti
Québécois (PQ) and
Action Démocratique (ADQ), received only 52.96
percent of the
total of
registered voters, but received 94 percent of
public financing. With the proposed funding increase to 82 cents per
eligible voter, even more public money would be diverted
to the parties, i.e., $4,414,350.92 for the PLQ, the
PQ
and the ADQ combined, out of a total of
$4,705,825.02, to the detriment of small
parties. Independent candidates do not even qualify. It is estimated
that the existing
regime along with other aspects of public financing available to
political parties such as refunds for producing party
annual reports, tax credits for donors and members, etc., provide
these political parties with at least 60 percent of all their expenses.
Increasing public funding to political parties will not
strengthen the democratic institutions! Finance the process, not the
parties!
PMLQ Brief on Bill 78, A Bill Aimed at Amending the
Election Act with Regard to Electoral Representation and Political
Party Financing Rules and Other Legislative Provisions
- February 1, 2010 -
 The
Marxist-Leninist Party of Quebec (PMLQ) is
presenting its views on Bill 78 to specifically address the claim of
the
Charest government, through its Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs
Claude Béchard, that Bill 78 will strengthen Quebec's democratic
institutions. Minister Béchard said the aim of the bill
is to "preserve the confidence of citizens in our institutions and
laws." He said that "in that regard, it is imperative to reduce the
dependence of the political parties on private funding." He argued that
corruption will be discouraged because the sanctions for violations of
the Act will be strengthened and the increase
in the state subsidies will presumably remove the pressure to cheat.
The
PMLQ is of the opinion that Bill 78's reform of the Election
Act to increase the allocations given to
the parties will not strengthen democratic institutions. First of all,
it is ridiculous to conclude that the reason political parties or
individuals resort to corruption is because
of "the dependence of the political parties on private funding." This
diverts from one essential issue, which is that the problem of
corruption in relation to party financing is not a new one and
penalties existed in the past as well but have not been enforced.
Instead, the parties allocate themselves more and more
state funds.
On
September 9, 2005 a letter was sent to all political
parties by the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec (DGEQ) Marcel Blanchet
asking for their opinions on the provisions of Quebec legislation on
matters of party-financing. A communiqué announcing the creation
of a Reflexion Group on April 28,
2005 indicated, among other things, that "Certain allegations made
during
the [Gomery] Commission, have reinforced the conviction of the DGEQ
that the time [has] come to raise serious questions concerning the
financing of political parties so as to ensure
the survival of the reform initiated by the National Assembly in 1977."
The Reflexion Group submitted its report in 2007.
At that time, the DGEQ spokesperson Clément
Falardeau said the violation of these rules "is not easy to detect nor
to prove." For example, a company can in fact circumvent the law by
distributing large sums of money to its employees who in turn
contribute this sum to political parties on a personal
basis, as revealed by the Gomery
Commission. The president of Groupaction, Jean Brault,
admitted that his company contributed $50,000 to Jean Charest's
electoral campaign in 1998 through this method and that it recruited 17
employees to contribute $100,000 to the Parti québécois
over a period of two years.
We repeat: we had an electoral law at that time. There
were penalties. Despite this, parties which benefited from fraudulent
practices were permitted to carry on as if nothing was untoward even
after the
corruption was proven. The fact that corrupt political parties are
allowed to carry on in positions of responsibility
is not addressed! Federally, Jean Chrétien actually tried to
avert the public revelations which became known as the scandale
des commandites (sponsorship scandal) by passing a federal law
which increased the public financing of political parties. He too did
it in the name of strengthening democratic
institutions, citing the efficacy of the 1977 Quebec law. No
sooner had the parties in the federal Parliament increased state
funding for themselves than the details of the scandale des
commandites came to light, as well as the fact that the Quebec law
was
also being circumvented. This was followed
by the allegations of corruption associated with the municipal
elections
and the refusal of the Liberal Party to conduct an inquiry. Now, to
deal with the corruption, the parties in the Quebec National Assembly
are proposing to increase state subsidies to themselves from 50 cents
to
82 cents per voter!
Quebeckers can be forgiven for seeing the political
parties as insincere and self-serving in their declaration that
their aim in increasing state subsidies to political parties is to
strengthen the democratic institutions.
How does the government strengthen democratic
institutions when it does not address why these political parties, said
to be primary links between the electorate and the elected and the
government, have no members willing to fund their activities such that
they resort to using their position in the National Assembly
to increase state subsidies for themselves?
Political parties are for all intents and purposes
private organizations operating in the public domain. Legally speaking,
they are considered neither enterprises nor NGOs but independent
organizations. Any private organization is of private concern.
Accordingly, this
legislation allows for the public financing
of activities of a private nature: polls, threats, blackmail as well as
internal feuds, leadership campaigns, policy conventions -- all of
concern to the members of said parties which have to render accounts to
their members. Should financing not then be the responsibility of the
membership who are the ones to hold
that association or organization to account? For instance, should we
agree that religious congregations which operate in the public domain
be financed through public funds? No. They must sink or swim depending
on the support of their congregations. It is that principle which
strengthens the democratic functioning
of society. The fact that political parties act in the public domain
does not mean that they are public institutions with a right to public
financing. We should appreciate that increasing state funding of
political parties transforms them into appendages of the state -- such
political parties which are financed by the state to the tune of 60
percent no
longer render accounts to their own members but to
the DGEQ according to the electoral law.
This bill is filled with contradictions. For instance,
its ostensible aim is to strengthen democratic institutions. A
fundamental principle guiding the democratic institutions is without
a doubt freedom of association. Yet Bill 78 is an assault on the right
to
association because it demands that the members
of that association identify themselves if they want to make financial
contributions. This contradicts the understanding that anyone can
become a member of an association, a union, or a political party on an
individual basis without sacrificing their rights, such as the right to
privacy. In order to join, an individual must only
accept the rules and statutes of that particular organization.
Meanwhile, the
electoral bill makes it compulsory for political parties to divulge the
identity of their donors. No matter how righteous the pretext, this
goes against the right of association of individuals which is a private
matter. It is also against the right to conscience
of individuals who want to join and finance the activities of an
association without being subject to state or public scrutiny. To
impose a process which renders it impossible
for people to express their political opinion without fear of
reprisal is state intervention
against the right of assembly and the right to conscience. There is no
denying the ability of the Party in Power to penalize
those who it sees as not supporting its program, especially when you
consider the amount of money given to MNAs to be distributed as
largesse.
As it stands, can the bill eliminate corruption which
is supposed to be its aim? If political corruption is understood as
something that perverts or makes the electoral process immoral or
dishonest through bribery and other means, it will not eliminate
corruption because these
major parties have an insatiable need for money to run
their campaigns. Will the bill change who gets elected, for example?
No, these so-called major parties will continue to have an unfair
advantage because of the lopsided public financing in their favour.
Furthermore, the
media, to whom the present electoral process assigns by default the
task of
informing the electorate, are owned
by the same private interests that control the major political parties,
which consequently also represent definite economic and
social interests. In a situation where the most powerful economic
interests and owners of means of production only represent a very small
percentage of the population, they will
continue to manipulate public opinion through the ownership of the vast
majority of media outlets in Quebec (more than 80 percent are owed by
Power Corporation and Quebecor; the rest by CanWest and
Transcontinental; less than 2 percent are so-called
independent, e.g., Le
Devoir). These owners dictate the editorial policies and openly
side with their favourite parties during election campaigns. Who
doesn't remember Paul Desmarais threatening to fire the editorial staff
of La Presse because they refused to toe the line? The new
bill will not change that ratio of forces
in favour of empowering the electorate.
It is estimated that less than 2 percent of the
population are members of political parties. It stands to reason that
on this basis, party finances would not be sizeable but how does it
strengthen democratic institutions to publicly finance parties over
which one
exercises no control? If less than 2 percent of the people
are members of political parties then why should they be financed
through the public treasury?
The bill proposes to increase the financing of
political parties from 50 cents to 82 cents per eligible voter [according to their percentage of the
popular vote -- TML Ed. Note]. Strictly
speaking, this increases the misappropriation of public funds by
privileged political parties, a straightforward way of putting
their hands on enormous amounts of money. M. Béchard
seeks to divert attention from this by making a sanctimonious issue of
saying that parties should not be fully funded but must go out and find
new
members to make up the remainder of their expenses.
This is totally ineffectual because it in no way
addresses the
fact that as part of
a downward trend parties nowadays have practically no members. There
are studies which discuss why this is
the case and the PMLQ thinks that if political parties are to be
strengthened the subject merits public discussion. But to dismiss the
entire political crisis in which citizens reject the
conduct of political parties by having the amount of funding per vote
go up to
cover up that the votes are going down will not do!
Why not have electoral financing that benefits the
entire population such as using the money to inform all electors about
all the candidates and other matters of public concern related to an
election: who is running, what are the issues and so on. If these funds
were used to inform all citizens of the names of
the candidates and their programs on an equal basis instead of handing
this money over to parties which represent private interests, it would
indeed strengthen the democratic institutions beginning with the
elections themselves.
In our opinion, the state should not finance private
interests at all, only public projects. An election to public office is
a very important public project. Electoral laws should be reformed so
as to strengthen this public project. State funds should be used to
finance the electoral process itself so that the
electors can cast an informed vote. Public funds should create an even
playing field, provide information about all the candidates and respect
the rights of all.
Finally, we bring to your attention that under the
current law only electors are entitled to finance the political party
of their choice. We think the financing law should be amended to also
permit
legal residents to contribute to the political party of their
choice. Like citizens, residents are affected
by the political decisions and they should be
encouraged to participate in political life.
Thank you.
Venezuela
Day of National Dignity
More than 100,000 March in Support of Chavez
- Kiraz Janicke, Venezuelanalysis.com,
February 5, 2010 -
Dwarfing recent opposition protests, more than 100,000
supporters of
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez marched in the Venezuelan capital,
Caracas, on February 4 in defence of the 'Bolivarian Revolution' and to
celebrate 18 years since Chavez, then a lieutenant colonel, led a
failed civilian-military uprising
against the corrupt government of former president Carlos Andrés
Pérez
on February 4, 1992.
The second term of Carlos Andrés Pérez,
from 1989-93, (he served
previously as president from 1974-79), had been marked by a series of
social crises, including a popular revolt, known as the Caracazo
uprising on February 27, 1989 against IMF-imposed neo-liberal reforms,
which saw up to 3,000
people shot dead by the military and security forces, as well as and
two military rebellions (February 4, 1992 and November 27, 1992). In
May 1993 Andrés Pérez became the first Venezuelan
president to be
forced out of office by the Supreme Court for misappropriation of 250
million bolívars of public funds.
Caracas,
Venezuela, February 4, 2010. (Photo:
Venezuelanalysis.com)Chavez's attempted uprising became a catalyst for the
political
movement based on the principles of Simón Bolívar (the
19th Century
independence fighter who liberated Venezuela and much of South America
from Spanish colonialism) that swept him to power six years later. The
date is now referred
to by government supporters as the Day of National Dignity.
As the 1992 uprising began to collapse Chavez gave a
short 90 second
appearance on television which electrified the nation. He accepted
responsibility and called for his comrades to lay down their arms
saying, "For now, the objectives that we have set for ourselves have
not been achieved."
The next morning graffiti saying "por ahora" ("for
now"), appeared
all over the streets of Venezuela. While Chavez was in prison over the
next two years it became a rallying cry for a movement of the poor and
working-class majority of Venezuelans, who were fed up with the
neo-liberal policies of
the corrupt political establishment in which two major parties,
Democratic Action and COPEI, had ruled the country in a power sharing
deal known as the Punto Fijo pact, for nearly 40 years.
Chavez was pardoned by then-President Rafael Caldera in
1994 and
formed a new political party called the Movement for the Fifth Republic
and in a political upset for Venezuelan elites he won the presidential
elections of 1998 with an important majority vote of 56%.
As part of the Day of National Dignity celebrations on
Thursday,
Chavez's supporters, including thousands of pro-revolution students who
gathered at the Bolivarian University of Venezuela, converged from five
different points around the capital to the Fuerte Tuina military base,
where Chavez addressed
the crowd and the Bolivarian Armed Forces.
Prior to the Bolivarian revolution "Venezuela was
enslaved by the
Yankee Empire, the anti-patriotic bourgeoisie, the same bourgeoisie
which today continues exuding hatred and venom towards us," Chavez said
referring to the right-wing opposition.
Chavez also called on sectors that support the
revolution whose
declared aim is "Socialism of the 21st Century," to maintain their
levels of political activism in the lead up to the parliamentary
elections in September, saying, "We cannot abandon the streets, there
is an imperial counterattack and the
opposition feels emboldened."
Newly appointed Defence Minister Carlos Mata Figueroa,
also spoke
saying, "Today we mark 18 years since consciousness was awakened in the
men and women of the Armed Forces, and opened the way to take the first
steps of this process which we are going through. That's why today we
celebrate
the day of national dignity."
Mata Figueroa stressed that thanks to the Bolivarian
Revolution, the
country has developed significantly and said that the soldiers of the
Bolivarian Armed Forces are loyal to their people and prepared to
safeguard security and national defence.
"The soldiers of our armed forces remain loyal together
with our
people, together with the revolutionary government, never again will we
be servile instruments of the oligarchy or any imperial power," he said.
Celebrations also occurred in other parts of the country
including a
march of several thousand Chavez supporters in Ejido, Mérida
state,
under the banners of "No to opposition fascism" and "Yes to peace." The
march occurred just over a week after violent opposition protests
against the temporary suspension
of private cable television station RCTV left two students dead in the
Andean state, one a 16-year old Chavez supporter and the other a
28-year old opposition supporter.
Unidentified gunmen shot the youths, but much of the
international
media falsely reported that state security forces shot them. The Chavez
government strictly prohibits the use of live ammunition against
protests. Eight police officers also received bullet wounds from armed
opposition groups during
the incident.
Meanwhile, several hundred opposition students protested
in Brion
Plaza in eastern Caracas yesterday, throwing rocks and bottles at
police. One police officer was injured. Earlier the pro-Chavez mayor of
Libertador municipality had denied a request by the students for a
permit to march to the national
assembly in order to avoid clashes between the two protests.
"The real students are the children of the people, not
the children
of the bourgeoisie encouraged by the empire to overthrow the
revolutionary government with their little white hands," Chávez
said in
relation to the rightwing student groups.
The term "white hands" (manos blancas) refers
to a symbol
used by the opposition students in their protests. U.S.-backed youth
and student movements in the denominated "Coloured Revolutions," such
as in the former Yugoslavia, the Ukraine, among others, who have links
with the opposition
student organisations in Venezuela, have used the same symbol.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez joins in celebrating the Day of
National Dignity, February 4, 2010 in Caracas.
|
U.S.-Venezuelan attorney Eva Golinger has documented
extensive
funding by U.S. government-linked organisations such as the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED) to opposition student groups in Venezuela.
Chavez contrasted the U.S.-backed student opposition
groups today
with demonstrations staged by university students in Caracas in 1991
against economic measures adopted by the Andrés Pérez
government, which
included increases in fuel prices and transport and that provoked
widespread protests
resulting in five students shot dead by members of the security forces
and 35 arrested.
"Who can forget that year 1991, when a true student
rebellion took
to the streets, not these four sons of the bourgeoisie who seek to
expropriate for themselves the heroic status of students," he said.
Oppose Canada's Interference in
Venezuela's Internal Affairs!
TML calls on
Canadians to vigorously oppose Canada's interference in Venezuela's
internal affairs.
Following a trip to Venezuela, Canada's Minister of
State for the
Americas Peter Kent on January 28 issued a high-handed statement
accusing the
Venezuelan government of "shrinking democratic space in Venezuela"
through "violations of the right to freedom of expression and other
basic liberties."
Venezuela's ambassador to the Organization of American
States
(OAS), Roy Chaderton, rejected the accusations and pointed to the
Harper government's support for "coup-plotters" and "destabilizers" who
are seeking to reverse the gains of the Bolivarian revolution
undertaken by President Hugo Chavez
and the majority of the Venezuelan people.
"I am talking of a Canada governed by an ultraright
that closed its
Parliament for various months to [evade] an investigation over the
violation of human rights," Chaderton said at a February 3 meeting of
the OAS.
The Harper government's self-righteous criticisms of
Venezuela come
in the context of its subservience to nefarious U.S. aims to subjugate
the peoples of Latin America, in collusion with anti-social oligarchic
forces in the region. Chaderton pointed to Kent's itinerary during his
visit, noting that alleged scheduling
conflicts prevented Kent from meeting with senior officials in
the Chavez government. "In reality, he had no interest in talking with
my government, just with the opposition to animate them and offer
support -- among them the coup plotters
and destabilizers," Chaderton said.
Chaderton's remarks were affirmed by Venezuelan
President Hugo
Chavez during his weekly broadcast on February 7, in which he stated
that the U.S. and also its allies, among them the "extreme right
government of Canada" and other governments of the continent are
supporting a plan by opposition
forces within the country to provoke violence in Venezuela,
particularly in the lead-up to parliamentary elections in September. He
also reiterated that Canada has no business lecturing others about
human rights.
U.S. Continues Attempts to Destabilize Venezuela
The president of the Foreign Policy
Commission of
the Venezuelan National Assembly Roy Daza denounced statements made by
the Director of U.S. National Intelligence Dennis Blair on February 2,
when he presented the 2009 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S.
Intelligence Community
to the U.S. Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence.
The report accuses Venezuela of "imposing a populist
and
authoritarian political model" which undermines democratic institutions
and obstructs free trade. It also claims Venezuela does not cooperate
with the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking, rather that it
protects terrorists. Amongst other
things, it also claims that President Chavez heads a group of leaders
who aim at becoming a regional force against the U.S., and thus
proposes that Venezuela be included in the list of countries that
represent a threat to U.S. security.
"Barack Obama's administration must explain to the
world
why his
intelligence chief says, in an official document presented before the
Senate, that the regional influence of Chávez has reached its
limit,"
stated Daza. He also denounced the report as a threat by the U.S.
administration against Venezuelan
democracy and security, based on the Monroe Doctrine and opposed to the
incontestable principle of national sovereignty.
Regarding Venezuela's opposition to the FTAA, Daza
pointed out that
"Most of the Latin American countries in the Mar de Plata Summit in
November 2005, opposed the implementation of a Free Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA) in the region, since this would have economically
bankrupted our
countries and continued the long neoliberal night."
Daza added that not only are the U.S. accusations
baseless, but are
pretexts for the U.S. to prepare a military attack against the country.
He reiterated that the Bolivarian government openly opposes U.S.
imperial policy, having previously denounced its
expansionist and the meddlesome
strategy in South American countries in various international fora.
"Mr. Dennis Blair is shamelessly meddling in our
internal affairs
trying to encourage the destabilization plans lead by small groups that
try to undermine the bases of our democracy," he added.
Venezuela's Ambassador to the U.S. on February 4 sent a
letter to
Senator Dianne Feinstein, head of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, which refutes the spurious accusations of the "threat
assessment" report. The letter is posted below.
Letter to Chair of U.S.
Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence
- Bernardo Alvarez
Herrera, Venezuelan
Ambassador to U.S.,
February 4, 2010 -
Dear Senator Feinstein,
I was disappointed to read the testimony of Mr. Dennis
Blair,
Director of National Intelligence, before the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence on the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S.
Intelligence Community. As in years past, the report is full of
politically motivated and cynical accusations
against my country.
Let me start by stating that Venezuela is a sovereign
country that
demands respect for its right to chart its own destiny. Unsubstantiated
reports like the one presented by Mr. Blair to the committee you chair
were used by the Bush administration to set the stage in public
opinion for the 2002 overthrow
of President Hugo Chavez's democratically elected government and to
impose politically motivated sanctions against my country that are
still in place. That same coup led Congress to investigate the role
that U.S. agencies may have played in President Chavez's overthrow.
I would like to use this opportunity to warn you and
members of the
committee that we are once again seeing attempts to criminalize our
government and encourage sectors of the Venezuelan opposition that are
looking for undemocratic ways to reach power.
The report states that "President Chavez continues to
impose an
authoritarian populist political model in Venezuela that undermines
democratic institutions."
On the contrary, Venezuela is in the process of
extending democracy
to all of its people. This includes finding a balance between the state
and the market that allows us to guarantee the welfare of our people
and overcome the historical wrongs of poverty and inequality.
Over the last decade, Venezuela's ranking on the UN's
Human
Development Index has risen by 10 spots, as levels of poverty have
dropped and access to social services increased. In fact, political
participation and consciousness in Venezuela have expanded dramatically
over the last decade. These advances
have occurred within what we call "Socialism of the 21st Century," a
democratic political process centered around fostering the well-being
of our people as an alternative to the capitalist model currently in
crisis.
The report also states that Venezuela has "curtailed
free
expression and opposition activities by shutting down independent news
outlets, harassing and detaining protestors, and threatening opposition
leaders with criminal charges for corruption." Venezuela has not shut
down any independent media outlets,
but rather has applied relevant laws and regulations to outlets
operating in the country, just like any other democracy. In Venezuela,
more than 76 percent of the media on public airwaves are privately
owned
and operated, and most are controlled by the government's political
opposition. Additionally, more than 184
channels broadcast freely through cable networks.
Anti-government protestors continue enjoying their
constitutional
rights to peaceful assembly. Moreover, many members of the Venezuelan
opposition travel freely around the world promoting their political
agenda, including to the U.S., and return to Venezuela to exercise the
political rights that the
1999 Constitution grants them.
Contrary to the assessments of the report, criminal
charges have
been filed against a variety of individuals for charges of corruption,
regardless of their political affiliations. Venezuela only recently
averted a financial crisis when it took steps to stop a number of banks
from threatening the integrity of
the country's financial system. Two people charged in this case were
very close to government officials. Both were detained and will stand
trial for their crimes.
We cannot and will not allow corrupt criminals to hide
behind the
notion of "political persecution" to avoid facing justice in Venezuela.
In that regard, we have recently solicited the cooperation of U.S.
authorities to extradite one banker who has fled Venezuela's justice
system and is currently living
in the U.S. with money he stole from Venezuelan taxpayers. By granting
some of these fugitives safe haven, the U.S. has politicized the sacred
concept of political asylum. It is worth highlighting that over the
past few years Venezuela has deported several criminals that were
wanted by the U.S.
The report also claims that President Hugo Chavez,
along with his
counterparts in sister nations in the region, "are likely to oppose
nearly every U.S. policy initiative in the region, including the
expansion of free trade, counter drug and counterterrorism cooperation,
military training, and security initiatives,
and even U.S. assistance programs."
Venezuela engages openly with its regional neighbors
through a
number of mechanisms, including the Bolivarian Alliance of the People
of Our Americas (ALBA), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR),
the South American Common Market (MERCOSUR) and a variety of energy
initiatives
such as PetroCaribe. These mechanisms allow the countries of the region
to better cooperate on issues of mutual concern, particularly in
developing strategies to overcome poverty. These alliances do not
threaten the U.S. -- in fact, a hemisphere more aggressively working
together to fight social exclusion is more
likely to be stable in the long-run.
On counter-terrorism, Venezuela seeks especially to
attack the
conditions that allow terrorism to grow, while on counter-drug
operations Venezuela believes strongly in shared responsibility
approaches that escape the failed military and supply-side based
models. It bears mentioning that drug seizures
in Venezuela increased by 38 percent after 2005, the year that we ended
our cooperation with the DEA.
The U.S. will benefit if it develops a multilateral
approach to
these important issues and collaborates openly and equally with
countries in the region. Of course, this cooperation must flow both
ways -- since 2005, Venezuela has been waiting for Luis Posada
Carriles, a known terrorist living freely
in South Florida, to be extradited to Venezuela for his role in the
1976 bombing of a civilian airliner. In the U.S., he has only been
accused of lying to immigration officials. This is a travesty of
justice.
After reading Mr. Blair's report, one cannot help but
wonder what a
country like Venezuela has done to the U.S. to justify the cynicism and
unsubstantiated accusations its government so irresponsibly lobs at us.
The only answer seems to be that we have refused to "obey" hegemonic
prescriptions and
have decided to chart our own path towards full democracy and equitable
development. We are only a "threat" to those that still see Latin
America as part of the U.S.'s "backyard" instead of co-equal regional
neighbors. Unfortunately, this report is just a carbon-copy of the Cold
War mentality that for too long reigned
over U.S. relations with the region, favoring dictatorships and
allowing gross human rights violations in the name of U.S. interests.
Let me reassure you that, contrary to Mr. Blair's
report, there is
no "anti-Americanism" in the Government of Venezuela. However, we do
reject imperial policies that dictate the kind of development and
democracy we should seek. This is why we demand respect for and will
defend our sovereignty
at any cost.
The report issued by Mr. Blair reproduces the
politicized and
ideological intelligence script that has accompanied U.S. intervention
in the affairs of sovereign nations in this hemisphere for decades.
Such reports can be interpreted by some groups in the region as an
invitation to explore anti-democratic
means to achieve political ends. As Venezuela's ambassador to the U.S.,
it is my responsibility to alert you and your colleagues in the Senate
about our concerns with the intentions of such intelligence reports,
which are full of half-truths and false accusations that hamper efforts
for understanding among our two
countries.
Respectfully,
Bernardo Alvarez Herrera
Ambassador
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
