Is the OAS Fiddling While Latin America Burns?
By Moishe Smith
On the night of July 19, 64 A.D., a fire broke out among the shops lining the Circus Maximus, Rome's mammoth chariot stadium. History has blamed the infamous emperor, Nero, for the disaster, implying he started the fire so he could bypass the Senate and rebuild Rome to his liking. History tells us that Nero watched Rome burn while merrily playing his fiddle.
I ask you…
Is the Organization of American States (OAS) fiddling as Latin America burns? Does the OAS not recognize that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is "bypassing the Senate so he can rebuild Latin America" under his presidency; a presidency that is in imminent danger of becoming a dictatorship?
While this may be a harsh comparison, freedom of speech-the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship-is an integral concept in modern liberal democracies.
In June, at the 37th Annual OAS Conference, how could the OAS have focused on energy matters and the environment while not shining a spotlight on the Venezuelan president for closing down Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) in May and threatening the tenet of freedom of speech for Venezuela's citizens? Where do the priorities of the OAS lie?
For only a handful of OAS member countries to recognize and speak out regarding the Venezuelan turmoil is a travesty. We should all applaud Peru, El Salvador, Canada, and Uruguay for having the strength of conviction to recognize that the Jewish communities of Latin America, after experiencing 20 stable years of democracy, are once again feeling angst.
Fearful of what the government is doing to challenge basic freedom of expression, emigration of the Jewish community has begun from Venezuela to countries such as Israel, Panama, the United States, and Colombia.
I know the member states of the OAS have an understanding that they will not interfere in the internal affairs of one of its member states. However, is that approach acceptable at a time when a civilian population is being robbed of its human rights, human freedoms, and human dignities? One can only surmise that time at the OAS conference might have been better spent talking about what makes a society free.
Maybe the United Nations should try to encourage and, indeed, compel Venezuela to follow its hallowed document, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
OAS countries that did not talk about Venezuelan injustices only empower the violating country to do what it will with its citizens, as it slowly shifts from a free society to a dictatorship.
We should all praise U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for speaking her mind and rejecting the closure of the Venezuelan television station as a blatant move against democracy. Rice urged the OAS to send its secretary-general, Jose Miguel Insulza, to Venezuela to investigate the closing and deliver a full report.
In practice, the right of freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Freedoms must be balanced with order and there are varying approaches to achieving this balance. For instance, the United States Constitution's First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when, or if, a limitation of this freedom is necessary.
In Canada, the Canadian Bill of Rights provides for freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and association-rights granted under Canadian federalism.
Liberal democracies have always placed freedoms above restrictions; restrictions of those freedoms should be the exception and free expression the rule.
Some may argue that the Venezuelan television station license was up for renewal and no law was broken in not renewing. However, in democracies, whether there is a commission or agency that regulates licenses, and while they may be part of the government, they primarily act as independent bodies free from governmental interference. Sadly, this is not the case in Venezuela.
Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically, censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist. Censorship is closely related to the concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. When arbitrarily imposed, it is often associated with human rights abuse, dictatorship, and repression.
For, surely, these three examples of tyranny-human rights abuse, dictatorship, and repression-will wreak havoc one more time in our lifetime. Therefore, let us learn the lessons that history has taught us.
Let all the democracies of the world understand that, just as British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's plan of appeasement didn't work in 1939, appeasement now will not work with the Venezuelan leader.
The citizens of Venezuela must not trust the economic boom now taking place in their country because of the trading frenzy in the export of natural resources, most specifically, oil.
They also must not trust this president's promise of effortless prosperity and international acclaim. Let us not be fooled by a leader who instills false hope amongst his constituents, while he plots to eliminate all their human rights and freedoms.
We must act now!
Editor's note: On July 16, RCTV began to broadcast on cable and satellite. The Venezuelan government issued an order to shut down the cable version of the TV station. On August 1, the Venezuelan Supreme Court suspended this government order. At the time the magazine went to press, it was not known what Chavez's reaction would be. But the prospects do not look good.
|
|