Human Rights in Venezuela and the United States

Human rights are often discussed, incorrectly, as if they are universal norms and values accepted by each and every individual around the globe. However, a closer look inside specific cultures around the globe allows for a different kind of approach. The cultural relativist approach must be applied in all of the social sciences including determining a set of human rights for humans on our planet. There are also factors besides cultural ones that prevent the upholding of certain human rights in certain places. Politics play an enormous role regarding human rights, and those countries with preferred political systems such as democracy will be allowed to slide when it comes to the upholding human rights, while those countries that practice ideologies that are looked down upon are ostracized and treated poorly. The other integral thing to think about when discussing human rights is that there are several different types of human rights.

Some nation states focus on civil and political rights and ignore social and cultural rights. A fitting example of this type of action is the United States of America, a nation that incessantly tells its citizens that they can hold whichever political, religious and other rights that he/she wants to. There is a great sense of individualism in the United States, which is shown by these inalienable human rights of civil and political liberties. Other nations focus on other classes of human rights. These are known as social and cultural rights. One fine example of this type of emphasis is Venezuela. The United States has held a rocky and often times hostile view of Venezuela, and often cites its human rights abuses; these are probably based on a clash of political ideologies rather than actually trying to uphold human rights for the citizens of the world. However, the United States, from Hugo Chavez's social and cultural rights perspective, also commits human rights abuses every day. This paper will examine two nations and how each one chooses to uphold certain human rights based on their values and politics.

Human rights are broken up into several different types of human rights. For example, there are civil and political rights, which are usually western recognized. These forms of rights include the right for human beings to join the political party of their choice, the freedom to believe in whatever one chooses to and other rights like the right to criticize the government without fear of life or limb. Other rights are usually recognized more in the east, which are civil and social rights. These rights include the right to shelter, the right to employment, the right to education and the right to medicine and healthcare. A third generation of human rights now exists which include the right to peace (the absence of war), the right to development and the right to a healthy environment (the right to clean water et cetera). Unfortunately, sovereignty plays an enormous role in human rights, and whether they are actually enforced or not. Many states, including the United States, have been very reluctant to submit to international security citing that their local culture does not allow for the universalism (usually western) approach to human rights. Another issue, that is becoming increasingly obvious in the case of the United States and Venezuela, is the politicization that goes into the judgment of human rights. For example, the United States constantly pressures Venezuela to uphold its political and civil rights, while Chavez's administration resents the United States because it lacks basic rights regarding cultural and social rights.

In the realm of human rights there has been an incredible debate regarding whether we should use a sort of cultural relativism when discussing human rights or that it is better, and necessary, to do so from a universalism point of view. Anyone who has studied any of the social sciences should be able to quickly choose the side of cultural relativism. It is obvious that not all societies have the same beliefs, and therefore would have different views on human rights. Further on in this paper, the rights that are inherent to both the United States and Venezuela will be discussed. Admantia Pollis has written a wealth of theory on these issues and one of her articles Cultural Relativism Revisited: Through a State Prism appeared in Human Rights Quarterly and discusses this issue in depth. She writes, "Universalism, she claims, can be located not in rights notions, but in the fact that all societies have conceptions of morality, justice, and human dignity" (Pollis 32). As aforementioned, not all nations see justice alike et cetera. For example, most western nations have done away with capital punishment in their societies citing that it falls under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights' article about "cruel and unusual punishment". However, some nations such as the United States and Saudi Arabia have exploited the universalism approach by saying that capital punishment is a part of their culture and therefore does not fall into disagreement with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pollis wonders, "whether modern states adhere to the values that they claim inhere in their cultures, or whether the modern state, with its capacity to repress, exploits the language of cultural relativism to justify and rationalize its own repressive actions in the governing elites' drive to consolidate or to hold on to political power" (Pollis 320).

Because of the exploitation of the cultural relativist theory, states can continue to repress, torture and revoke rights of its citizens without anyone really telling them otherwise. The international community in reality has no teeth and has no way to truly convict human rights offenders. For example, if human rights offenders were always brought to International Criminal Court, several prominent leaders, if not all, around the world would be surely imprisoned. It is clear that George W Bush and Dick Cheney both committed war crimes and would therefore be serving a nice sentence in prison now. The point is that, "The state, a modern construction, can exploit traditional values as a device and a rationalization by which to maintain power and to repress" (Pollis 323). This allows leaders like Hugo Chavez to take away political and civil rights. It is this system that allows for him to shut down newspapers that he feels are in opposition to him and his revolution. It is this system that allows for freedoms of expression to be all but silenced in many Middle Eastern countries. It is this system that allows for millions of United States citizens being denied affordable healthcare. It is this system, which has allowed for many atrocities going on as we speak. However, it is important to remember that it is not the theory that is causing these things to go unnoticed, it is the repressive regimes and world leaders that exploit the theory.

A brief historical look at the history of human rights in Latin America will show that in fact the region is and has been for some time a world leader on human rights. While United States foreign policy commonly looks toward to region and especially to Venezuela with negativity and disdain. However, historically speaking the region was a major player in the drafting on The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). As aforementioned, the region has always been a major proponent of social and cultural rights and the bloc wanted something about rights to be included in the original United Nations charter. "In contrast to the great powers like the United States and the Soviet Union, the Latin American delegations were much more strongly committed to the inclusion of human rights in the new international order" (Carozza 284). This in essence says that the Latin America is the foremost leader in world human rights, at least historically. This is in sharp contrast to how much of the Western world sees Latin America today. Most western scholars believe that most Latin American countries, especially ones like Venezuela, lack basic human rights, and that leaders like Hugo Chavez are repressive and do little to help the cause of human rights in their respective nations. Carozza goes on to write that, " At the San Francisco conference founding the United Nations in 1945, Latin American countries represented the largest single regional group, accounting for twenty-one of the fifty nations. Right from the start of the conference, several of the Latin American delegations-often working together with other smaller states- made an effort to have human rights put on the conference agenda" (Carozza 284). The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (the Bogotá Declaration) was a document adopted by the Organization of American States (OAS) in the same year as the Universal Declaration. It could be said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights took much of its language from the American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man. In fact, some aspects of Latin American thought was and are even more liberal than other western countries especially when it comes to social and economic rights. For example, the Latin American bloc proposed including language banning capital punishment relative to the right of life. However, it was of course struck down and in places like the United States capital punishment is still used, and often.

Latin America has had several leaders historically on the issue of human rights. Hugo Chávez is certainly well versed in the history of the region and has demonstrated the stories of several heroes in his campaigns, speech and plans for Venezuela. One of the most well known Latin American human rights activists was Bartolomé De Las Casas. He was a Spanish priest who traveled back and forth between Europe and the "New World" several times. Originally, he lived off the encomienda system just like every other Spaniard living in the New World. In this system Spaniards were granted plots of land to live on by the Spanish government and then had legal rights to use the indigenous people there as slaves for forced labor. Eventually, he realized that this system was wrong and worked for the rest of his life toward the emancipation of indigenous peoples forced into labor. Carazzo writes, " First Las Casas consistently framed the requirements of justice in terms of the rights of the Indians. We should not undervalue the importance and novelty of this simply because that way of talking is so familiar to us moderns" (Carazzo 292). It is amazing that at the time of Las Casas, he was willing to stand up to the social norms and announce that the natives too deserved to have rights. Since Las Casas is so integral to the story of Latin American history, his vocal views that were so new during his lifetime have become part of the culture of each and every country in the Americas. Amazingly, despite United States politics that preach the idea that Latin American countries lack fundamental human rights, the region has had several human rights heroes that the United States seems to lack.

The great hero of Latin America remains Simon Bolivar, and he is hailed as such by millions upon millions of people living around the world today. He is known as the great liberator of the region, whose thought and actions freed several nations form the throes of Spanish colonization. Understanding Bolivar's vision and impact is absolutely essential to understanding present day Venezuela. Hugo Chavez has caused the changes of the last decade within the country and his electoral gains as the beginning of a present day Bolivarian Revolution. Chavez, like Bolivar, wants to united Latin American countries and to rely little or not at all on great western powers such as the United States of America. Bolivar's plan for the region can best be explained through his own words. For example, one of Bolivar's most interesting quotes is the following: "Government must prove to be formidable and ruthless, without regard to law or constitution, until peace is established. I believe that our enemies will have all the advantages as long as we do not unify our American government. We shall be inextricably caught in the web of civil war, and be shamefully beaten by that little horde of bandits which pollutes our country" (Gott 96). This is taken directly from his first and most famous piece of writing, the Cartagena Manifesto. Bolivar called for a break-off completely from Spain, continental unification and a strong centralized government. It is true that Chavez has applied this philosophy that is so integral to Latin American culture and applied it to the present day; this time the enemy is not necessarily Spain, but countries that hold more power, for example the hegemonic nation of the United States. Bolivar wrote in his "Letter from Jamaica" regarding the region: "We are a macrocosm of the human race. We are a world apart, confined within two oceans, young in art and science, but old as human society. We are neither Indians nor Europeans, yet we are a part of each other" (Gott 97). Bolivar recognizes that the region contains a very rich, diverse culture not like any other region in the world, and that all the people in the region whether they are indigenous, Spanish or mixed race should come together as one to further the region. Chavez too has tried to do this in present day Venezuela as he has tried to maintain strong ties in the region to leaders like the Castro family in Cuba. Gott writes, "Chavez set out with high ambitions in the field of foreign affairs. His aim was nothing less than the 'Bolivarian' dream of the union of the peoples of Latin America. Others have paid lip service to this notion during the past half century, most notably Fidel Castro and Che Guevara" (Gott 183). Chavez also believes that, "the geopolitical concept of Bolivar, envisaging the union of the continent, still has tremendous contemporary force" (Gott 183). Chavez has used Bolivarian thought and rationale throughout his time as leader of Venezuela.

Pollis describes Chavez exactly when she says, "A repressive reaction is typical, particularly when the "new" political elites perceive themselves as challenged by demands for further political and socioeconomic reforms" (Pollis 318). This is exactly what is happening in Venezuela today. She also understands that. "philosophically the Western doctrine of human rights excludes economic and social rights. These are not viewed as fundamental, but derivative, stemming from the exercise of civil and political rights" (Pollis 318). This also explains the great divide between the United States and Venezuela in their ideas toward human rights. The two countries focus on their respective human rights views and often exploit the others.

Chavez's mission is simple and in this author's opinion true. He wants a country that truly benefits the people, and one that does not rely on the capitalist system in its pure form or on the United States and other western powers with vastly distinct ideological beliefs. Despite the fact that Chavez did gain power through a coup, he has since called for several elections and has been elected democratically each time by the people. Chavez has always made it clear that he wants the people to decide who leads them; this is most likely true because he knows he will win. Gott writes, "In his first speech as president, Chavez announced that he would immediately sign a decree for a national referendum: the people should decide whether elections should be held for a Constitutional Assembly that would draft a new constitution. As if to escape from the widespread belief that he was a military dictator in the making, President Chavez was anxious from the start to make his every move subject to the will of the people" (Gott 143).

The United States traditionally sees Hugo Chavez as a ruthless, authoritarian ruler who trumps civil and political human rights for his own benefit. This is sometimes true, but it is clear that socially and economically the country's welfare have improved significantly since Chavez became leader a decade ago. The Center for Economic and Policy Research, located in DC has published a report that shows the country's progress through several economic indicators. The CEPR claims itself to be a nonpartisan organization that favors neither the United States nor Venezuela, which this author believes to be true. Therefore, if we believe as scholars that this report is indeed nonbiased and favors academia rather than politics, we can use the information to pragmatically come up with new and progressive ways to further push along the Latin American nation. Neo-liberal economists, being the enemy of Chavez's "socialist" mentality, seem to always base the success of a country based on its GDP. According to the CEPR's report, "The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since then, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually" (Weisbrot 3). This shows a sharp contrast to the clearly biased and ideologically right leaning United States. For example, the CIA's World Factbook which publishes data about each of the globe's nations states that, "Fueled by high oil prices, record government spending helped to boost GDP by about 10% in 2006, 8% in 2007, and nearly 5% in 2008" (CIA). The numbers from the two different sources tell a different story, but it is most likely because of the politicization of the issue. The American government would prefer that a left-leaning leader who has demonstrated success in his social welfare policies this side of the Prime Meridian. This is stated alongside thoughts of a past that involves the CIA staging coups against leftist, and democratically elected, leaders in Latin America. The most publicized case would be that of Salvador Allende of Chile who was gunned down in a job done with the help of neo- liberal economic experts, American multinationals, the CIA, and heavily funded by Bank Of America. In Naomi Klein's expose The Shock Doctrine, she writes, "Allende was a new breed of Latin American revolutionary: like Che Guevara, he was a doctor, but unlike Che, he looked the part of the tweedy academic, not the romantic guerilla. He could deliver a stump speech as fiery as any by Fidel Castro, but he was a fierce democrat who believed that socialist change in Chile needed to come through the ballot box, not the barrel of a gun. When Nixon heard that Allende had been elected president, he famously ordered the CIA director, Richard Helms, to 'make the economy scream'" (Klein 77-78). The point being made here is that historically the United States CIA is rather biased in its view of liberal, left-leaning Latin America and therefore we should be skeptical of the accuracy of their numbers.

Therefore if we continue to rely on CEPR numbers, we can make the assessment that Venezuelan poverty has been reduced by a whopping thirty-nine percent and extreme poverty has fallen by more than half! All of these economic indicators are based exclusively on numbers; that is to say that the evidence is quantitative. Therefore no argument can truly be made against the fact that Chavez's social and economic welfare programs have improved the lives of millions of people in the nation. Another important piece of quantitative evidence is that the "real (inflation-adjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2005" (Weisbrot 3).

Health has become a priority for Chavez's government, and they have succeeded in some way to make the health of the nation better. According to the CEPR's report, "Venezuelans have seen a similar improvement in food security. Average caloric intake has risen from 91.0 percent of the recommended levels in 1998 to 101.6 percent in 2007. Even more importantly, malnutrition-related deaths have fallen by more than 50 percent, from 4.9 to 2.3 deaths per 100,000 in population between 1998 and 2006" (Weisbrot 11). One main reason for this dramatic and positive change is the Programa Alimenticio Escolar (PAE), which is a program that provides free breakfast, lunch and snack to students at their local schools. Also a network of government food stores called Mercal opened in 2003, which is a place where citizens can buy deeply discounted food and other products needed for the home. The report also says that, "In 1998, 80 percent of Venezuelans had access to drinking water and 62 percent had access to sanitation. In 2007, 92 percent had access to drinking water and 82 percent had access to sanitation" (Weisbrot 12). This is an incredible leap and a great step in the ultimate goal of 100 percent in all categories like this.

Hugo Chavez's government has been accused of vast human rights violations in the civil and political realms by various western NGOs. The most notable organizations issuing statements on the matter in the country are Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Information on a wealth of human rights violations were published Human Rights Watch's document "A Decade Under Chavez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela". The authors focused on five main areas: political discrimination, the courts, the media, organized labor and civil society. The report also includes an executive summary and a glimpse into the future of the country involving human rights. Unfortunately as is common in Latin American politics, a coup was attempted and succeeded for about forty-eight hours in 2002, which removed Chavez from power. According to Human Rights Watch, this specific event in Venezuelan history has laid the foundation for vast abuses of human rights, signed into law in some cases by the president. Post-2002, Chavez became paranoid and has since felt the need to quiet, in other words, silence dissenters, which in his eyes could turn into future coup starters. The document states, "Discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chavez presidency. At times, the president himself has openly endorsed acts of discrimination. More generally, he has encouraged his subordinates to engage in discrimination by routinely denouncing his critics as anti-democratic conspirators and coup-mongers regardless of whether or not they had any connection to the 2002 coup" (Human Rights Watch 2). It is important to remember that Venezuela, like all countries, has had to deal with human rights violations even prior to Chavez. What is interesting here is that several of Chavez's policies have resulted in new and damaging violations of civil and political liberties.

Chavez is very open about his shutdown of free speech; he has openly stated that those opposed to him will suffer consequences. Chavez's oil minister and head of PDVSA (the state owned and controlled oil company) on July 16,2009 said, "By now there should not be one single counter-revolutionary left in the heart of the oil trade unions. We must stay on alert. There cannot be one single state company where socialist committee shall be suspected of plotting against the revolution. The oligarchy has to fear us, because we hate the oligarchy. PVDSA will be here at the forefront of the revolution under the leadership of Commander Chavez" (The Guardian). The problem with statements like this involves the open use of the word "hate" in this context. Essentially the government is inciting hate while claiming it wants to maintain balance and a good track for the country. To tell any members of a society that they can't believe certain political ideals is downright wrong and counterproductive to any progress or "revolution" that may take place. My understanding of a revolution is when a radical or pervasive change occurs at the will of the people, and most importantly it happens naturally. To quiet people with dissenting opinions does not allow for the natural unfolding of progression.

The United States on the other hand has been very lax up until very recently regarding healthcare and other social programs. The United States' main occupation over the years has been shown to be over foreign policy (in other words, war) and benefiting big business and large corporations through policy change. People always come last in the United States and such sweeping and far-reaching reforms like those of Chavez's administration have never happened in the United States, at least not since the New Deal enacted by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. In fact, from a human rights perspective, the United States has actually committed human rights abuses in this country by denying healthcare and indebting millions of Americans over the years. Healthcare in the eyes of human rights organizations (despite the fact that they are based in the west) is a basic human right. Article 25 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states quite clearly, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical are and necessary social services" (UNDHR). Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International view that sentence as meaning that every human being has the right to health, including health care. In fact, it would seem only natural that in order to maintain good health one would need access to adequate healthcare. Amnesty International also believes, "that health care is a right, not a privilege or a commodity" (AIUSA).

In addition to United States violations of human rights regarding healthcare which is a social issue, the country has historically take away civil and political rights as well just like the detested Chavez. In fact, the country is taking more and more steps every day to prevent people in the country to maintain their civil liberties. Just this past week, the state of Arizona passed the SB 1070 Law, which for all intents and purposes turns the state into a police state. It allows local law enforcement to act as federal agents, and also legislates hatred and racism. Anyone who is "suspected" to be in the country illegally is now at risk to be stopped on the street and demanded to see his/her authentic documentation citing that he/she is in the country legally. If one cannot walk down the street without fear that a police officer will stop him/her and demand information based on the way he/she looks then we do not live in a society that promotes human rights in the civil sector. As far as political rights are concerned, the country's history is not absent of vast violations of political rights. McCarthyism in the 1950s is the most prominent example of political rights being violated. Communists, and often those suspected to be communists but who actually were not, were arrested and jailed. They were treated as enemies of the state; the government justified it by claiming they were making the country a safer place. This is in fact, very similar to Chavez's current policies that keep down members of society who disagree with the government, in order to protect the country and continue the economic plan according to Chavez's own principles. What is interesting about this issue is that the main object of the United States' anti-political right movement were leftists and those associated with labor unions. On the other hand, in Venezuela, the opposition to the government is the right and those who are interested in free markets and privatization.

We must as a world come together to form some kind of cohesive system that allows for cultures to maintain their own values norms and beliefs, while protecting the livelihood of the citizens of the world. There have been several scholars who have offered their ideas on how to effectively do this. Abdullah An-Na'im is "committed to the moral superiority of the Western doctrine of human rights (but) nevertheless argues for the indispensability of both an internal discourse and a cross-cultural dialogue as a sine qua non for the emergence of a genuinely universal doctrine" (Pollis 319). This is problematic because despite An-Na'im's willingness to open up cross cultural dialogue, he still conserves his view that western doctrines are superior, and therefore better than anything the east (or south by UN standards) could produce. However, it is very helpful that he is willing to truly include the views of eastern nations to come up with something that benefits all, but it still sounds like he wants to convert those in the east to abide by western rights. Allison Dundes Reteln, a political science professor at USC, calls for "a massive research project of all cultures, including those devoid of the language of human rights" (Pollis 320). This is also problematic because then the researchers would be doing nothing but separating people throughout the world based on his/her "culture" through the eyes of the researcher. This would further disenfranchise many people around the world and in my opinion, do very little to change much of anything. It is clear where she is coming from, but it is far too problematic to enact in practice.

Essentially, it is clear that Chavez has become something of an authoritarian ruler, and certainly one elected on a populist platform. By improving the country so much economically, Chavez has won the support of millions of Venezuelans, However, he is also disenfranchising a great number of Venezuelans. The disappearances, uncalled for imprisonments and lack of free speech in the country has led to a growing revolt amongst scholars. The debate remains centered around which rights are more important: civil/political or the economic/social that Chavez is working so hard to change. What is even more pressing is how a state could develop alongside regarding all human rights; this is to say that a country could develop without violating any category of human rights. This is what is lost in the discussions and debates. What is the real underlying importance here is the safety and wellbeing of the world's six billion people. If we continue to let world leaders abuse human rights, then what kind of future are we making for the increasingly globalized world in which we live? We must make human rights a priority in the United States, the United Nations and within other international institutions so that we can have a better understanding and all nations of the world have their own version of human rights law which is accepted by all the other nations of the world. In addition, these nations must not use the cultural relativist theory to exploit this, and people must be elected to power that truly value the people and not necessarily their own interests. I am calling for Chavez to stop his vast civil and political rights violations, and I am calling for the United States and other western countries to begin to grant social and economic rights to citizens. The resources are there and they must be applied accordingly. The great emphasis must be placed on the individuals themselves and political interests must be pushed aside so we can live in a better world. Can there truly be a universal code of human rights? The answer seems to be no, but there is a lot of work to be done since the issue of human rights has only been brought to the table sixty years ago. The time to act is now.