Montag, 23.12.2002


01 St. Pöltner Disco "Nachtschicht" wählt Besucher nach Rasse aus
von: "Daniela Ayodeji" <>
02 URGENT Appeal from women in Venezuela to women of the world
von:" <>
03 contextXXI-radio
von: Heidelinde Hammer" <>
04 News from the newswire
von: <>
05 AKS-Frauenkongress: ˇZeit aus der Rolle zu fallen „
von: "Niki Kowall" <>
06 European Court of Human Rights: Again Brush-Off for Gay Rights Case
von: "PF209" <>
von: "RAWNEWS" <>
08 STOP CALLS // NO Vigil Monday Morning
von: "Abraham J. Bonowitz" <>
09 Reportagen - Aktionen gegen Krieg und Flüchtlingspolitik
von: arbeiterfotografie <>



Für diese Ausgabe nicht aufgenommen: nichts

Powered by public netbase t0 -- please sign

Wie der MUND entsteht ....

Schickt uns bitte eure Nachrichten, Meldungen und Ideen.
E-Mail-Adresse der Redaktion:

Im MUND findet Ihr eine Rubrik, die eine Konsequenz aus der redaktionsinternen Debatte um die Notwendigkeit, sexistische, antisemitische und rassistische Beiträge nicht zu veröffentlichen, einerseits, die Problematik von Zensur andererseits versucht: unter "B) Eingelangt, aber nicht aufgenommen" wird - in anonymisierter Form - auf angehaltene Beiträge hingewiesen und eine kurze Begründung der/des Tagesredaktuers für die Nichtaufnahme geliefert. Die AbsenderInnen werden hiervon informiert.
Ihr könnt Euch die Beiträge extra schicken lassen:
Mail an genügt.



Und für nächsten Donnerstag:
Das Rechtshilfe-Manual
...und was mache ich eigentlich gegen rassisten?

Für den Inhalt verantwortlich: Ihr.
Die Beiträge werden von verschiedenen Redaktionsteams zusammengestellt.

Bitte weitersagen:
Für Personen ohne Internetzugang gibt es aktuelle Terminankündigungen
unter der Rufnummer 589 30 22 12 (Demoforum)

01 St. Pöltner Disco "Nachtschicht" wählt Besucher nach Rasse aus
von: "Daniela Ayodeji" <>
Kurzmitteilung !!!!
Eine St. Pöltner Disco verwehrte in der Nacht vom 21. auf den 22. Dezember 02
einer Gruppe von Schwarzafrikanern den Zutritt zum Lokal, aufgrund ihrer ethnischen
Herkunft. Eine Gruppe von jungen Kurden wurde ebenfalls nicht eingelassen. Unter
den Afrikanern befand sich auch ein Neoösterreicher, der diese Ausgrenzung nicht
verstehen konnte. Es kam zu heftigen Diskussionen mit Polizeieinsatz. Einer der
Schwarzafrikaner wurde im Zuge dessen auch verhaftet. Das Verhalten der Polizei
war hierbei moderat.
Daniela Ayodeji, Alle Afrikaner Welt Weit.

02 URGENT Appeal from women in Venezuela to women of the world
von:" <>
----- Weitergeleitete Nachricht von Global Women's Strike
<> -----
The Venezuelan revolution –
An appeal from women to women all over the world
„We women reject the organizers of hate and chaos.
We women are on the front line for our right to live in peace and to defend
the Bolivarian Constitution of Venezuela, which gives us, for the first time
in history, the right to full legal equality, to social security, to a
pension for housewives. We are on the streets backing our President and our
Bolivarian Revolution.
Long live the Constitution! No to the fraudulent referendum! No to the
pro-coup fascist stoppage! Don‚t stop for the stoppage!‰
In response to women in Venezuela, we urgently appeal to you to speak out in
defence of the revolution of which women are a leading part. Since
President Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias was elected by a landslide in 1998 to
carry out sweeping economic and social reforms to rid the country of poverty
and corruption, their revolution has been under constant threat.
As you may know, in April 2002 the elite, acting with the US government,
imposed a military coup. Women from the poorest neighbourhoods of Caracas
were the first to descend from the hills, risking their lives to demand the
return of their elected president. Filling the streets, the population,
supported by the army rank-and-file, reinstated their government. Women‚s
courage and initiative in defeating the coup is widely acknowledged in
Venezuela, and first of all by President Chavez.
We learnt this, and much else, when three of us from the Global Women‚s
Strike in Guyana, Peru and the US, attended the international women‚s
solidarity conference at the invitation of INAMUJER (the Women‚s Institute)
last July.
For four decades the ruling elite has been bleeding the country‚s wealth,
above all its oil revenue (Venezuela is the 5th largest exporter mainly to
the US), leaving 80% of the population – overwhelmingly people of mixed
African and Indigenous descent – impoverished. The white elite is furious
that from 1998 a man who is the colour of their servants is in power
representing those they have defrauded. Despite retaining preferential
treatment for its oil imports, the US, which has had a hand in the corrupt
handling of Venezuelan oil revenue, also fears the policies of the Chavez
government: no privatisation, lower oil rates for Cuba, Guyana and other
small Caribbean countries, and bringing together Latin America and the
Caribbean for the benefit of all its peoples.
By 1999 the population created and passed with a 72% vote a revolutionary
new Constitution. Women, Indigenous communities who, as in the rest of the
Americas, have been under threat of genocide for centuries, other women and
men of colour, and other social groups who suffer discrimination, won rights
fought for over years:
* A just distribution of wealth.
* Full legal and pay equality between women and men in employment.
* The recognition of housework as an economic activity that creates
surplus value and produces social wealth and well-being.
* Social security and a pension for housewives.
* A minimum wage, an 8-hour day, no compulsory overtime and the
right to paid holidays. Women, the lowest paid everywhere, who do a double
day of unwaged caring work on top of low-waged work, would benefit most.
* Protection from discrimination based on sex, race, politics, age,
religion and disability. Positive steps to favour those who may be
discriminated against, marginalized or vulnerable, and punishment of those
guilty of abuse or mistreatment.
* Recognition of Venezuelan sign language, and the use of subtitles
in TV programs.
* Recognition and protection of Indigenous communities, their
social, political and economic organizations, cultures, religious and health
practices, the collective ownership of ancestral land and knowledge.
Bilingual education in Indigenous areas. Women stress that it is their work
that has kept cultures and languages alive.
* Outlawing the patenting of genes, technologies and inventions aris
ing from ancestral knowledge or resources.
* No privatisation of water; food security through sustainable
agriculture; protection of the environment.
* No oil privatisation – the State will keep 100% of oil shares.
Always the poorest everywhere, women have the most to gain from all these
reforms. Despite the elite‚s power to frustrate change, there have been
remarkable achievements that we have not yet won in most countries in spite
of our own years of struggle.
* A strong commitment to tackling domestic violence and the machismo
of the justice system.
* A Women‚s Bank that puts money for income generation directly into
women‚s hands.
* Better child nutrition and greater school attendance through free
breakfast programs and a clampdown on schools illegally charging fees. A
dramatic drop in the infant mortality rate.
* The distribution of title deeds to land built on by squatters,
mostly woman-headed households in the shanty towns on the Caracas hills.
* A law distributing unused state and private land to rural people.
Women, including Indigenous women, are often the main agriculturalists.
* Subsidies of $1000-$2000 to small farmers – a lot for people
earning $15 a month.
Women‚s determination to resist provocation and to protect „el proceso‰ –
the peaceful and democratic process to which many middle class people are
also committed – has been hidden by the corporate-owned media. National and
international audiences are bombarded with lies promoting the coup leaders
and glorifying or hiding their ongoing violence.
This has so incensed women that they have declared a „permanent
mobilization‰. Every day thousands surround the main TV channels to demand
an end to media lies about them. They are also infuriated that the
leadership of the CTV, the corrupt trade union federation involved in the
coup, has been given a platform to claim that workers are backing the
employers‚ efforts to destabilize the economy. These lies are given
credibility by the financial and other support for CTV from the US union
federation AFL-CIO (without union members‚ knowledge), and by the silence of
the UN‚s International Labour Office.
Most recently, a „general strike‰ that has been in fact a corporate lockout,
has tried to stop oil exports, to give the US an excuse to intervene and
restore the rich and racist elite to power. The situation is heightening
now because basic changes, such as land reform and regaining control over
the national oil industry in order to tackle poverty, are to be implemented
in January 2003.
The impact of the popular mobilization in support of the elected government,
and fears that the US will attack not only Venezuela and Iraq but any
country it wishes, spurred the Organization of American States to support
the Chavez government against calls for early elections. Apparently, this
is the first time the OAS has stood against a major US policy, which shows
we can win.
We urge women, women‚s organizations and all who support women‚s rights and
anti-racism to endorse the following, and to send protest emails and faxes
to the State Department, the AFL-CIO, the ILO and major media outlets.
Please also send your letters to Venezuela‚s Women‚s Institute, President
Hugo Chavez and the Global Women's Strike (numbers on page below).Issued by the Global Women‚s Strike
*The Global Women's Strike takes action in over 60 countries every March 8
since the year 2000. We demand that the world „invest in caring not
killing.‰ We sent a women‚s truth-finding mission to Venezuela in July
2002. Findings can be found on our website:
http://womenstrike8m.server101.comTo the US State Department, the AFL-CIO, the ILO and major media outlets
Women in Venezuela, overwhelmingly women of colour, who have suffered
discrimination and poverty, were central to reversing the April 11 military
coup against elected President Hugo Chavez Frias. They have called a
„permanent mobilization‰ to defend their „peaceful and democratic
revolution‰ and their elected government. The coup, supported by the US,
the only country to recognize its installed dictatorship, tried to return
power to the rich and racist elite, its corrupt running of the oil industry,
the corporate media and the corrupt leadership of the CTV trade union that
acts for the employers and the US against the workers.
We the undersigned, responding to the appeal of grassroots women in
Venezuela, condemn any attempt to threaten and undermine what women and
therefore every community have won through their revolution and its
anti-sexist anti-racist pro-worker Constitution.
We condemn US intervention – subtle, covert or overt – aimed at overthrowing
the government of President Chavez that was elected to carry out economic
and social reforms to rid the country of poverty and corruption.
We demand that:
* The Bush administration stop its attempts to bring down the elected
government of Venezuela, financing and sheltering those trying to
destabilize the economy.
* The AFL-CIO stop hosting, funding and defending the pro-coup trade
union federation CTV.
* The ILO end its silence on the corruption of the CTV.
* The media stop spreading lies and panic in order to create an
excuse for US intervention.
Name ____________________________________________________________________
Email _____________________________________________________________________
Phone/Fax _________________________________________________________________
Return to: Global Women's Strike and
Or fax to 001-215-848-1130.
For more info: 001-215-848-1120; +44 20 7482 2496

Send protest emails and/or faxes to US Government: J. Curtis Struble, Acting
Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Tel
202-647-5780; Fax 202 –647-0791
Brian Naranjo, Venezuela Desk Officer, US Dept of State Tel (202) 647-4216
or (202) 647-3338;
AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney, Tel 202-637-5231; Fax 202-508-6946 email:; Barbara Shailor, Director, Int‚l Affairs Dept, Tel
ILO Regional Office for the Americas email:
Fax +51.1.442.25.31
ILO Geneva email: , Fax +41 22 798 8685
Send copies of your protest letters to: The Honorable Hugo Chavez,
President, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Fax: +58-212-806 3145;
Maria Leon, INAMUJER (Venezuelan Women‚s Institute)
Global Women's Strike or

03 contextXXI-radio
von: Heidelinde Hammer" <>
Demnächst im Radioprogramm von Context XXI:
Montags 13 Uhr auf Radio Orange 94.0 in Wien
Montag 10 Uhr auf Radio Helsinki 92,6 in Graz
Montags 23 Uhr auf Radio Agora 105.5 in Klagenfurt
Jeden 2. + 4. Donnerstag im Monat um 21 Uhr und in der Wiederholung die
Woche darauf um 16.30 Uhr auf Radio Unerhört 90,1 - Marburg, die konkrete
Sendungswahl kann unserer homepage:
entnommen werden.Montag 23.12. 2002
*NGOs der Vernichtung - Gerhard Scheit über Suicide bombing als neue Form des
Antisemitismus. Eine Sendung von Café Critique.Montag 30.12. 2002
*70er Jahre: K-Gruppen, Teil 1. Context XXI im Programmaustausch mit Geschichte
wird gemacht, der Geschichtsredaktion von Radio Unerhört Marburg. (Wh.)
In den 70er Jahren haben mehrere K-Gruppen die linksradikale Szene bestimmt.
Woher kamen sie, was waren ihre Inhalte und was wurde aus ihnen?Montag 6.1.2003
*70er Jahre: K-Gruppen, Teil 2. Context XXI im Programmaustausch mit Geschichte
wird gemacht, der Geschichtsredaktion von Radio Unerhört Marburg. (Wh.)
In den 70er Jahren haben mehrere K-Gruppen die linksradikale Szene bestimmt.
Woher kamen sie, was waren ihre Inhalte und was wurde aus ihnen?Montag 13.1.2003
*Stell dir vor, es ist Sozialismus und keiner geht weg 1989: Der Zusammenbruch der
staatssozialistischen Gesellschaft in der DDR. Dreiteilige Sendereihe mit
Augenzeugenberichten über Vorgeschichte und Folgen der Öffnung der Mauer am
9.11.1989. Context XXI im Programmaustausch mit Geschichte wird gemacht, der
Geschichtsredaktion von Radio Unerhört Marburg. Die Reihe der Tauschproduktionen
wird in der kommenden Woche durch die prämierte Sendung:
An zwei Produktionen von Ö 1 und an zwei von ˇRadio Orange 94,0 – Das freie Radio
in Wien„ ging der am 26. November 2002 zum fünften Mal vergebene Radiopreis der
Erwachsenenbildung. Aus 83 eingereichten Sendungen, 43 vom ORF und 40 aus
7 privaten Radiosendern, wurden 16 für die Preisvergabe nominiert. Eine aus 19
Personen bestehende Jury, 10 Medienvertreter/innen und 9 Erwachsenenbildner/innen,
hatten angesichts der hohen Qualität der nominierten Sendungen eine schwierige
Entscheidung zu treffen. Der von der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Bildungshäuser,
dem BüchereiVerband, dem Verband Österreichischer Volkshochschulen und dem
WIFI vergebene Preis der Sparte Bildung/Wissenschaft ist nach dem langjährigen
ORF-Kurator und Erwachsenenbildner Eduard Ploier benannt. Mit dem Eduard
Ploier-Preis wurde die ˇContext XXI„ – Produktion ˇÄxte gegen Technokraten„, die
von Radio Orange, Radio Helsinki, dem Freien Radio Öberösterreich (FRO) und
Radio AGORA gesendet wurde, ausgezeichnet. Den Preis erhalten für die
Sendungsgestaltung Mary Kreutzer und Thomas Schmidinger, die auch moderierten.
(Auszug aus der Pressemitteilung des Verbands Österreichischer Volkshochschulen)
Danach bringen wir die Teil 2 und 3 der Sendung zum Mauerfall.

04 News from the newswire
von: <>
Story from the newswireCheckout independent media coverage of politics, protest, and life
This message was sent to you by: w.o.w.
Comments: weitere informationen zu den protesten gegen das wef auf
---------------------------------------------------------------Article by: kein dialog
Saturday 21 Dec 2002
Summary:Aufruf zu gewaltigen und selbstbestimmten Demonstration gegen das WEF in Davos (CH) am 25. 01. 03. Wipe Out WEF!Weblink:
Reference at indymedia website:
Für eine gewaltige Demonstration in Davos am 25.01.03
Wipe out WEF! W.O.W.!Nach seinem Zwischenspiel in New York will das World Economic Forum (WEF) seine Jahrestagung 2003 wieder in Davos abhalten. Vieles hat sich unterdessen geändert. Während der weltweite Widerstand gegen die Globalisierung anwächst, wird gleichzeitig das kapitalistische System von einer offensichtlichen Krise erschüttert, und das WEF hat zunehmend Mühe, seine Wirt-schaftspolitik zu legitimieren. Doch die WEF-Mitglieder lassen nicht locker und versuchen, mit ihrem diesjährigen Motto „Ver-trauen bilden‰ das Ruder noch einmal herumzureissen. Ein „Bunkerszenario‰ wie 2001 können und wollen sie sich nicht mehr leisten, weil das nicht nur einen grossen Teil der Davoser, sondern auch der Schweizer Bevölkerung gegen sie aufgebracht hat. Weltweit hatte das zu einem Imageschaden für das WEF und seine kapitalistische Wirtschaftspolitik geführt. Die Zwangspause in New York und die demonstrierte Solidarität im Kampf gegen den „Terror‰ sollten nach dem 11. September von den grossen Prob-leme!
n ihrer kapitalistischen Globalisierung ablenken. Während diesem Zwischenspiel in New York konnte in Ruhe ein den derzeitigen Verhältnissen angepasstes Konzept erarbeitet werden, um dem Widerstand den Wind aus den Segeln zu nehmen. Es beruht auf der in ganz Europa breit angewandten Doppelstrategie von Integration und Repression.Mit Zuckerbrot und Peitsche kehrt das WEF nach Davos zurück
Zum ersten Mal soll eine Grossdemonstration gegen das WEF 2003 in Davos bewilligt werden mit dem Ziel, den Widerstand der vergangenen Jahre zu spalten und das Image des WEF in der Weltöffentlichkeit wieder aufzupolieren. Hierzu wurde Peter Arbenz von WEF und Kanton Graubünden beauftragt, Lösungsstrategien zu erarbeiten. Im „Arbenz-Bericht‰ schlug er im Herbst 2001 vor, das „Bunkerszenario‰ von 2001 durch ein „Spielfeldszenario‰ abzulösen. Statt Davos grossräumig mit massivem Polizeiaufgebot, Armee und Stacheldraht abzuriegeln und dadurch möglichst alle Demonstrierenden in Landquart festzuhalten, wurde eigens von Bund und Kanton Graubünden eine Stiftung mit dem Namen „Spirit of Davos‰ gegründet. Mit dieser Stiftung soll ein minimales Demonstrationsrecht gewahrt sowie die Integration vorangetrieben werden.
Wer sich an die von ihr vorgegebenen Spielregeln hält und für einen friedlichen Ablauf der Grossdemonstration sorgt, wird belohnt, während alle andern automatisch als gewalttätig bis potentiell terroristisch behandelt werden.¯ So wurde im letzten Jahr für das private Wirtschaftstreffen in
Davos extra eine kantonale Polizeiverordnung erlassen. Sie
ermöglicht der Polizei, jede Person ohne Grund und unter
Androhung von Strafe anzuweisen, einen bestimmten Ort oder
ein bestimmtes Gebiet zu verlassen.
¯ So wird 2003 erstmals während des WEF ein zweimal täglich
stattfindendes „Open Forum Davos‰ in der Aula der Davoser
Mittelschule tagen. Hier wollen sich „Global Leaders‰ u. a von
Novartis und Nestlé live mit den Bundesräten Couchepin und
Deiss und einigen NGOs Gesprächen mit der Bevölkerung
stellen. Damit versuchen die Behörden, den Widerstand durch
eine Integration ins WEF zu entschärfen.Die Kosten der öffentlichen Hand belaufen sich auf über 12 Millionen Franken. Das heisst: Der Staat gibt zwischen dem 23. und dem 28. Januar täglich 2 Millionen für die Bewachung dieser Privatveranstaltung aus.Durch Widerstand, Protestaktionen und zivilen Ungehorsam lassen sich die Verhältnisse ändern!
Längst ist der Alltag vieler Menschen auch in der Schweiz von einem massiven Abbau sozialer Sicherheiten gekennzeichnet. Diese Entwicklung wird weltweit von den multinationalen Konzer-nen, insbesondere von den Mitgliedern des WEF, bestimmt und vorangetrieben. Ob bei Swissair, Swiss Dairy Food oder Renten-anstalt, immer verdienen WEF-Mitglieder wie Versicherungen und Banken, und die ArbeiterInnen und Angestellten verlieren. Und dies geschieht nicht aufgrund der pervertierten Fantasien sadistischer Manager, sondern weil in der herrschenden Krise nur noch mehr Lohndrückerei und erhöhte Ausbeutung Profit sichern können. Diesem Prozess stellen sich immer wieder weltweit Menschen entgegen.
Gegen den unzumutbaren und immer noch zunehmenden Druck am Arbeitsplatz mit schweren gesundheitlichen Folgen haben 15 000 Bauarbeiter nach Vertragsbruch der Baumeister mit einem eintägigen Streik das Rentenalter 60 durchgesetzt. Auch der Lohn-Gleichstellungs-Kampf des Zürcher Pflegepersonals hat mit hohen Nachzahlungen des Kantons wenigstens in einem Bereich Früchte getragen.
In Indien kämpfen KleinbäuerInnen gegen die Patentierung ihres Saatgutes durch die Agromultis wie Cargill oder Monsanto (beide sind WEF-Mitglieder aus den USA). Die unermüdliche Profitgier der Aktionäre vertreibt kleine und mittlere Bauernbetriebe auf der ganzen Welt von ihrer Erde und entzieht ihnen die Basis ihrer Exi-stenz.
In Bolivien kämpfen die Menschen aktiv und unter Einsatz ihres Lebens gegen die Privatisierung ihrer Trinkwasserversorgung; in Argentinien gegen den Würgegriff des Internationalen Währungs-fonds (IWF). Gleichzeitig solidarisieren sich Basisnetzwerke im Norden mit den Aufständischen im Süden und organisieren Proteste gegen die Gipfel von WTO (Genf, Seattle), IWF und Welt-bank (Prag), Nato (München, Prag), EU (Göteborg) und G8 (Ge-nua), um nur einige Beispiele zu nennen.

Warum soll das World Economic Forum abgeschafft und die Macht seiner Mitglieder zerschlagen werden?Das Davoser Forum ist das jährliche Treffen der Organisation, der „Gipfel der Gipfel‰. Hier treffen sich an die 1000 Unternehmens-führer, rund 250 Staatsvertreter, etwa 300 Wissenschaftler und hochrangige Kulturträger. Dazu kommt ein Tross von Medienleu-ten, der das Spektakel legitimieren soll. Anwesend sind auch die führenden Köpfe der UNO, der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO), des Internationalen Währungsfonds (IWF) und der Weltbank.Mit der ungeheuren Wirtschaftskraft seiner 1000 Mitglieder, die zusammen ein Viertel des weltweiten Bruttosozialpro-duktes ausmacht, ist das WEF Motor der kapitalistischen Globalisierung geworden. Nach eigenen Aus-sagen ist das WEF eine „globale Gemeinschaft‰, deren Zweck es ist, „eine weltweite Vernetzung zwschen den Entscheidungsträgern aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Wissen-schaft und Medien zu schaffen‰. Damit soll die Elite ihre Mission, „den Zustand der Welt zu verbesern‰, besser übernehmen können. Dabei kann noch nicht einmal be-hauptet werden, dass das WEF die Interessen der gesamten Wirtschaft vertritt. Es dient einzig den multinationalen Konzernen, die von der schrankenlosen Liberalisierung profitieren.

Was alljährlich als der „Geist von Davos‰ abgefeiert wird, sind Kartell-Absprachen unter den Multis und Diskus-sionen über staatliche Regulierungen und Massnahmen – sprich Deregulierungen im Wirtschaftssektor und Auf-rüstung im Polizei- und Militärsektor. Das Demokratie-geplänkel ist hingegen reine Inszenierung, die aufgrund des Widerstandes notwendig geworden ist, um den An-lass zu legitimieren, hat mit Demokratie aber nichts zu tun. Unter Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit werden dort Politikern Handlungsspielräume angeboten, die weit über die in den nationalstaatlichen Verfassungen vorgesehenen Möglichkeiten hinausgehen. Das bedeutet, dass die globalen Wirtschaftsvertreter direkt an politischen Entscheidungen in den einzelnen Ländern beteiligt sind. Und trotzdem werden „die Geister von Davos‰ nicht müde, zu betonen, dass es sich bei ihrem Jahres-treffen bloss um „private‰ Gespräche in „lockerem‰ Rah-men handle. Dass das Ganze sozusagen nur ein unverbindliches Teekränzchen des !
internationalen Kapitals darstelle. In aller „Bescheidenheit‰ verschweigen sie da-bei, dass das WEF das Leben unzähliger Menschen we-sentlich bestimmt!
Ein konkretes Instrument ist ein vom WEF und dem Lausanner Managementinstitut IMD herausgegebener Bericht, in dem den Industriestaaten und Entwicklungs-ländern Noten für „neoliberale‰ Wirtschaftspolitik ausgestellt werden. Gute Noten sind Voraussetzung, um grosse Investoren in ein Land zu locken. Ein gutes Zeugnis aber verlangt von den einzelnen Staaten extreme Einschnitte wie Sozialabbau, tiefe Steuersätze, Privati-sierung der öffentlichen Einrichtungen usw. Schon leiser Widerstand gegen die Empfehlungen der Elite wird nicht toleriert, wie sich am Beispiel Venezuela einfach beobachten lässt. Die einzelnen Länder haben die Wahl zwischen der Unterordnung unter das Diktat des Inter-nationalen Währungsfonds IWF und dem totalen Chaos.

Andauernde und neue KriegeWährend in den 80ern und zu Beginn der 90er Jahre die grundlegende Strategie in der Deregulierung bestand, welche zur teilweisen Auflösung staatlicher Strukturen im Trikont und zur weitgehenden Abschaffung sozialstaatlicher Sicherungssysteme in den Industriestaaten führte, hat diese fortschreitende Deregulierung neue Formen der Regulierung nötig gemacht. Während die von WEF-Mitgliedern propagierte ökonomische Deregu-lierung voranschreitet, muss ihr zu ihrem reibungslosen Funktionieren mehr und mehr eine polizeilich-militärische Regulie-rung zur Seite gestellt werden.
Unter dem Stichwort „lang andauernder Krieg gegen den Terror‰ werden militärisch-polizeiliche Präsenz und kriegerische Einsätze zu einem flexiblen System der globalen Kontrolle verschmolzen; der ständige Ausnahmezustand und Krieg wird zum scheinbaren Frieden – einem Frieden, der einzig zum Ziel hat, den imperialistischen Mächten die Ausbeutung der Rohstoffe und der Arbeitskraft zu ermöglichen und ihre Vormachtstellung zu sichern. Besonders deutlich wird dies an der Flüchtlings- und Migrationspolitik der europäischen Staaten. Militär und Migrationskontrolle sind längst nicht mehr zu trennen: Mehrere EU-Staaten werden demnächst Armeeflugzeuge für Massenabschiebungen einsetzen, und bei internationalen Kriegseinsätzen - wie in Kosovo und in Afghani-stan - werden Kriegsflüchtlinge „heimatnah‰ in riesige Flüchtlings-lager gesperrt, damit sie sich nicht auf den Weg in die reichen Länder machen können.Der Krieg ist gesellschaftlicher Dauerzustand: Vor allem im Trikont werden fast alle gesellschaftlichen Bereiche der Logik der Militarisierung unterworfen. Der Krieg findet nicht im Fernsehen statt, sondern in von Landminen gespickten und vergifteten Regionen. Die zu Fuss Flüchtenden, die Flüchtlingslager und Laza-rette legen Zeugnis über die Folgen des existierenden Krieges ab. Der permanente Krieg kennt keine räumlichen und zeitlichen Gren-zen. Dennoch geniessen die von Krieg verschonten Staaten das Privileg, Krieg als Sonderzustand der Machtausübung zu empfinden, während in Asien, Lateinamerika und Afrika Krieg und imperialistische Intrigen und andere Machtkämpfe „normal‰ sind. Gerade deshalb ist es hierzulande wichtig, die verschiedenen Machtmechanismen zu erkennen und über die Grenzen hinaus solidarisch und unterstützend zu sein.
Mitverantwortet wird eine solche „neue Weltordnung‰ auf ökonomischer Ebene zum Beispiel von Treffen wie denjenigen des WEF und - auf militärischer Ebene - von der Nato.Und nicht zuletzt geht es bei der Hochrüstung gegen innere Feinde auch um die Bekämpfung und vorbeugende Verhinderung von Protest und Widerstand. Nach dem Anti-Terror-Paket der EU-Staaten sollen künftig Handlungen als „Terrorismus‰ verfolgt werden, die seit Jahrzehnten zum Grundrepertoire sozialer Bewegun-gen gehören: Formen von Besetzungen, Blockaden oder Sabotage. Daraus zu schliessen, dass die zunehmende staatliche Repression durch pazifistische Vorgehensweise zu vermeiden und politische Ziele so eher zu erreichen wären, erweist sich als gefährlicher Trugschluss. In Genua wurden auch Friedens-aktivistInnen brutal mit Tränengas und Knüppeln angegriffen; nur Tage nach der Grossdemo des Florentiner Sozialforums, die ohne wesentliche Konfrontationen verlief, wurden zuerst prominente VertreterInnen der italienischen Antiglobalisierungs-Bewegung, später dann Genua-AktivistInnen unter fadenscheinigen Begrün-dungen eingeknastet. Sie alle haben im Falle einer Verurteilung mit lang!
jährigen Haftstrafen zu rechnen. Zur gleichen Zeit wurde die Unschuld aller Polizisten, auch desjenigen, der in Genua Carlo Giuliani erschossen hatte, gerichtlich bestätigt.
Die Repression kann sich gegen jeglichen Widerstand richten, es liegt am Widerstand, sich nicht einschüchtern zu lassen, sich dagegen zur Wehr zu setzen und untereinander solidarisch zu bleiben.

Verweigern wir den Dialog mit dem WEF!Wie auch in anderen Zusammenhängen, in denen Wider-stand zerschlagen und Protestbewegungen gezähmt werden sollen, bauen die WEF-Verantwortlichen we-sentlich auf die Zusammenarbeit mit so genannten Nichtregierungs-Organisationen (NGOs). Darunter fallen sowohl die klassischen kirchlichen und nichtkonfessionellen Hilfswerke als auch andere im Kontext sozialer Bewegungen entstandene Organisationen aus dem In- und Ausland. Die meisten NGOs finanzieren sich aus Mitteln der öffentlichen Hand und Spenden von Firmen und Einzelpersonen.
Die konkrete Hilfe, das soziale und politische Engage-ment dieser Organisationen, deren Arbeit bei weiten Teilen der Bevölkerung auf Zustimmung stösst, wird von den Global Leaders benutzt, um sich selbst in ein besseres Licht zu stellen. Viele NGOs erhoffen sich vielleicht wirklich, im „Dialog‰ mit den 1000 mächtigsten Wirtschaftsführern der grössten Konzerne dieser Welt ein paar Verbesserungen für die Ärmsten der Armen zu erzielen. Sie versuchen, die Global Leaders mit Argumenten davon zu überzeugen, die Globalisierung der Märkte sozialverträglicher zu gestalten. Tatsache ist, dass¯ in den letzten 10 Jahren die Armut der Weltbevölke-
rung mehr als 25% (Schätzung der OECD) zuge-
nommen hat
¯ WEF-Mitglieder aus Eigeninteressen praktisch über
Nacht unzählige von Menschen in die Armut ge-
stürtzt haben (Korea, Indonesien, Philippinen 1997
bis hin zu Argentinien 2002)
¯ die grossen Konzerne nur dort investieren, wo sie die
geringsten Sozialleistungen, Löhne und die wenig-
sten Gewerkschaftsaktivitäten vorfinden
¯ die „neue Weltordnung‰, das Zeitalter des Friedens
und Wohlstandes, das uns von der Prominenz der
westlichen Welt 1990 nach dem Zusammenbruch
des realsozialistischen Staatenblocks verkündet
wurde, der Menschheit alles andere als Frieden und
Sicherheit gebracht hat. Millionen sterben jährlich an
heilbaren Krankheiten und Hunger, und auf allen
Kontinenten herrscht Krieg!Die dialogbereiten NGOs thematisieren solche Fragen nur am Rande, und wenn sie es trotzdem tun, so werden sie hingehalten. Denn dieser Dialog ist kein Dialog, sondern eine Alibiübung – eine Massnahme zur Beruhigung der Gemüter und Befriedung des Widerstandes. Denn einzig den Widerstand fürchten die Wirtschaftsführer – den Aufstand von Massen müssen die wenigen, die über die Mehrheit regieren, wirklich fürchten.Um über diese Tatsachen hinwegzutäuschen, wird in Davos vermehrt von einer sozialen Verantwortung der Konzerne gesprochen und davon, noch mehr Ver-treterInnen der so genannten Zivilgesellschaft in den Dialog mit dem WEF einzubinden. Die viel gepriesene „soziale Verantwortung‰ und der „Dialog‰ mit nichtstaatlichen Organisationen soll als demokratisches Deck-mäntelchen für die ausbeuterische Politik des WEF herhalten und somit verschleiern, dass auf schöne Worte grausame Taten folgen.
Dialogbereite NGOs sind der soziale Kitt der immer brutaler um sich greifenden Globalisierung. Sie tragen ideologisch dazu bei, das wahre Ausmass der kapitalistischen Politik (die zunehmende Armut, Hunger, Elend und Kriege) zugunsten der multinationalen Konzerne zu verschleiern, und beteiligen sich aktiv daran, den Widerstand gegen das WEF zu entpolitisieren.

Das WEF in Davos und die Nato-Sicherheitskonferenz in München sind zwei Seiten einer MedailleWie jedes Jahr findet im Februar die „Münchner Konferenz für Sicherheitspolitik‰ (die frühere Wehrkundetagung) statt, ein Tref-fen von Regierungsvertretern der Nato-Staaten und rund 200 hochkarätigen Militärstrategen, Generälen, Rüstungsexperten und Wirtschaftsführern.Organisator dieser Tagung ist die Herbert-Quandt-Stiftung, die dem WEF-Mitglied BMW gehört. Horst Teltschik, Organisator der Münchner Militärtagung, Vorstandsvorsitzender der BMW-eigenen Stiftung und ehemaliger deutscher Kanzlerberater, erklärt das so: „Was das Weltwirtschaftsforum in Davos für die Spitzenvertreter der internationalen Wirtschaft ist, ist die Sicherheitskonferenz in München für die Repräsentanten der strategischen Gemeinschaft.‰ Dies haben transnationale Firmen längst erkannt, so bestand das Host-Committee des Nato-Gipfels in Prag aus den WEF-Mitglie-dern Audi, Motorola, Boeing und BEA Systems.Die versammelten EU- und Nato-Repräsentanten, die Kriegs- und Aussenminister der USA, Deutschlands und der übrigen EU-Staaten wollen der Öffentlichkeit vorgaukeln, bei dieser Konferenz gehe es um die Wahrung des Friedens auf der Welt und um internationale Sicherheit. Das Gegenteil ist richtig: Hinter den verschlossenen Türen im Nobelhotel Bayerischer Hof – abgeschirmt von der Öffentlichkeit – entwerfen sie neue Kriegspläne und Kriegsszenarien, die die Verwertung von Menschen und Natur und rassistische Unterdrückung für die ganze Welt zur Folge haben. Frauen werden wie im Fall Afghanistans gerne als Argument verwendet, um dem Krieg einen humanitären Anstrich zu geben, Sexismus bleibt aber hier wie dort Teil der Herrschaftsausübung.
Weltweit organisieren sie die „Sicherheit‰ ihrer Produktionsstand-orte, des Warenverkehrs, der Kapitalströme und den Zugriff auf Rohstoffe und planen die Fortsetzung des „lang andauernden Krieges gegen den Terror‰. Die militärischen Einsatzpläne für einen Angriffskrieg gegen den Irak werden öffentlich diskutiert. Deshalb werden wir gemeinsam in Davos und München den internationalen Widerstand gegen Krieg und kapitalistische Globalisierung auf die Strasse tragen.Wir beziehen uns auf die Vielfalt und Entschlossenheit dieser neuen internationalistischen Kämpfe. Davon ausgehend stellen wir fest, dass es heute wichtiger ist denn je, die weltweite Ausbeutung und ihre kriegerische Absicherung als zwei Seiten derselben Me-daille zu begreifen und massenhaften Widerstand dagegen zu
leisten. Wir stehen gegen Rassismus, Sexismus, Antisemitismus und kapitalistische Ausbeutung. Als Teil einer durch solche Struk-turen geprägten Gesellschaft sind wir gleichzeitig davon betroffen als auch daran beteiligt. Wir versuchen deshalb, in unseren eigenen Zusammenhängen diese Widersprüche zu thematisieren und zu bekämpfen, um ihrer Weltordnung einen Gesellschaftsentwurf entgegenstellen zu können, der auf wirklicher Gleichberechtigung aller basiert. Wir sagen auch: Es ist nicht Aufgabe einer Protest-bewegung, den Herrschenden und Mächtigen dieser Welt zu
gefallen. Wir lassen uns nicht in „Gut‰ und „Böse‰ spalten, sondern wählen die Mittel unseres Widerstandes selbst. Die nächsten Kriege werden bereits vorbereitet, und Protest wird nicht ausreichen, wenn wir sie verhindern wollen. Verhältnisse lassen sich abstrakt kritisieren, doch die Politik des Krieges wird auch gemacht. Wenn wir die Kriegsmaschine stoppen wollen, müssen wir die Verantwortlichen, Strukturen und Logiken benennen, blockieren und demontieren.Stellen wir der ökonomischen Kriegsmaschinerie unsern Kampf für eine solidarische und herrschaftsfreie Gesellschaft entgegen:
¯ Heissen wir die WEF-Mitglieder im Flughafen Kloten nicht willkommen!
¯ Wipe out WEF! Das WEF abschaffen und die Macht seiner Mitglieder zerschlagen!
¯ Den Dialog mit dem WEF verweigern!
¯ Gegen den Krieg!
¯ Unterstützen wir den Kampf gegen die Nato-Sicherheitskonferenz vom 7. bis 9. Februar 2003 in München!
¯ Für eine klassenlose Gesellschaft ohne sexistische oder rassistische Unterdrückung!A ceux qui veulent dominer le monde, le monde répond: résistance!Alle an die Demo!FAUCH Zürich
GRA - Gruppe roter Autonomer Zürich
Kaffee und Kuchen
Revolutionärer Aufbau Zürich
RoJak - Rote JugendAktion Zürich
Einzelpersonen aus Anti-Rassismus-Zusammenhängen Zürich u.a.Aufruf kopieren und weitergeben!
Aktuelle Informationen über,,
Radio Lora, Infoladen Kasama usw.


05 AKS-Frauenkongress: ˇZeit aus der Rolle zu fallen „
von: "Niki Kowall" <>
Pressemeldung der Aktion kritischer SchülerInnen
20. Dezember 2002
Frauen/AKS/FrauenkongressFrauenkongress: ˇZeit aus der Rolle zu fallen „
Kongress der Aktion kritischer SchülerInnen und der Sozialistischen Jugend
für junge Frauen – Rollenbilder werden einzementiert statt aufgebrochen
Über siebzig Teilnehmerinnen nahmen von 20.-22. Dezember an dem
Frauenkongress der Aktion kritischer SchülerInnen und der Sozialistischen
Jugend in Ullmerfeld (NÖ) teil. ˇDieser Kongress ist ein historischer
Schritt in den Jugendorganisationen. Zum ersten Mal ist Frau sein nicht
Thema sondern Programm„, zeigt sich AKS-Frauenkoordinatorin Laura Dobusch
erfreut. Auf dem Kongress nahmen ausschließlich Frauen teil, fast alle
sind jünger als 20 Jahre. ˇDas Geschlechterthema ist ein zentrales
Anliegen der AKS, der Kongress stellt einen Quantensprung in der
politischen Prioritätensetzung der Organisation dar„, freut sich Dobusch
über die VorreiterInnennrolle der AKS.
Sensibilisierung junger Mädchen und Frauen ist auch heute noch notwendig.
ˇSeit Johanna Dohnal und Alice Schwarzer hat sich nicht viel getan aus
frauenpolitischer Sicht. Eher im Gegenteil: PolitikerInnen wie
Rauch-Kallat oder Haupt verwechseln Frauen- noch immer mit
Familienpolitik„, bedauert Dobusch. Selbst in Schulbüchern werden
Rollenbilder nicht aufgebrochen, sondern einzementiert (ˇKarin geht mit
ihrer Mutter einkaufen. Peter lässt einen Drachen steigen„). ˇNoch immer
stehen jungen Frauen nicht alle Chancen offen. Zwei Drittel aller Mädchen
konzentrieren sich auf einige wenige und leider auch klassische Lehrberufe
wie Friseurin oder Einzelhandelskauffrau. Die Zahlen bei den Studentinnen
von naturwissenschaftlich oder technisch orientierten Fächern sinken„,
zeigt sich Dobusch betroffen.
Einer genauen Prüfung werden zum Beispiel österreichische Medien
unterzogen. ˇDas Bild das von Mädchen und Frauen in Medien gezeichnet
wird, ist erschreckend. Rollenzuteilung passiert nach wie vor – entweder
Superwoman mit Kind und Karriere oder die Frau als Projektionsfläche
männlicher Fantasien„, so Dobusch. Gerade deshalb werden auch
männerdominierte Themen auf dem Kongress nicht ausgespart.
ˇWirtschaftspolitik bedeutet die Gestaltung der Besitz und somit der
Machtverhältnisse in unserer Gesellschaft betont Dobusch. Es sei wichtig
junge Frauen gerade in dieser Problematik fit zu machen. Dobusch: ˇDamit
die männliche Dominanz in Wirtschaftfragen gebrochen wird haben wir
Wirtschaftspolitik zu einem der Schwerpunkte gemacht.„
Der Frauenkongress war allerdings nur ein Schritt in die richtige
Richtung. Bereits im Jänner startet die Frauenkampagne der AKS: Zeit, aus
der Rolle zu fallen. ˇDer Kampf hat erst begonnen„ schließt Dobusch.- Rückfragehinweis: Laura Dobusch (0699) 11 40 82 00
- (Rubrik Infopool: Frauen)

06 European Court of Human Rights: Again Brush-Off for Gay Rights Case
von: "PF209" <>
(English Text Below)
> Homosexuelle
>> Menschenrechtsgerichtshof wimmelt wieder Beschwerde ab <<
> Plattform gegen § 209: ˇEntscheidung in Verletzung der eigenen Judikatur„ <
Wie soeben bekannt wurde hat der zuständige Dreirichterausschuss des
Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte neuerlich die Behandlung
einer Beschwerde eines Homosexuellen abgelehnt, der sich über eine Verletzung
seiner Grundrechte durch die Republik Österreich beschwert hat.
Der Fall ¯G.T. gg. Österreich¯ (Appl. 46611/99) nahm seinen Anfang als 1995 Wiener Polizeibeamte den Beschwerdeführer eines Abends antrafen als er sich in seinem PKW mit zwei (15- und 16jährigen) Jugendlichen unterhalten hat. Die Beamten durchsuchten sogleich das Fahrzeug und setzten die beiden Jugendlichen massiv unter Druck, sie mögen doch sexuelle Kontakte mit dem Mann zugeben. Würden sie dies nicht tun, holten sie die Eltern, die dann erführen, dass sie homosexuell sind. Die Jugendlichen blieben standhaft.
Dennoch erstattete die Polizei gegen den Beschwerdeführer wegen § 209 StGB Anzeige bei der Staatsanwaltschaft Wien, die beim Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien gerichtliche Vorerhebungen beantragte. Nachdem der Beschwerdeführer seine Unschuld beweisen konnte, wurde das Verfahren schließlich eingestellt.
Bei der Durchsuchung des PKW fanden die Polizeibeamten auch erotische Bildbände von jungen Männern, die in Österreich vom katholischen Verlagshaus Herder ausgeliefert wurden. Einer der Polizeibeamten äußerte sich darüber abfällig und legte dem Beschwerdeführer nahe, sich in ärztliche Behandlung zu begeben. G.T. erhob dagegen Beschwerde an den Unabhängigen Verwaltungssenat (UVS) Wien. Vor dem Verhandlungssaal beschimpfte der betreffende Polizeibeamte die beiden Jugendlichen als ˇSchwuchtelbande„, die die Polizei schon noch kriegen werde. Der UVS erkannte all diese Bemerkungen als ˇschwerst diskriminierend„ (UVS Wien 08.10.1997, GZ UVS-02/26/00061/95).
Dessenungeachtet und ungeachtet des Beweises der Unschuld des Beschwerdeführers weigerte sich das Innenministerium die vom Beschwerdeführer genommenen erkennungsdienstlichen Daten (ˇVerbrecherfotos„, Fingerabdrücke, Gendaten etc.) aus dem österreich- und europaweiten Polizeicomputer zu löschen. Der Mann sei mit zwei Jugendlichen im Auto gesessen und daher potentiell ein ˇgefährlicher Angreifer„. Der Verfassungsgerichtshof lehnte die Behandlung der dagegen erhobene Beschwerde ab (VfGH 10.06.1997, B 629/97), der Verwaltungsgerichtshof bestätigte die Entscheidung des Innenministeriums (VwGH 26.06.1997, 97/16/0216).
> Hoffnung auf Gerechtigkeit bitter enttäuscht, Opfer bleibt auf Kosten sitzen
Der homosexuelle Mann erhoffte, Gerechtigkeit beim Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) zu finden, und wurde bitter enttäuscht.
Nach Aufhebung des § 209 StGB hat er im August 2002 neuerlich die Löschung seiner Daten beantragt, diesmal erfolgreich.
Der EGMR nahm die nunmehrige Löschung der Daten, dreieinhalb Jahren nach Erhebung der Beschwerde (!), zum Anlaß die Behandlung der Beschwerde abzulehnen. Der Beschwerdeführer habe bereits auf innerstaatlicher Ebene Abhilfe erlangt und könne daher nicht länger behaupten, Opfer einer Konventionsverletzung (Art. 34 EMRK) zu sein.
Die Entscheidung fällten (wieder einstimmig) die gleichen drei Richter, die bereits im Juli 2002 auch die Beschwerde eines von Polizeibeamten misshandelten homosexuellen Jugendlichen im Fall R.R. gg. Österreich (Appl. 46608/99) abgelehnt haben: die österreichische Richterin Dr. Elisabeth Steiner, die bulgarische Richterin Dr. Snejana Botoucharova und der dänische Richter Dr. Peer Lorenzen. Wie im Fall R.R. gg. Österreich (vgl. hiezu ausführlich entschieden die drei Richter auch im Fall G.T. gg. Österreich in Verletzung der ständigen Rechtsprechung des eigenen Gerichtshofs.
Der EGMR entscheidet nämlich in ständiger Judikatur, daß eine Beschwerdesache erst und nur dann durch Entfall der Opfereigenschaft (Art. 34 EMRK) erledigt ist (Art. 37 par. 1 lit. b EMRK), wenn (a) die gerügten Menschenrechtsverletzungen innerstaatlich unzweifelhaft und eindeutig anerkannt werden als auch (b) das Opfer der Menschenrechtsverletzung vollständig entschädigt wird. (*) Würde eine Beschwerdesache bloß deshalb erledigt sein, weil die Menschenrechtsverletzung beendet wurde (hier: durch die Löschung der Daten), so könnte etwa ein rechtswidrig Inhaftierter bloß deshalb weil er aus der Haft entlassen wird, keine Beschwerde mehr erheben; oder ein Gefolterter bloß deshalb weil der Folterknecht aufgehört hat, ihn zu foltern ...
Der Beschwerdeführer hat ausdrücklich auf die ständige Judikatur des EGMR und auf diese absurden Konsequenzen einer gegenteiligen Ansicht sowie darauf hingewiesen, dass die Republik niemals anerkannt hat, dass die jahrelange Speicherung seiner Daten eine Menschenrechtsverletzung war und dass er keinerlei Schadenersatz für die jahrelange Stigmatisierung als potentiell ˇgefährlicher Angreifer„ erhalten hat. Nicht einmal seine Anwaltskosten erhält er bezahlt.
Dennoch haben nun die drei Richter die Behandlung der Beschwerde abgelehnt, ohne auch nur mit einem Wort auf diese Argumente einzugehen. In einem Schreiben an den Beschwerdeführer heißt es lapidar, dass die Entscheidung endgültig ist, darüber kein Schriftverkehr geführt und der Beschwerdeakt ein Jahr nach Absenden des Schreibens vernichtet wird.
ˇWir sind zutiefst enttäuscht„, kommentiert Dr. Helmut Graupner, Sprecher der Plattform gegen § 209 und Anwalt des Beschwerdeführers, ˇDiese Entscheidung läßt nicht nur den konkreten Beschwerdeführer ohne Schutz, sondern ist ein europaweiter Freibrief für Regierungen, ihre Bürger ins Bockshorn zu jagen, ihre Daten illegal zu speichern und keinerlei Gefahr zu laufen vom EGMR dafür zu verurteilt zu werden und Schadenersatz leisten zu müssen, sofern sie nur rechtzeitig vor dem Urteil des EGMR die Daten wieder löschen„.In der überkonfessionellen und überparteilichen Plattform gegen § 209 haben sich über 30 Organisationen zusammengeschlossen, um gegen das in § 209 StGB verankerte diskriminierende zusätzliche Sondermindestalter von 18 Jahren ausschließlich für homosexuelle Beziehungen zwischen Männern (zusätzlich zur allgemeinen, für für Heterosexuelle, Lesben und Schwule gleichermaßen gültigen Mindestaltersgrenze von 14 Jahren) anzukämpfen. Der Plattform gehören neben nahezu allen Vereinigungen der Homosexuellenbewegung auch allgemeine Organisationen an, wie Aids-Hilfen, die Kinder- und Jugendanwaltschaften Tirol und Wien, die Österreichische Hochschülerschaft, die Bewährungshilfe, die Österreichische Gesellschaft für Sexualforschung u.v.a.m.. Nach der Aufhebung des § 209 StGB dringt die Plattform auf die Entlassung aller Gefangenen und die Rehabilitierung und Entschädigung aller § 209-Opfer und beobachtet die Vollziehung der § 209-Ersatzbestimmung, § 207b StGB.
Rückfragehinweis: Plattform gegen § 209: 01/876 30 61, 0676/3094737,,
(*) Vgl. hiezu insb. die Entscheidungen des Gerichtshofs in den Fällen ¯Mouisel vs. France¯, 21.03.2002 („une décision ou une mesure favorable au requérant ne suffit en principe à lui retirer la qualité de « victime » que si les autorités nationales ont reconnu, explicitement ou en substance, puis réparé la violation de la Convention Ż reconnaissance explicite d‚une prétendue violation Ż au cours de la période dénoncée par le requérant ... Par ailleurs, cette décision ne fournit pas une réparation adéquate); ¯Wejrup vs. Denmark¯, 07.03.2002 (The Law, B.: ˇwhen ... national authorities ... acknowledged in a sufficiently clear way the failure ... and have afforded redress„); ¯Association Ekin vs. France¯, 17.07.2001 (par. 37f), 18.01.2000 (ˇreconnu, explicitement ou en substance, puis réparé la violation de la Convention„); ¯Ilascu and Others vs. Moldova & the Russian Federation¯ [GC], 04.07.2001 (The Law, III. : „a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a Œvictim‚ unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention Ż firstly, Ż the applicant‚s conviction is still in existence Ż Furthermore, the Court has not been informed of any pardon or amnesty ... secondly, ... the applicant complained not only of his ... sentence but also ... of his detention, ... of the proceedings which led to his conviction„); ¯Ihasniouon vs. Spain¯, 28.06.2001 (ˇeffacé les conséquences du grief„); ¯Constantinescu vs. Romania¯, 27.06.2000 (par. 40: „a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a Œvictim‚ unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention‰; sogar ein Freispruch beendet, ohne die Erfüllung dieser beiden Voraussetzungen, die Opfereigenschaft nicht: par. 42ff!); ¯Beck vs. Norway¯, 26.06.2001 (par. 27f: ˇacknowledged in a sufficiently clear way the failure„, ˇadequate redress„); ¯Guisset vs. France¯ 26.09.2000 (par. 66: ˇapplicants will only cease to have standing as victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention if the national authorities have acknowledged the alleged violations either expressly or in substance and then afforded redress„, auch hier hält der Gerichtshof fest, daß sogar ein Freispruch, ohne die Erfüllung dieser beiden Voraussetzungen, die Opfereigenschaft nicht beendet: par. 68ff); ¯Rotaru vs. Romania¯ [GC], 04.05.2000 (par. 35f: „a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a Œvictim‚ unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention Ż Lastly, the Ż Court of Appeal Ż did not rule on the applicant‚s claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses‰); ¯Dalban vs. Romania¯ [GC], 28.09.1999 (par. 44: „a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a Œvictim‚ unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention‰; auch hier hält der Gerichtshof fest, daß sogar ein Freispruch, ohne die Erfüllung dieser beiden Voraussetzungen, die Opfereigenschaft nicht beendet); ¯Amuur vs. France¯, 25.06.1996 (par. 36: „a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a Œvictim‚ unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention‰); ¯Heaney & Mc Guinness vs. Ireland¯, 21.12.2000, (par. 45); ¯Quinn vs. Ireland¯, 21.12.2000 (par. 45).
In diesem Sinne hat der Gerichtshof im Fall ¯Rotaru vs. Romania¯ die Opfereigenschaft unabhängig von der weiteren Speicherung der Daten für weiterhin aufrecht erachtet, weil (a) das innerstaatliche Gericht zur gerügten Konventionsverletzung durch die Speicherung nicht Stellung genommen hat und jedenfalls (b) keine Entschädigung für den ideellen Schaden und die Vertretungskosten und sonstigen Auslagen des Beschwerdeführers erfolgte (¯Rotaru vs. Romania¯ [GC], 04.05.2000, par. 36).
Im Fall ¯Paul and Audrey Edwards vs. UK¯ schließlich hat der Gerichtshof im Kontext des Art. 13 EMRK ausgesprochen, daß der bloße Entfall einer Konventionsverletzung pro futuro (dort: die Möglichkeit, nunmehr Konventionsverletzungen innerstaatlich zu rügen) nichts an den bereits erfolgten Konventionsverletzungen zu ändern vermag (¯Paul and Audrey Edwards vs. UK¯, 14.03.2002, par. 99). Auch in diesem Zusammenhang betont der Gerichtshof die Unverzichtbarkeit der Verfügbarkeit angemessener Entschädigung für erlittene Konventionsverletzungen (par. 99ff).
>> European Court of Human Right <<
> Again Brush-Off for Gay Rights Case <
Platform Against Art. 209: „A decision in violation of the Court‚s own case-law‰
As revealed lately the European Court of Human Rights again refused to deal with an application alleging the violation of fundamental rights of a gay man in Austria. The case ¯G.T. vs. Austria¯ (Appl. 46611/99) started when one evening in 1995 Vienna police officers found the applicant in his car chatting with two (15- and 16-year old) adolescents. They immediately searched the three persons and the car and pressured the two adolescents to admit sexual contacts with the man. If they refused to do so the police officers would call their parents which that way would find out about the homosexuality of their sons. The juveniles resisted.
Nevertheless the police department reported the case to the state prosecutor who initiated Court investigations based upon the anti-homosexual Art. 209 Criminal Code. After the man could prove his innocence the case has been dropped.
When searching the car the police officers found erotic photo books depicting young men, which have been delivered in Austria by the well-reputed catholic publishing house Herder. One of the police-officers made a disparaging remark and suggested to the applicant to undergo medical treatment for his inclinations. G.T. applied to the Independent Administrative Senate Vienna. Even at the trial the respective police officer called the adolescents a „bunch of faggots‰ which the police finally will get hold off. The Independent Administrative Senate condemned these remarks as heavily discriminatory (UVS Wien 08.10.1997, GZ UVS-02/26/00061/95).
Nevertheless and despite the fact that the man had proven his innocence the Ministry of Interior refused to delete his data from the rogue‚s gallery (photos, finger prints, genetic data etc.) in the nation- and European-wide police-databanks. The man had been found sitting in a car with two juveniles and there he would have to be considered a potentially „dangerous offender‰. The Constitutional Court refused to deal with application brought against this decision (VfGH 10.06.1997, B 629/97) and the Administrative High Court confirmed the decision of the Ministry (VwGH 26.06.1997, 97/16/0216).
> Dashed hopes for justice, victim left with costs and expenses
The man hoped to find justice at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and has been disappointed bitterly.
After the repal of Art. 209 CC he again applied for the deletion of his data, this time successfully.
The ECtHR used this deletion (3 Ž years after the filing of the application!) to refuse to deal with the application. The applicant would have been afforded relief on the domestic level already, so that he no longer could allege to be a victim of a violation of the Convention (Art. 34 ECHR).
This decision has (again unanimously) ) been issued by those three judges who already in July 2002 in R.R. vs. Austria (Appl. 46608/99) refused to deal with the application of a 16-year-old gay adolescent abused by Vienna police officers: the Austrian judge Dr. Elisabeth Steiner, the Bulgarian judge Dr. Snejana Botoucharova and the Danish judge Dr. Peer Lorenzen. As in R.R.. vs. Austria (for details of that case see the three judges also in G.T. vs. Austria took their decision in violation of the constant case-law of the Court.
According to the case law of the ECtHR a matter before the Court is only resolved (Art. 34, 37 par. 1 lit. b ECHR) when (a) the alleged violations of the Convention have been clearly acknowledged by the member state and (b) the victim has been afforded adequate redress for the violation. (*) Would a matter be resolved only on the basis that a human rights violation ceased (here: by deletion of the data), that would mean that an illegally detained could not file an application once he has been released; and a victim of torture could not just because the torturer ceased to torture Ż
The applicant expressly relied on the case-law of the Court and the absurd consequences a different opinion would cause. He pointed to the fact that Austria never acknowledged that the storage of the data was a violation of the Convention and that he never got redress; even the costs and expenses for the applications to the national courts and to the ECtHR he had to pay himself.
Nevertheless the three judges decided not to deal with the application without dealing with the arguments of the applicant by even one single word. In a letter to the man he is informed that the decision is final; no correspondence will be carried on it and the files will be destroyed one year after.
„We are deeply disappointed‰, comments Dr. Helmut Graupner, spokes-person of Platform Against Art. 209 and representative of the applicant, „This decision not only leaves this applicant unprotected but turns out as a European-wide license for governments to fool their citizens, illegally storing their data thereby not having to fear being ever sentenced and obliged to afford redress if they just delete the data in time before the judgment of the Court‰.
The interdenominational and supra-partisan Platform Against Article 209 comprises more than 30 organisations that joined in the fight against the discriminatory supplemental minimum age of 18 years for homosexual relationships between men only (in addition to the general age of consent of 14 for heterosexuals, lesbians and gays alike), as set forth in article Art. 209 of the Criminal Code. Nearly all associations of the homosexual movement, but also general organizations are members of the Platform, like AIDS-help-organisations, the Ombudspersons for Children and Adolescents of the States of Vienna and Tyrol, the Austrian National Student Union, the National Association of Probation, the Austrian Society for Sexual Research, and many others more. After the repeal of Art. 209 the Platform works for the release of all prisoners, for the deletion of all verdicts from criminal records and for just satisfaction of all victims of Art. 209. In addition it monitors the enforcement of the new Art. 209-substitute-provision, Art. 207b Criminal Code.
More information:
Platform Against Art. 209: +43/1/876 30 61, 0676/3094737,,
(*) See e.g. the decisions of the Court in Mouisel vs. France, 21.03.2002 („une décision ou une mesure favorable au requérant ne suffit en principe à lui retirer la qualité de « victime » que si les autorités nationales ont reconnu, explicitement ou en substance, puis réparé la violation de la Convention Ż reconnaissance explicite d‚une prétendue violation Ż au cours de la période dénoncée par le requérant ... Par ailleurs, cette décision ne fournit pas une réparation adéquate); Wejrup vs. Denmark, 07.03.2002 (The Law, B.: ˇwhen ... national authorities ... acknowledged in a sufficiently clear way the failure ... and have afforded redress„); Association Ekin vs. France, 17.07.2001 (par. 37f), 18.01.2000 (ˇreconnu, explicitement ou en substance, puis réparé la violation de la Convention„); Ilascu and Others vs. Moldova & the Russian Federation [GC], 04.07.2001 (The Law, III. : „a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a Œvictim‚ unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention Ż firstly, Ż the applicant‚s conviction is still in existence Ż Furthermore, the Court has not been informed of any pardon or amnesty ... secondly, ... the applicant complained not only of his ... sentence but also ... of his detention, ... of the proceedings which led to his conviction„); Ihasniouon vs. Spain, 28.06.2001 (ˇeffacé les conséquences du grief„); Constantinescu vs. Romania, 27.06.2000 (par. 40: „a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a Œvictim‚ unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention‰; even an acquittal, without acknowledgment of the violation and adequate redress, does not resolve a matter: par. 42ff!); Beck vs. Norway, 26.06.2001 (par. 27f: ˇacknowledged in a sufficiently clear way the failure„, ˇadequate redress„); Guisset vs. France 26.09.2000 (par. 66: ˇapplicants will only cease to have standing as victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention if the national authorities have acknowledged the alleged violations either expressly or in substance and then afforded redress„, again the Court holds that even an acquittal, without acknowledgment of the violation and adequate redress, does not resolve a matter: par. 68ff); Rotaru vs. Romania [GC], 04.05.2000 (par. 35f: „a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a Œvictim‚ unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention Ż Lastly, the Ż Court of Appeal Ż did not rule on the applicant‚s claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses‰); Dalban vs. Romania [GC], 28.09.1999 (par. 44: „a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a Œvictim‚ unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention‰; again the Court holds that even an acquittal, without acknowledgment of the violation and adequate redress, does not resolve a matter); Amuur vs. France, 25.06.1996 (par. 36: „a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a Œvictim‚ unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention‰); Heaney & Mc Guinness vs. Ireland, 21.12.2000, (par. 45); Quinn vs. Ireland, 21.12.2000 (par. 45).
In that sense the Court in Rotaru vs. Romania declared that the standing as a victim did not cease with the deletion of the data, because (a) the domestic court did not give an opinion whether the storage was in violation of fundamental rights and (b) the applicant got no redress for non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and his costs and expenses (Rotaru vs. Romania [GC], 04.05.2000, par. 36).
In Paul and Audrey Edwards vs. UK the Court held within the context of Art. 13 that the mere fact that a violation ceased to take effect pro futuro (there: the inability to use an effective remedy against violations) did not alter the fact that violations have been committed in the past (Paul and Audrey Edwards vs. UK, 14.03.2002, par. 99). Also in this context the Court stresses the importance of adequate redress for violations of the Convention (par. 99ff).

von: "RAWNEWS" <>
Venezuela strike loses in courtBy Scott Wilson
The Washington Post
December 20, 2002
CARACAS, Venezuela -- As gasoline supplies ran dry in much of the country,
Venezuela's highest court ruled Thursday that a crippling strike at the
national oil company is illegal, handing President Hugo Chavez a timely
victory against the organized opposition seeking to push him from power.
The ruling, on Day 18 of a punishing national strike, outlawed the
opposition's most potent political weapon as it tries to force Chavez to
resign or hold early elections. But with government opponents vowing to
strike on, it seemed unlikely to resolve a deepening political and social
crisis that Venezuela's weakened government institutions appear increasingly
incapable of managing.
Oil workers and dissident executives, some of whom have been fired by Chavez
during the strike, said Thursday night that they won't comply with the order
to return to work. Citing what they describe as Chavez's authoritarian rule,
they have claimed a constitutional right to close the company, Petroleos de
Venezuela, which provides the government with $9 billion a year -- almost
half its revenues -- and the United States with 15 percent of its imported
The court ruling undermined that argument and gave Chavez fresh evidence for
his claim that a group of conservative executives opposed to his leftist
program are sabotaging the company for political gain. The oil strike has
cost the government $40 million a day since it began and deepened the
political conflict that has consumed this country of 23 million people for
much of the year.
Without the oil strike, from top executives to tanker captains, the protest
would have few teeth left. Although the opposition has claimed high
participation rates for its strike, the results have been mostly mixed
during this peak retail season. In recent days, even some shops and
restaurants in the wealthy eastern section of Caracas, where people are most
opposed to Chavez, have reopened.
The oil strike's potent effect, which has reduced Venezuela's 3 million
barrel daily production to less than 400,000 barrels, could be seen on the
streets. Cars lined up outside gas stations for what appeared to be more
than a mile in some places.
Like many institutions in Venezuela, the high court has become politically
suspect as a result of Chavez's four-year effort to produce what he calls a
"social revolution" on behalf of the country's poor majority. But the court
has regained some independence over the past year, rendering several key
decisions against Chavez since he was briefly ousted in April.
Thursday's decision was based on a suit filed earlier this week by Felix
Rodriguez, the company's director of production, who claimed the stoppage
was threatening national security. Chavez has deployed troops to protect
installations, escort private tanker trucks and retake company tanker ships
in an effort to restart the industry.
Radio Havana Cuba
Venezuelan Army Chief Call Opposition Strike Sabotage That Goes Beyond
Limits of Democratic Boundaries
Caracas, December 17 (RHC) - The Venezuelan army has bolstered President
Hugo Chávez, condemning the opposition strike and affirming that it's ready
to intervene to prevent further sabotage of the country's economy. In a
message to the nation late Monday, army commander General Julio García
Montoya condemned the oil industry shutdown as a "sabotage against
Venezuela's principal source of wealth," pledging army support for
government efforts to counter it and accusing the strikers of trying to
"kidnap Christmas."
General García Montoya called the strike "an attack against the survival of
the state that goes beyond the limits of the democratic game." Venezuela's
strike leaders nevertheless defied the army chief with a call for more civil
disobedience Tuesday, including a planned march near a presidential palace
where bloody protests eight months ago led to a brief coup against Chávez.
Strikers also are considering a march on the presidential palace itself,
which is defended by soldiers and civilian Chávez supporters. The last time
the opposition tried to march on the palace, in April, 19 people were killed
and hundreds were wounded, most by snipers and police trying to overthrow
the president.
Meanwhile, the Organization of American States has given partial backing to
Chávez in a resolution adopted Tuesday. The OAS resolved "to fully back the
democratic and constitutional legitimacy of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela, whose government is led by Hugo Chávez Frías, and to reject,
categorically, any coup attempt or alteration of constitutional order that
seriously affects democratic rule."
The document, however, also called for a "constitutional, peaceful and
electoral" solution to the conflict when Chávez has insisted that the only
electoral possibility offered by the constitution would have to be midway
through his term next August.
AP's One-Sided Venezuela Coverage
On Desk Reporters Who "Phone-in" the SpinBy Dan Feder
Special to the Narco News Bulletin
December 18, 2002The statement seemed clear enough. After a total of 25 hours of negotiations that framed this past weekend, the Organization of American States - representing 34 governments - released a much-awaited declaration on the crisis in Venezuela. The OAS rejected any solution that is not consistent with the Venezuelan constitution - which went into law with the support of President Hugo Chávez in 1999 only after the entire nation approved the text in a referendum - and "fully support(s) the democratic and constitutional order of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, whose government is headed by Hugo Chávez Frías."
But the Associated Press (AP)'s Nestor Ikeda, who until yesterday had not written on Venezuela since the coup last April, doesn't seem to get it. And looking at the coverage AP has provided on Venezuela for the last two weeks, this is hardly surprising; the reports, especially those of a certain writer we will get to in a moment, have been a steady stream of dishonest spin.
Despite a short, uncomplicated, essentially unambiguous declaration (making it something of an anomaly in diplomatic literature), Ikeda apparently felt the need to bend over backwards trying to prove that the OAS had, in fact, "given no direct support to Chavez." What could have been more direct than the above statement? A photo of the 34 ambassadors wearing red berets shouting "viva la revolución bolivariana?" An international force sent in to squash the opposition? How long can people like Ikeda deny that the opposition has lost the bulk of the international support that it once had?
Ikeda goes on to quote the US Ambassador to the OAS, Roger Noriega, who says "this resolution supports the secretary general's efforts, unequivocally and energetically," giving the impression that Noriega was quite pleased with the resolution. Here may lie the key to Ikeda's bizarre slanting of this important story. Noriega recently served on the Senate Foreign Affairs committee. While in that post, he became notorious for his skill at manipulating reporters. Once, he was overheard bragging that New York Times' Larry Rohter never made a move without consulting him. It seems that, rather than seek out independent analysis of the resolution, or do his own (did he even read it? one has to wonder), Ikeda has let a veteran Washington spin-doctor tell the story for him.
In fact, the actual text of the resolution is far less "energetic" about free-expression-suppressing Secretary General Cesar Gaviria, requesting the OAS Secretary General to continue to report to the Permanent Council on his facilitation efforts concerning the situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and bearing in mind the existence of other mechanisms in the inter-American system, such as the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs.It appears, to me at least, that the OAS has used this language to distance itself from Gaviria, and to diminish his role in mediating the crisis. If they were so happy with the work, why would they ask him so publicly to bring in two outside parties - the Carter Center and the United Nations - to help?
Ikeda neglects to tell his readers that the same Roger Noriega spent last Friday at the OAS fighting for a very different resolution -- one that would have called for "early elections." In the two days of marathon and tense debate that followed, Noriega was forced to concede this major point to Venezuelan ambassador Jorge Valero, who had support from many Caribbean nations. The resulting language is much closer to the resolution Valero wanted than to language pursued by Noriega and the White House. Fortunately for Noriega, long a foe of Venezuelan democracy and one of the leading now-embarrassed US politicians who initially backed the April 11 coup, the AP is around to cover up his latest failure. In all likelihood, Noriega told Ikeda much more "off the record" to reshape the story into a victory for his camp. This sort of journalistic spinelessness is hardly limited to Washington; as we'll see, it is typical of the AP's correspondents in Latin America.The problem with the Associated PressSome of AP's other reporters have been producing simply awful journalism since long before Ikeda joined this round of the Venezuelan tug-of-war. AP stories are picked up by thousands of newspapers large and small across the country every day, and are often read by newscasters on the radio and television. So the tone they set and messages they break to the public are no small matter; they lie at the heart of the media-created reality through which most of us through which most United States citizens and many English-speaking people in other countries experience the larger world.
Associated Press is technically a "non-profit" corporation owned by a cooperative of for-profit United States newspapers and media companies, and governed by the AP Managing Editors Association. No radio news show or daily newspaper editor has the resources to send a reporter to every part of the world she or he wants. So editors use the AP to cut costs; why pay twenty-five different journalists to write on an issue when you can pool your resources and just pay one? According to their website, the AP is the backbone of the world's information system. In the United States alone, AP serves 5,000 radio and television stations and 1,700 newspapers. Add to that the 8,500 newspaper, radio and television subscribers in 121 countries overseas, and you'll have some idea of AP's reach.This role obviously gives the AP an unbelievable amount of power over the discussion of global events, especially in the English-speaking world. Yet AP correspondents write under much lower standards and with much less supervision than their counterparts at specific media organizations. In other words, they are largely unaccountable to their editors. At the same time, at a corporate level, the AP is unaccountable to its millions of readers. Unlike many newspapers, there is no AP ombudsman who "speaks for the readers." There is no letters page for the AP, and individual newspapers rarely print letters responding to wire stories.
The very structure of the AP -- the impersonal bureaucracy through which this huge volume of information is filtered -- encourages "desk reporting" from foreign correspondents. This means gleaning stories from the local commercial newspapers and taking phone calls from Embassy, political, and corporate spin-doctors rather than going outside and talking to the real people their stories concern. According to many familiar with the organization, AP correspondents are typically wined and dined by the English-speaking elites in the Third World outposts where they are assigned.
A perfect example of what this leads to is the case of Peter McFarren, AP's 18 year bureau chief in Bolivia. McFarren was exposed by this publication as having moonlighted as a lobbyist for an $80 million dollar water pipeline project. After two weeks of stonewalling, AP finally announced McFarren's resignation after Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz inquired about the conflict. By the time he resigned, McFarren had become a regular figure among elite circles of Bolivian politicians and businessmen, completely alienated from and hostile towards the masses of people he was responsible for reporting on.
In sum, the typical AP report on a major event in a foreign country is first filtered through a friendly English-speaking establishment spin-doctor before reaching the writer, then filtered through a giant bureaucracy of AP editors with no relationship to either the writer or the ultimate reader, and finally chosen, not chosen or tampered with by news editors at the commercial media outlets who buy the story. There are a few exceptions - such as AP's Mexican and Caribbean correspondent Mark Stevenson. In Venezuela, Niko Price has occasionally reported outside of the box constructed by pro-coup elites that the rest of the reporter's peers have fallen for hook, line and sinker - but still offers very little insight. Venezuela, a country with such a wide gap between a wealthy elite and a poor majority, seems tailor-made for the trap that most AP Latin American correspondents have fallen into: the administration, rather than the reporting, of the news.Olson: A Journalist On Strike?Take AP Venezuela correspondent Alexandra Olson for example: She has proven herself an expert over the past week in the use of AP-style writing to produce an illusion of objectivity in what actually turns out to be a very one-sided, dishonest story. Let's try a little exercise in deconstruction here with what may have been the most read English-language print articles from Venezuela these last seven days.
In all but one of the eleven stories that Olson has written since Dec. 9th for the AP, the word "strike" appears in the first paragraph. Anyone who has been keeping track of the news from Venezuela via her stories, via whatever medium, has heard reference to a "strike" every single day before any other facts of the story are presented. In more than half of her stories, she also uses the full term "general strike" to describe the opposition, but without quote marks around either.
Is "strike" - or better yet, "general strike" - the best term to describe what is going on in Venezuela right now? As Narco News has consistently pointed since the latest incarnation of the anti-Chavez crowd started making its latest round of trouble in late November, some people may not be working but this campaign hardly resembles the conventional definition of a general strike.
A strike happens when workers refuse to work in order to pressure their employer to concede to some demand. A general strike happens when a united working class stops all work in a country to pressure - or remove from power - the owning class and the politicians with whom they're in bed.
Rather than the heroic working-class resistance suggested by the term "general strike" --chosen no doubt to inspire sympathy from working people in Venezuela and around the world -- it is Venezuela's business class that has conspired to shut out its workers and close down its shops. And as a conspiracy, it's failed miserably - most of the owners and white-collar workers who participated went back to work after only a few days. Only the participation of the oil industry gave the opposition the power to really threaten the government.
But does Olson interview a single blue-collar worker from the oil company, or any other "striking" company for that matter, for her string of reports? Of course not: Why interview actual workers who are "on strike" when you can repeat sound bytes from the managers who ordered them to stop working?
What Olson has done is give the opposition leaders the power to set the terms of the conflict. If they say it's a general strike, then it must be a general strike.
Additionally, Olson has not followed up the results of various "escalations" of the strike she has reported. She tells the reader that stores close, but never reports when, days later, they re-open. She tells the reader that each opposition march is larger than the next, when they've been essentially conducted by the same size and sector of Venezuelan upper-class society as has occurred all year long.
The constant "ratcheting up" of the conflict - the "strike" is always portrayed as bigger, better, growing, escalating, getting more tense, etcetera - is a tired technique of yellow journalism, and has historic motives in the goal of selling newspapers. But specific to the Venezuela conflict, this spin has a dangerous echo in the remarks of one side of the conflict: the Venezuelan opposition, United States officials, and "mediator" Cesar Gaviria, who also keep shouting that the situation is "escalating" when the only thing that escalates about these "strikers" is their own rhetoric.
Announcements that the opposition is "growing" - whether made by its own leaders or foreign interests, usually correspond to increasing desperation among the leaders rather than any increase in public support for the strike: While the opposition movement doubles in size and strength every day in the fantasy world created for AP correspondents, in the real world stores are now open again, the government has removed the disruptive management of the state oil company, and other Latin American nations have now put the brakes on U.S. efforts to make the Organization of American States the mechanism for foreign intervention.
Compare this to how Olson discusses Chávez. In an article on the opposition's highway blockage - forcing regular people commuting to work to "strike" whether they want to or not - Olson says of Chávez: Late Sunday, his leftist government sent thousands of "Chavistas" - fervent believers in his "social revolution"- in a horn-honking parade of cars and trucks that clogged the capital's streets.Again and again, Olson puts the terms of Chavez and his camp in quote marks, to distance herself from them. This is a standard tactic by journalists to separate themselves from rhetorical labels given by institutions, but in Olson's case it's been strictly one-sided. The opposition's economic sabotage is no more objectively a genuine "general strike" than Chavez's democratic institutions and programs objectively represent a "social revolution." So why are repetitions of the rhetoric of the Chavez administration placed in quotes while opposition rhetoric is repeated as if it were undeniable?
Prose like this reveals a contempt for the lower classes, who Olson seems to think are incapable of independent thought or action. In her version of the events, demonstrators from the other side are "sent" by the "leftist government" to "clog" streets with a car and truck parade. Obviously, she seems to think, any "leftist" poor person must be a government peon - only the rich demonstrators count.
In just one article out of eleven does she acknowledge that Chavez has questioned the legitimacy of the strike, referring to "the strike that Chavez says doesn't exist." She feels no need to go further than this, no need to cite even one of the well-documented reasons to suspect the rhetoric of the "strike."
Olson has in fact never presented the "Chavista" side seriously, and speaks often speaks quite condescendingly about it. In one of her Dec. 16th stories, Olson almost looks like she's going to acknowledge the lack of public support for the work stoppage. "Some Venezuelans were tiring of the strike," she writes, towards the end of the article. And why is that? The only reason Olson gives is that a strike through the holidays would mess up the baseball season. Apparently, the hundreds of thousands who demonstrate against the strike every weekend (they don't have time to play revolution every day of the week like the rich strikers who suddenly find themselves on vacation) aren't really against a ruling-class coup, they're just baseball fanatics!
Throughout her articles, Olson's only quotes from the hundreds of thousands in Caracas and around the country resisting the opposition have been the slogans shouted at rallies, which naturally come off as simplistic and just a bit silly. Often, she repeats the same quotes from a rally days before in article after article. At the same time, she presents the well-crafted statements of opposition leaders each day.
Again and again, she repeats that opposition leaders accuse Chavez of "driving the country toward communism" without explaining what that means.
Again and again, she talks about the strike "gathering force" when in fact every day more people have been going back to work. The only thing that has worked more and more in the opposition's favor over the past week has been the further impoverishment of the economy by the shutdown of oil exports. Real general strikes are measured in numbers and in the resolve of the strikers, not just in how much damage a smaller but more powerful group of strikers can force on the rest of the country.

AP Losing Credibility Daily in VenezuelaSeveral other AP reporters should be taken to task for their distortions of the last two weeks. Here is a short list of important developments in Venezuela over the last few weeks that have been nowhere to be found in any AP report: the discovery by a former "dissident" army officer that opposition forces had weapons hidden in the buildings around their former stronghold of Plaza Altamira the leaked email in which opposition members declare they have no intention of following the law or the constitution.
Virtually any relevant details about Joao Gouveia, the Portugese man who seems to have been the gunman that killed three people in Plaza Altamira: the evidence that he arrived in the country just twenty-four hours before the shootings, the credible theory that the opposition had something to do with it, and how the opposition certainly tried to cynically capitalize on the tragedy, or the similarity between this event and the opposition-triggered gun battle last April which provided the pretext for a coup.witness reports that there were no Chavistas at the vandalized Zulia TV station, supporting Chavista claims that this was actually the work of the opposition.the constant harassment of the public television station and the independent Community Media, which has continued since April (despite plentiful coverage of Dec. 7 Chavista/Bolivarian protests outside commercial TV stations and the accompanying dishonest statements by "press freedom" groups)."mediator" Cesar Gaviria's disturbing call for Chávez to suppress peaceful demonstration outside commercial media outlets.James Anderson has filed six AP stories from Caracas since the "strike" began. In his first, filed Dec. 2, the day the strike began, (with the requisite unchallenged reference to a "general strike" in paragraph 1) he reports of one of the "strike leaders:"Ortega on Monday denounced anonymous threats against strike leaders and the arrests of a handful of strike activists. He demanded immediate elections and a demilitarization of Caracas' police department.Anderson's is one of several AP articles to making a passing reference to the "military takeover" of the Metropolitan Police (PM). AP's Bill Cormier, on Dec. 13th, explores the issue for a full article and deplores the allegedly dangerous situation Chavez has left the city in with no real police force. What's more, reports Cormier,Armed "Chavista" radicals, responsible for past attacks on police and demonstrators, have yet to take advantage of the situation. But opponents say no one is in the streets to stop them if they do so.Throwaway sentences like this do a great service to the opposition but represent no real reporting. The implicit assumption here, with language like "take advantage," indicate that the Chavistas would naturally attack anything that moved, that the only reason they don't go on murderous rampages is the presence of the PM. What does "attacks on police and demonstrators" mean? That's a pretty important charge; one would think it deserved at least one specific example. Does Cormier mean April 11, when Chavistas fired back after opposition thugs shot at pro-democracy counter-demonstrators?
As this publication reported when the military takeover of the PM first happened in November, that department was partly responsible for the vastly under-reported murders of 50 Bolivarian activists immediately following the coup. Their reign of terror continued, and the harassment, beating and often murder of pro-Chavez activists in Caracas's poor neighborhoods became common. Olson and others repeat incessantly the (justified) horror over the three suspicious deaths at Plaza Altamira, and disgraced OAS chief Cesar Gaviria's whining that he feared escalating violence.
After 16 days of repeating its tired claims, the reader of AP Venezuela coverage has no better understanding of the conflict than she or he had prior to December. The screaming lack of context for any discussion of violence in Venezuela, as always, serves the Big Lie of a principled, noble strike and an irrational, "authoritarian" government. The AP has produced a flood of stories since the latest opposition push broke out, all of which run the spectrum from forgettable to outright coup propaganda. The reporters at the AP need to take a step back and look at the side missing from their stories, to serve their enormous audience with something much more closely resembling the truth. If genuine reporting from their stories is being filtered out by editors in favor of PR sound bytes - unlikely but not impossible - they need to find a way to force the truth into the end product.
More importantly, the AP Managing Editors Association must, to regain lost credibility, reform the way foreign news is "reported" - with a particular eye on Latin America - with a series of checks and balances that provide greater accountability, a mechanism to receive and act on complaints by readers and subjects alike, and an insistence that AP correspondents get up from their desks and interview real people to counter the triumph of the spin-doctors over AP's foreign bureaus.
12/18/02-Znet-Coup D'Petrol in Venezuela
By Gregory Wilpert
Caracas. Exactly one year after the opposition's first "general strike," on December 10, 2001, which launched the campaign to oust the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, the opposition is engaged in its fourth "general strike" and has come very close to finally achieving its goal. The fourth employer-sponsored general strike, which began on December 2, seemed to have a strong start, as traffic resembled a Sunday and many stores and practically all private schools throughout the country were closed that day. However, by the second day it was clear that the strike would not last. Still, the opposition continued to extend the strike for an additional day every day, each time finding new reasons to continue the strike, even though it was clear that the strike had very little ongoing support beyond a few large businesses, such as McDonald's and other fast food chains, the supermarkets, and the private schools. The opposition, which consists of the main Chamber of Commerce Fedecameras, the union federation CTV, the coalition of opposition parties and organizations gathered under the "Coordinadora Democratica," and the private mass media kept claiming that the strike was a resounding success nonetheless.
The opposition's fortunes turned, however, when it pulled its trump card on the fourth day of the strike: the managers and administrative workers of Venezuela's oil company, PDVSA. Following a suspicious break-in at a manager's home and the government's raid of a tanker captain's home, managers and other white-collar workers of PDVSA staged a protest in front of the oil company's headquarters. The National Guard immediately broke-up this strike with tear gas and plastic bullets because the headquarters had several months earlier been declared a "security zone" and off limits to demonstrations, since it is of vital economic interest to the country. Despite PDVSA's president's continuous efforts to negotiate with dissident managers, these decided that it was time for them to join the strike, given the recent events. The management and white-collar worker strike, however, did not gain much momentum until tanker captains and dock workers joined it.
The opposition received an additional and tremendous boost when the opposition's leaders and the media took advantage of a terrible tragedy, in which a gunman opened fire on a peaceful opposition rally and killed three and wounded about 30 others. Opposition leaders immediately argued that the government was responsible for this atrocity. For the next two days the media continuously repeated the images of the chaos and confusion and of the dead and wounded that were recorded immediately after the shooting. The gunman was apprehended at the scene of the crime and within two hours of the shooting, amateur video footage surfaced that supposedly showed the gunman in the presence of pro-Chavez mayor Freddy Bernal a day earlier.
Investigators of the crime, however, have said that there is proof that the gunman, Joao de Goveia, a Portuguese national, entered Venezuela from Portugal the day before the shooting, but well after the footage of the amateur video was taped. In other words, either the video image is not of de Gouveia or the video might have been faked, which would not have been too difficult, since the image is very grainy and dark because it was filmed in the middle of the night. Apparently, de Goveia was living and working in Venezuela, but had been abroad for a while, just before the shooting.
As is usual in such high profile cases, the truth will probably never be known beyond a reasonable doubt, since there are too many interests at stake and too many people willing and in the position to forge evidence or testimony. Still, there can be little doubt that this attack was of absolutely no benefit to the government, since it rekindled a strike that was faltering. As a result, it provided a big boost to the opposition's campaign to oust President Chavez.
Opposition leaders' taking advantage of the attack and the relentless media campaign of the five private television stations and eight or so major newspapers, which consistently present only one perspective for interpreting all events that take place in Venezuela, upset many pro-Chavez Venezuelans even more with the media than they had already been. On the eighth day of the strike, "Chavistas" surrounded the headquarters of all of the major television stations in the capital and of several in the rest of the country, staging loud pot-banging "cacerolazos." (The opposition had already pioneered such protests on a regular basis at the building of the state-run television channel, ever since the two-day coup in April, but this never received any media attention, not even from the affected station.) After a couple hours of pot-banging, the demonstrators withdrew, at the behest of pro-Chavez legislators and OAS general secretary Cesar Gaviria. To the media, these protests were additional proof that Venezuela is a totalitarian country, of which Chavez is the dictator. Journalists argued that their lives were threatened, even though it was quite clear that these were peaceful protests. Still, the director of one TV channel even went so far as to argue that the protests constituted "genocide." One unoccupied station outside of Caracas did get looted, for which Chavistas blamed radical elements of the opposition, since witnesses say that there were no protests at that station that night.
Once again, these protests provided the ammunition the opposition needed to justify he continuation of the strike. While the strike has been relatively ineffective in the general population and especially among the poor, it has had its most devastating effect in the state-owned oil company, PDVSA. With the complete shut-down of Venezuela's main oil refinery, which is also one of the largest in the world, the walk-out of key dock workers, and the anchoring of tankers off of Venezuela's main ports, the supply of oil has been halved, from 3 million barrels per day (bpd) to 1.5 million bpd. Meanwhile, PDVSA's president, Ali Rodriguez, announced that a continued stoppage of oil production and shipments would seriously harm the Venezuelan economy, which is losing around $50 million per day as a result of the strike. Also, nearly all of Venezuela's economic activity depends in one way or another on the steady supply of oil from its own refineries, such as gasoline for the transportation food to cities or of supplies to factories, for the filling of airplanes that land in Venezuela with jet fuel, or for the generation of electricity. Rodriguez also warned that Venezuela would lose international oil customers and could default on debt payments, if oil production was not restarted soon. So far the restriction of oil supplies has had most of its impact on the lack of gasoline at many gas stations, especially in the country's interior, leading to long lines at gas stations throughout the country, due to consumer fears that their local gas station would soon run out of gasoline.
As of this writing (Dec. 16), the government claims that it has by and large managed to regain control over the oil production and shipping process, with the help of the military, so that oil supply should be back to normal within a few days. The opposition, however, denies this and warns that serious industrial accidents could result because unqualified personnel are taking control of the installations.
Both the opposition and the government are keeping up their efforts to mobilize their supporters through large mobilizations. On December 7 the government organized a large demonstration at the presidential palace, which attracted several hundred thousand supporters, at which Chavez promised that just as he had defeated the opposition in the seven elections of 1998 to 2001, he would defeat them again in the current confrontation. The opposition, for its part, organized a massive demonstration of its own, also attracting hundreds of thousands of its supporters, on December 14th. These demonstrations proved, once again, that both the government and the opposition enjoy widespread popular support. Of course, the private media in Venezuela does not reflect this and covers only opposition demonstrations, leaving the impression to non-participating observers that only the opposition has popular support.
It would seem that where the opposition's efforts to oust Chavez via a non-stop media campaign, large demonstrations, a coup, and four "general" strikes have largely failed, the management take-over, or coup, of the oil company might succeed. The scenarios for doing so are still murky, though. Many among the more radical elements of the opposition, to which the main actors behind the "general strike" belong, such as Fedecameras President Carlos Fernandez, CTV President Carlos Ortega, and Caracas Mayor Alfredo Peña, seem to be hoping for another military coup attempt. These three continuously issue calls to the military to "abide by their mission," to "defend the constitution," and to avert Venezuela's "castro-communist dictatorship." The more moderate elements of the opposition, such as CTV general secretary Manuel Cova and NGO-leader Elias Santana of "Queremos Elegir," seem to placing their bets on a negotiated settlement for early elections. However, the OAS-mediated negotiations have so far stalled and it is far from certain that they will reach any kind of agreement before Christmas. What is for sure, however, is that the opposition and a significant number of Venezuela's businesses prefer to commit economic suicide, in its efforts to oust Chavez, and to drag the country down with it.Gregory Wilpert is a sociologist and freelance journalist living in Venezuela. He is currently working on a book on the Chavez presidency, which will be published by Zed Books in 2003.&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
The Narco News Bulletin December 17, 2002 | Issue #26 - Reporting on the Drug War and Democracy from Latin America
Home | Mailing List | Search | Print
América Reborn: 32 Nations Back Venezuela
Historic OAS debate turns América right-side-up againBy Al Giordano
December 17, 2002

"RESUELVE: Respaldar plenamente la institucionalidad democrática y
constitucional de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, cuyo gobierno
preside Hugo Chávez Frías, y rechazar categóricamente cualquier intento de
golpe de estado o alteración del orden constitucional venezolano que afecte
gravemente el orden democrático."
- la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA)
"RESOLVED: To fully back the democratic and constitutional legitimacy of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, whose government is led by Hugo Chávez
Frías, and to reject, categorically, any coup attempt or alteration of
constitutional order that seriously affects democratic rule."
- the Organization of American States (OAS)

12:21 a.m. ET, December 17, 2002:
One hour and some minutes ago, the Organization of American States (OAS),
for the first time in the organization's history, rejected a major United
States initiative.
The OAS backed, by a vote of 32-0 - with two countries not counted - a
resolution to support the continuance of the democratically elected
government of Hugo Chávez of Venezuela.
This unprecedented result of a fierce, tense, and extended, debate marks an
historic turning point for our América.
The nations of the Western Hemisphere rejected, once and for all, any
attempt at coup d'etat, in Venezuela or elsewhere. Washington's spoonful of
sugar to make the medicine go down was language backing OAS secretary
general Cesar Gaviria to "find a way to channel positive energies" on
In a veiled message of "no confidence" for its own secretary general's
pro-coup efforts in Caracas over the past 15 days, the Organization of
American States equally called upon the Carter Center and the United Nations
to promote dialogue in Venezuela, but not to permit any coup attempt nor
pretension of interrupting democracy; not even by the OAS's own
We repeat: 32 American nations tonight, after an unprecedented Authentic
Debate among the members of the Organization of American states, rejected
destabilizing proposals by Washington to impose its policies on another
American country: Venezuela.
The foreign ministries of Mexico and Peru - who had, 48 hours ago, been
willing patsies for Washington in this historic debate - stuck their fingers
in the air, and saw which way the wind was blowing. And by voting with the
majority they kept the door open for their membership in the New American
Union that will gain traction in 2003.
December 16, 2002: The day the empire died.
At press time, we still don't know which States were the two that did not
vote, or perhaps were not present, for the resolution supported by 32 of 34
American countries that have just turned América right-side-up again. We'll
find out and get back to you on that.
But we can't help but add: The end of imposition has profound consequences
for the pro-narco drug policy imposed by Washington on other nations.
Narco News wishes all our readers, correspondents, sources, professors,
students, and allies, a New Year that sneaks up on the old one.
Oh my, it already has.
Calgary Sun (Canada)
december 16, 2002Chavez thumbs nose at U.S.
-"Pressure from a group of managers, a group of
coup-plotters, won't push me out," he said in his
weekly television program yesterday. "I'm here at the
will of the great majority of Venezuelans."
-Chavez held up a small blue copy of Venezuela's
constitution, which doesn't allow early elections
until midway through a president's term -- in his
case, August 2003. "I recommend that governments of
the world ... read this constitution. We've published
it in several languages -- English, German, French,
even Russian," he said. "We can send it to whoever
wants it by e-mail ... so that those who came out
looking bad in the past don't come out looking bad
-Some say this is a plan to get Chavez to go," he
said. "Well, Chavez isn't going."

CARACAS -- Venezuelan soldiers carrying rifles boarded
a striking oil tanker and brought in a new crew
yesterday in President Hugo Chavez's latest effort to
quash a two-week-old national strike aimed at ousting
Chavez opponents on yachts, motorboats, canoes and
even kayaks surrounded the Pilin Leon to protest the
The tanker, carrying 36 million litres of gasoline,
has been idle for almost two weeks on western Lake
Maracaibo -- and has become an emblem of the strike
that has paralyzed the oil industry and put pressure
on Chavez to either resign or call early elections.
"We are not afraid! They won't humiliate us!" screamed
Jose Luis Alcala, a lawyer for the crew members.
The deployment yesterday demonstrated Chavez was
determined to break the strike [sic], which has
limited supplies of gasoline, food and cash and
further polarized the country.
"Pressure from a group of managers, a group of
coup-plotters, won't push me out," he said in his
weekly television program yesterday. "I'm here at the
will of the great majority of Venezuelans."
He also issued a veiled warning to the U. S. -- which
is pressing for early elections -- with a reference to
Washington's embarrassing response to an April coup
that briefly toppled Chavez. The U.S. initially blamed
Chavez for his own downfall and belatedly condemned
the coup.
Chavez held up a small blue copy of Venezuela's
constitution, which doesn't allow early elections
until midway through a president's term -- in his
case, August 2003. "I recommend that governments of
the world ... read this constitution. We've published
it in several languages -- English, German, French,
even Russian," he said. "We can send it to whoever
wants it by e-mail ... so that those who came out
looking bad in the past don't come out looking bad
Chavez has fought the strike by firing dissident
executives at the state oil monopoly and commandeering
gasoline distribution trucks. Yesterday was the second
time the government tried to seize the Pilin Leon. The
soldiers boarded the boat yesterday morning along with
a new crew.
On Saturday, a million Venezuelans turned out for an
anti-Chavez rally in Caracas. But the president didn't
even mention the protest as he began his weekly
television address.
"Some say this is a plan to get Chavez to go," he
said. "Well, Chavez isn't going."
By Al Giordano and correspondents
December 16, 2002
Friday's desperate maneuver by U.S. President George W. Bush – his cynical
call for "early elections" in Venezuela, a country that has had six
national elections in the past four years – has backfired after it was
revealed as unconstitutional.
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, earlier today, withdrew that
demand with some not-too-fancy semantic footwork:
"Early elections, in the sense that of course, there is a referenda (sic)
that can be held earlier that is a reflection of the manifestation of the
will of the people and this is the process that is anticipated in the
Venezuelan constitution," Fleischer told reporters earlier today.
The White House backpedaling comes on the heels of major developments in
Venezuela and our América.
1. The final and total collapse of efforts to close shops and lock out
workers by businesses owners – dishonestly called a "strike" by commercial
media for the past two weeks: By Monday morning, almost every store in the
wealthy neighborhoods and suburbs of Eastern Caracas (the last holdouts in
"The Strike That Wasn't") opened for business.
2. 90 percent of all contracted oil industry employees have returned to
work, now that saboteur executives have been fired and removed from their
offices. The remaining 10 percent will be fired if they do not immediately
return to work.
3. Four tankers, carrying two million barrels of crude oil to the United
States, are already en route.
4. A desperate effort this morning by "opposition leaders" to block
highways leading into the capital City of Caracas, to physically turn back
the millions of Venezuelan workers who commuted to their jobs today. The
blockades – typically committed by four or five cars or trucks used to
block each route – were confronted at nearly every location by angry
citizens and were disbanded as a counterproductive tactic by 2 p.m. this
afternoon. There were also violent clashes between police and blockaders at
10 locations. Although the simulating Associated Press refers to this as
"spiraling. out of control. violence," there were no deaths before the
blockade disbanded. Despite commercial media spin that the failed blockades
were somehow an "escalation" of the "strike," the true intent was to mask
the fact that almost every shop and store in Venezuela, including in the
wealthy sectors, is now open for business.
5. The response of twice-elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to the
White House, saying that U.S. officials were "confused" because their
"early elections" call would violate the Venezuelan Constitution.
6. Heated meetings in the Organization of American States that went for 13
hours Friday night into the wee hours of Saturday, in which U.S. delegate
Roger Noriega – former foreign policy czar for U.S. Senator Jesse Helms
(R-North Carolina) was rebuffed in his attempt to get the OAS to call for
"early elections."
7. The joining by most Caribbean countries of Venezuela's own OAS
resolution to back the democratically elected government of Venezuela.
8. The defection of OAS representatives from Canada, Argentina, Bolivia,
Costa Rica and other nations from the U.S. interventionist position.
9. The continued free-fall of the credibility of OAS "mediator," former
Colombian president Cesar Gaviria, now in his 15th day at the luxurious
Melia Hotel in Caracas, and still no coup d'etat to show for his
transparently anti-democracy efforts.
10. The sudden discovery of a backbone by some White House Press
Correspondents who grilled Fleischer on his "early elections" call.
According to White House transcripts of a Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
on December 13th, in the James S. Brady Briefing Room, he was asked:
Q. Ari, the statement you put out on Venezuela earlier today called for a
constitutional solution to the crisis there. It then went on to call for
early elections. Those two statements would appear to be at war with each
other. There's nothing in the Venezuelan constitution that countenances
early elections. Could you speak to that conflict?
MR. FLEISCHER: I do not believe that -- the statement would have been
crafted by experts who are versed in this field. This was a statement by
the staff expressed through me representing the President's opinions, if it
was not constitutional. So I think we have a difference about the
Venezuelan constitution.
Q. By endorsing early elections, you've effectively endorsed the main
demand of the Venezuelan opposition, the opposition to President Chavez.
Why should we not conclude that the administration has, in effect, come
down on the side of opposition, against Chavez?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President, as he said in the statement, is concerned
about the deteriorating situation in Venezuela, and the President wants
this to be resolved the way democracies resolve issues, which is through
the peaceful exercise of the ballot box. And it sounds like you're giving
on the issue of it is within the Constitution. Basically, if one party in
Venezuela is calling for it, unless you're saying that the party is calling
for something extraconstitutional, the statement reflects the view that
democracy is the best way to settle any of these serious problems that are
in Venezuela.
Q. The Constitution calls for elections on a certain schedule. The
opposition is calling to advance that schedule.
MR. FLEISCHER: Unless you're suggesting that the Venezuelan constitution
prohibits it, I would think you'd have no objection to democracy being pursued.
It took White House diplomatic and legal counsel four days to amend its
"early elections" call to one for a non-binding referendum. And Fleischer
continues to try and spin it dishonestly as "that's what we meant all along!"
But Venezuelan opposition leaders are disheartened. Today's pro-coup daily
newspapers used phrases like "backpedaled" or "took a step backwards" to
describe the White House's latest position.
The OAS – a group based in Washington that Che Guevara once observed had
the job of "administering the colonies for the United States" – continues
to be the locus of heated debate between governments in América.
The anti-democracy faction in OAS (Bush's United States with Vicente Fox's
Mexico, Alejandro Toledo's Peru, and Alvaro Uribe's Colombia, and a few
other countries) is in a panicked hurry to try and force a "diplomatic
junta" on Venezuela before January 1st, when Brazil inaugurates its new
president Lula de la Silva, the popular Workers Party leader of Latin
America's largest nation who will become the hemisphere's main interlocutor
with the United States and the world. Ten days later, on January 10th,
Ecuador will inaugurate Colonel Lucio Gutiérrez as president, further
weakening the anti-democracy crowd's grip over the OAS.
Two more key changes occur on January 1st that will have a high impact on
the Venezuela situation: New laws will take effect. The land reform law
(affecting not only rural farmlands but also landlords and vacant lots in
the cities), and the Hydrocarbons Law, giving the elected government the
final set of tools it needs to wrestle the state-owned oil company from the
hands of a few corrupt oligarchs.
Meanwhile, as reported by Canadian correspondent in Venezuela Oscar Heck of, all holiday season flights from Caracas to Miami are booked
solid (no "strike" for the wicked), indicating that the annual exodus of
upper-class Venezuelans to Florida will go as it has in previous years,
thus taking many of the coup-plotting leaders off the stage of their act of
Strike Simulation Theater.
The "Grinch-osition" – as Vheadline columnist Charles Hardy calls the
Christmas season coup-plotters – is flailing around like a fish on a hook.
Pro-coup and simulating daily newspapers El Nacional and El Universal,
early today in Caracas, announced they would not publish tomorrow in
solidarity with "the Strike That Wasn't." But later this afternoon both
announced that, no, they will publish tomorrow.
The waning ranks of the Grinch-osition have tried all morning to provoke
violence as a last ditch effort to justify foreign intervention. The
Venezuelan majority, and its morning commuters, showed immense patience and
maturity. They were able to break up the highway blockades in an organized
fashion. In 10 locations, there was violence between police and blockaders
on both sides, but without any reported deaths.
Hardy, an invited professor of the Narco News School of Authentic
Journalism, and a former Catholic priest, aptly quoted Dr. Seuss' "The
Grinch Who Stole Christmas" in today's column penned from Venezuela,
concluding: "Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store.
Maybe Christmas ... perhaps ... means a little bit more."
No one is expecting the coup-plotters' hearts to grow three sizes, but they
have, now, at least in their rush for xmas shopping proceeds, opened the
doors to their stores.
None of this will prevent professional simulators from AP, Reuters, CNN,
and U.S. and British newspaper correspondents from repeating their daily
Big Lie that the "strike" is somehow "growing" or "escalating" or
"increasing the pressure on Chávez to resign." But after 15 days of their
transparent simulation, every Who down in Whooville already knows the score.
So, happy holidays to our readers – 120,000 hits a day this week, by
citizens who wisely seek more honest sources than that of the Commercial
Media – and to the valiant Venezuelan majority, from all of us at Narco News.
We will remain here in the newsroom and on the street, closely monitoring
the death throes of the Strike That Wasn't, until the door to the airplane
toward Miami hits the coup-plotters in the ass.
Before we rest and feast on roast beast, we'll serve up a special holiday
dish: Rolled Heads of Simulators.
We'll review for you the outrageous distortions of fact and truth committed
this month by certain members of the Commercial Media. We will name the
names of the para-mercenary journalists who have demonstrably lied to you
in recent weeks about what has occurred in Venezuela, and document
precisely how they knew the facts to be different from the words they
The simulating correspondents have attempted - and continue to attempt - to
create the conditions for the single largest threat to press freedom in our
América: a coup d'etat. The good news, kind readers, more evident every
minute and hour, is that they are on the cusp of a humiliating defeat, and
2002 may soon ring out with another victory for Authentic Democracy in our
América. Bring on 2003.
Cuban exiles lend a hand to opponents of Venezuelan president
By Tal Abbady
Staff Writer
December 15, 2002
Venezuelans in South Florida hoping for the overthrow of President
Hugo Chavez have found a shrewd and staunch friend in the Cuban
exile community.
Exiles of Chavez's "Revolucion Bolivariana" are building on a
decades-old alliance that developed when thousands of Cubans
fled Fidel Castro's rule and settled in Venezuela more than
four decades ago.
Since then, Chavez's pro-Cuba policies have rankled many
Cuban exiles, who have embraced Venezuela's cause and helped
organize protests, denounced Chavez in radio and newspaper
editorials and brought the country's plight to Washington's
The affinity between the groups developed when Venezuela
opened its doors to roughly 60,000 Cubans fleeing Castro's
rule from 1959 to the early 1960s. They received a warm
welcome in what was once Latin America's most stable
democracy and built lives there.
"I owe a huge debt to Venezuela, and now I can begin to
repay it," said Jesus Permue. He heads Cuban Unity, an
exile umbrella group composed of 35 organizations that
has helped Venezuelans organize rallies in Miami's
Bayfront Park.
As an architecture student in Havana in 1959, Permue
joined the revolution and then sought refuge in the
Venezuelan Embassy in Havana when Castro began clamping
down on his opponents.
He was granted diplomatic immunity and moved to Venezuela in 1961.
Now, "the Venezuelans are battling the same disease the Cubans did,"
said Permue, who came to the United States in 1962 but traveled to
Venezuela frequently over the years and maintains close personal
ties there.
He has watched with dismay as Chavez, who was voted into power in
1998, flouted Venezuela's decades-old policy against Castro's
government when he embraced the dictator's regime as part of his
populist agenda.
Antonio Esquivel, vice president of the Patriotic Cuban Council,
an organization of about 170,000 Cuban exiles, also was among
those who fled to Venezuela when Castro came to power.
Esquivel said Cuban-Venezuelans watched in disbelief as their
second homeland spiraled into political disarray under the
rule of a Castro sympathizer.
"It was the same thing that happened to us 44 years ago in Cuba,
but since then Cubans have organized their suffering, and
Venezuelans need to use that," said Esquivel.
According to Esquivel, the Cuban Council has helped organize
meetings between Venezuelan exiles and key members of the
Organization of American States in Washington, D.C., as well
as delegates from the United Nations and members of Congress.
He thinks these meetings over the past three years helped
spawn an awareness that led to President Bush's declaration
Friday demanding that Chavez hold a general election.
Media rouse support
The Cuban-American media also have helped rouse support, particularly
in the often-incendiary remarks of Radio Mambi host Armando Perez
Roura in Miami and the commentary of journalist Agustin Tamargo,
broadcast from Havana.
Nancy Perez is the director of an organization of Cuban journalists,
independent of Castro, whose broadcasts from Havana air on Radio
Mambi. She says those journalists' anti-Chavez views have helped
build solidarity among Cubans and Venezuela in South Florida.
"Chavez is Castro's facsimile," said Perez. "There's strong
opposition to Chavez both here in Florida and in Havana, and we
will continue to broadcast that sentiment."
U.S. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, both
Florida Republicans of Cuban descent, have lent a supportive
ear to the exiles.
"There is tremendous solidarity in the Cuban-American
community for the Venezuelans," said Diaz-Balart.
"The Cubans have the know-how. They've had time to learn how
to share information," said Diaz-Balart of the two groups'
union in the anti-Chavez campaign.
That know-how consists of logistical help: acquiring city
permits to hold demonstrations, sending mass mailings to
solicit people's participation, and promoting events on radio.
`Cubans know misery'
At a protest on Wednesday, about 100 Venezuelans and Cubans
gathered in front of Bayfront Park to pay tribute to
Venezuelans killed in the violence, their faces lit by the
candles they held in their hands. One protester held a sign
that read: "Castro, go soak your beard. Your Venezuelan
disciple will soon fall." Others spoke at a podium and
donned masks caricaturing both leaders.
Sarita Bittan, one of the vigil's organizers, said her
mother and cousins in Venezuela are afraid to go out
because of the pro-Chavez mobs that have clogged the
streets and regularly assault passers-by.
"They're slowly losing their fear and have joined the
protests, but it's been very hard. I don't forgive him
[Chavez] the pain and tears they have suffered," she said.
Bittan, who owns a party-planning business in Weston,
moved with her husband and children to Florida four years
ago. She became active in organizing protests after a
failed coup attempt on April 11, 2000, underscored the
deep divisions among Venezuelans under Chavez's rule.
She said she and other organizers relied on the support
of Cubans to organize the event.
"The Cubans know the misery Venezuelans are now living,"
agreed Luis Gonzalez, who owns several bakeries in Palm
Beach County. "It's natural that they would help us
support Venezuelans at home."
Tal Abbady can be reached at or
Copyright (c) 2002, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the
Dec. 19, 2002 issue of
Workers World newspaper
By Gloria La Riva
In July 2001, marching with thousands of supporters of
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez through the streets of
Caracas, it was clear to this writer that the workers and
poor ardently backed his Bolivarian revolution.
It is called Bolivarian after the great fighter, Simon
Bolivar, who rallied Latin America against Spanish
colonialism. It is called a revolution because the struggle
is against a wealthy class that has bled the country dry
and left 80 percent of the population in poverty.
Today the political struggle in Venezuela has reached a
critical stage, with counter-revolutionary forces targeting
the country's oil industry in an attempt to overthrow the
government of Hugo Chavez.
Hour by hour the struggle is more acute and the class lines
sharply drawn. Workers and the poorest of the population
have been filling the streets to reject a "strike" called
on Dec. 2 by oil executives, the Venezuelan business group
Fedecameras, and reactionary leaders of the Venezuelan
Workers Federation (CTV). Carlos Ortega, CTV secretary
general, is betraying the interests of the working class by
openly collaborating with corporate executives trying to
overthrow Chavez.
Thousands of "Chavistas" backing the Venezuelan president
surrounded television, newspaper and radio stations that
have been egging on the oil stoppage. The "strike" is not a
mass workers' action but more an act of sabotage against
the country's most important source of revenue.
On Dec. 10, Ali Rodriguez, head of the state oil firm PDVSA
and a Chavez supporter, warned that the country faced a
$6-billion charge if oil exports are delayed in December.
Chavez has had to threaten a wider use of the military to
take over the beleaguered oil operations.
Since the first day of the Chavez administration, the U.S.
government and ruling class have brought external pressure
to bear on Venezuela, similar to the destabilization
campaign they led after 1970 against the Chilean government
of Salvador Allende, who was also popularly elected.
Allende, a socialist, had nationalized the copper industry
in Chile, which was then controlled by U.S. copper giants
Anaconda and Phelps Dodge, as well as the communications
conglomerate ITT, among others. This act unleashed the fury
of the U.S. government, headed at that time by Richard
Nixon. He and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger conspired
to prevent a new revolutionary process from succeeding in
Latin America.
With an economic embargo imposed on Chile by the United
States, and large sections of the middle class mobilized
against the progressive reforms, the CIA prepared for a
coup. On the fateful day of Sept. 11, 1973, the Chilean
military, headed by Gen. Augusto Pinochet, launched a
fascist coup that resulted in the murder of over 20,000
young students, workers and peasants. A rein of terror was
ushered in whose effects are still felt in Chile.
A similar scenario is now being attempted against Venezuela.
The behind- the-scenes U.S. role in the April 11 attempted
overthrow of Chavez was evident in the days after his
return to office.
The current "strike" is the latest offensive undoubtedly
orchestrated in Washington.
Venezuela is currently the fourth-largest supplier of oil to
the U.S. The reactionary U.S. government, acting for big
oil, seeks control of all the world's oil and gas sources.
It sees independent economic cooperation among Latin
American countries as a threat. In particular, Venezuela's
economic agreements with revolutionary Cuba, including oil,
have raised Washington's ire.
While the Bush administration wants to see the Chavez
government ousted, it is also aware that the latest
right-wing actions may set off a chain of events it could
lose control of.
Losing command of the very turmoil it has unleashed may be
the reason certain voices in the ruling class are calling
for a "diplomatic" or electoral solution, similar to the
way the Nicaraguan Sandinista government was ousted
through imperialist intervention in the 1991 elections.
The U.S. is mindful that the April 11 fascist coup against
Chavez was frustrated by the heroic intervention of tens of
thousands of people, who restored him to office. Their
spontaneous mobilization to return Chavez to the presidency
was unprecedented and gave the masses an understanding of
their own power.
However, the U.S. tactics may change at a moment's notice.
If the right wing were defeated and revolutionary power
further consolidated, there is a very real danger of U.S.
military intervention. Already the U.S. is pumping billions
in military aid into neighboring Colombia to try to smash
the guerrilla struggle there.
So far, Hugo Chavez has strongly rejected the
counter-revolution's demand for an early referendum in
February on his presidency. At first the right-wing
opposition demanded a non-binding February referendum on
his rule, but it has escalated its demand to a binding vote.
Since his election by an overwhelming majority, the Chavez
government has instituted many progressive economic and
social measures, including land reform, improved health,
housing, education and a new pro-worker constitution. His
administration has struggled to empower the people through
the setting up of defense groups called Bolivarian social
circles. A new labor formation, the Fuerza Bolivariana de
Trabajadores, has arisen.
Latin America is witnessing a continent-wide revival of
popular struggles against economic destitution brought on
by neoliberal policies and repression dictated by
imperialism. From Brazil to Ecuador to Argentina, action is
accompanying a rising consciousness. The Bolivarian
revolutionary struggle in Venezuela is part of that great
wave of change.
Vol.66/No.48 December 23, 2002
Venezuela: mass protest opposes bosses' strike
(front page)
MIAMI--Some 400,000 peasants, workers, students and others
converged in Caracas December 7 to protest a six-day-old
bosses' strike and other provocations aimed at overthrowing
the government of President Hugo Chávez. Marching past
Miraflores, the presidential palace, they demanded the
government take firm measures against the pro-imperialist
opposition and their coup plans.
The same day thousands of protesters marched in an affluent
section of eastern Caracas in a quieter demonstration,
demanding Chávez's resignation. Fedecámaras, the country's
main business association, and officials of the
Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) called a work
stoppage December 2 demanding a rapid referendum on whether
Chávez should remain in office. The strike had limited
success and seemed to wane two days later. Opposition forces
then attempted to shut down oil production and distribution.
By December 7, oil exports from Venezuela, the world's
fifth-largest petroleum producer, slowed. Gasoline shortages
began inside the country.
On the evening of December 6, gunmen opened fire at an
opposition rally of hundreds at Plaza Francia in the
Altamira neighborhood of Caracas. More than 10 military
officers who took part in the April coup that failed to
unseat Chávez have been staging a sit-in there for months.
The site has become an organizing center for opposition
Three people were killed in the shooting and 28 wounded.
Security forces arrested seven people. One of them, a
Portuguese citizen, reportedly admitted to pulling the
trigger with a handgun.
Leaders of the pro-imperialist opposition used the incident
to blame the government for the killings and demand Chávez's
resignation. Government officials denounced these claims,
condemned the assault, and pledged to bring those
responsible to justice. Vice president José Vicente Rangel
called the shootings a "provocation" to prompt further
Massive turnout at pro-Chávez march
"About 30,000 people are coming to Caracas from Valencia,"
said Orlando Chirino, a leader of the textile workers union
in the country's main industrial center in a December 7
telephone interview. "Most are workers." He was in a bus at
the time on his way to Caracas for the march against the
opposition strike. "The more the capitalists attack the
poor, the more they are attacking Chávez, the more we are
determined to fight," said Nellie Yaerte in another
A health-care worker from Valencia, Yaerte spoke to the
Militant as she was getting ready to leave for the same
march in Caracas that morning. Yhonny García from Maracaibo
said 3,000 people made the nine-hour trip to the march from
that city, the country's second largest and the capital of
Zulia state, where much of the oil drilling and production
is concentrated. "Most of the media here and internationally
claim that people in Maracaibo are banging pots and pans at
the port to support the few pirates who grounded some oil
tankers to back the reactionary strike," he said. "But that'
s a very small part of the picture."
Mari Pérez from San Carlos, the capital of Cojedes, a
largely agricultural state, said hundreds of farmers and
others went to Caracas "to stand up for our rights." Among
them was her husband, Angel Sarmiento, a peasant. Sarmiento
toured visiting Militant reporters in July to land taken
over by dozens of peasant families from Compania Inglesa.
A number of those interviewed pointed out that at the heart
of the brewing class conflict are measures the government
passed a year earlier cutting into the prerogatives of big
capital. Significant among them is the Law on Land and
Agricultural Development, which legalized government
takeovers of some large estates and their distribution to
landless families. The opposition has also railed against
provisions of the Law on Fishing and Aquaculture favoring
small fishermen over large monopolies.
Participation was lower than expected, said Antonio
Aguillón, in a telephone interview while the pro-Chávez
rally was going on. "Because of the killings last night and
the last-minute change of date [for the march], there was
some fear and confusion and many buses did not make it to
Caracas," stated Aguillón, a member of the Bolivarian
Workers Force, a pro-Chávez union federation. "Dozens of
buses from the state of Medina, for example, were turned
back by police last night."
Alfonso Rodríguez, a leader of the Fifth Republic
Revolutionary Youth, said Chávez, in his speech to the
rally, was responding to growing demands by the toilers for
firm measures against those responsible for sabotage in the
state-owned oil industry, which is run by the PVDSA.
Chávez reportedly said the government will fire striking
tanker captains and replace managers responsible for
sabotaging oil production. He also announced his cabinet
will restructure the board of directors at the PVDSA oil
company, saying he is considering whether to accept the
offer of most board members to resign made the day before.
Developments in oil industry
On December 5 the Venezuelan navy seized a tanker filled
with 280,000 tons of gasoline. The tanker, Pilin Leon, had
been anchored a day earlier off Maracaibo by its captain,
Daniel Alfaro, a PVDSA employee, in support of the bosses'
strike to oust Chávez. The president called this "an act of
Officers backing the pro-imperialist opposition had grounded
another five oil tankers, most of them empty, from the state
fleet of more than 100, according to telephone interviews
and press accounts. Zulia Towing, the largest private
tugboat company on Lake Maracaibo, yanked all 13 of its tugs
from service to join the strike, AP reported December 5.
Protesters on tug boats had circled the Pilin Leon blowing
whistles to back its grounding. "Assaulting the PDVSA is
like assaulting the heart of Venezuela," Chávez said in a
televised speech that day. By December 7, the captain and
most of the crew of Pilin Leon had been replaced.
During the first week of December the National Guard also
arrested several PVDSA managers who tried to lock and weld
shut the gates of refineries to prevent production workers
from entering. According to several phone interviews and
Venezuelan TV reports, about 40 percent of the oil giant's
employees heeded the strike call, largely technicians and
administrative personnel. That halted issuing the necessary
paperwork for export cargo. For this reason, 23 tankers were
unable to load cargo and depart by December 5, bringing most
exports to a standstill. In a number of cases, technicians
shut off computerized controls in refineries as they left.
Most workers oppose bosses' strike
"The National Guard and many production workers have been
waging guerrilla warfare, by restarting operations through
manual controls until other technicians can be found," said
Yhonny García from Maracaibo. "Most production workers in
oil extraction and refining have not left their posts. The
managers and many in the administration are part of a caste
who don't want their privileges touched if the Bolivarian
revolution moves forward." Bolivarian is the term used by
backers of the president to describe the process unleashed
since his election.
By December 6, gasoline shortages began to be felt in
several states. "Here in Valencia the reason is that a
number of gas station owners shut down to support the
strike, or pump only part of the gas they have," said Nellie
Yaerte December 7. "The workers are not behind this. The
owners are the big capitalists, and like many bankers they
have shut down. We are against them, and they are against
us." It was a typical view expressed by workers in other
The bosses' strike began after the government rejected a
November 28 decision by the National Electoral Council (CEN)
to call a referendum February 2 on whether Chávez should
remain in office. The opposition had turned in 1.5 million
signatures of Venezuelans backing such a referendum in early
November. Even though the results would be nonbinding,
opposition figures hoped a poor showing for the president
would force him to resign. The government argued that the
country's constitution provides for a binding referendum of
this kind in August 2003, midway through Chávez's term.
The country's Supreme Court declared the November 28 CEN
decision not valid because it was taken by a 3-1 vote with
one of its members absent, where a law requires a four-vote
majority for this kind of ruling. The strike was preceded by
other clashes. Alfredo Peña, the mayor of Caracas and one of
the most prominent figures in the pro-imperialist opposition
coalition, used the metropolitan police under his control to
fire on pro-Chávez demonstrators in Caracas November 12,
killing one and wounding 20. This was one of many such
instances in the country's capital in recent months.
Peña has also refused to budge in a labor dispute with
nearly a third of the police and attempted to force into
early retirement pro-Chávez officers. After an armed
confrontation between police officers on opposing sides, the
president deployed the National Guard November 16 in armored
personnel carriers who took control of the city's 10 cop
stations. Chávez also replaced the police chief.
Many workers and the majority of trade unions in basic
industry opposed the reactionary work stoppage. "Fedepetrol
[the oil workers union], the electrical workers, Sidor that
organizes employees in steel and aluminum, the metro workers
union in Caracas, and many others came out against the
strike," said Orlando Chirino. "The textile and auto plants
run full shifts in Valencia, for example. Even chambers of
commerce in at least three states broke with Fedecámaras and
said no to the strike."
According to Chirino and others interviewed across the
country, a number of businesses--McDonald's and Wendy's
restaurants, a number of large shopping centers mostly in
well-off areas, several banks, and a few other
businesses--closed the first days of the strike in Caracas,
Valencia, and other large urban centers. At best, the strike
succeeded in closing 40 percent of such establishments in
these areas. Even the Associated Press reported December 2
that "while many shops were shuttered, Caracas' streets
bustled with pedestrians, cars crawled through traffic, and
cafeterias, shoe stores and video shops were open for
business." In most rural areas of the country, however, the
strike was a non-event."
In short, their strike was a failure, that's why they
stepped up their disruptions in the oil industry," Nellie
Yaerte said.
Faced with this situation, and divisions within the
opposition, Washington has not taken as openly aggressive a
stance against the Chávez government as it did in April when
a similar strike preceded the U.S.-backed coup. "We call on
all sides to reject violence, act responsibly, continue to
support the dialogue process, and respect constitutional
processes," said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard
Boucher December 6.
Aspirations of working people
The economic downturn in Venezuela, which the opposition has
tried to blame on the government, has continued to take its
toll on working people. The country's gross national product
contracted by 6.4 percent the first nine months of this
year, unemployment stands at 17 percent, and inflation at 30
percent. Despite this, opposition among working people to
efforts to oust the president has stiffened. "They can carry
a coup against Chávez. But then we come: those of us who are
with Chávez," Alexander Carrizo, a shoe repairman, told the
Associated Press November 30. "There is going to be a civil
war here if they topple Chávez." Nellie Yaerte pointed out
that "with all the problems, going back to what we had
before 1998 will take away any hope for a better future, any
hope to get rid of the slavery to the rich."
In a December 1 telephone interview, Armando Serpa, a farmer
in San Carlos, pointed to some of the problems Yaerte
referred to. "The Supreme Court declared four articles of
the Law of Land unconstitutional about two weeks ago," he
said. "One of them is Article 90, which allows expropriation
of large idle estates and distribution of those lands to
farmers like us. The government is appealing it. But this
shows that the courts and many institutions are filled with
the 'squalid ones,'" the term often used in Venezuela to
describe the pro-imperialist opposition. "We need a radical
Tomás Blanca, a fisherman in Cumaná, the capital of Sucre
state, made a similar point in a December 3 telephone
interview. "The credits to small fishermen laid out in the
Law on Fishing and promised by the government have not
materialized a year later," he said. "The big companies
still hold economic power and have their people everywhere
in the government. We support Chávez because he took our
side, but we need action."
Blanca's organization, the National Bolivarian Command of
Artisan Fishermen, is planning a nationwide meeting in
Caracas in January to press their demands, he said.


08 STOP CALLS // NO Vigil Monday Morning
von: "Abraham J. Bonowitz" <>
Hello all,THANK YOU to everyone who took action on Friday by calling the offices
of the Hillsborough County State's Attorney regarding the Rudolph
Holton case. We certainly got their attention -- enough that they made
it known to Rudolph's attorneys that they could as easily charge him
again as let him go. So, with that veiled threat going on, we'll back
off for the time being. It's a damn shame that Rudolph Holton is not
by for updates!I will note that I spoke with Johnny Puerto Rico (Juan Melendez) the
other day. Johnny was forced to wait three weeks through Chrsitmas and
New Year's before he was freed on January 3rd, 2002. Johnny sends his
love and thanks to everyone as he spends his first Christmas free in 18
years.And with that, I remind you that FADP is standing by and ready to roll
on a moments notice. We have our #25 ready to be added to the banner
that currently reads "23(crossed out) 24 released from death row - Time-
Out on Executions!" We have also created a few signs that have a
huge "25" on them. If we had the cash flow, we would make some t-
shirts as well... We are ready to make the most of this development.FADP has got the basic framework on the new Rudolph Holton section of
the website up now, including several photos of Mr. Holton. Please
check it out at <>.Finally, please help us pay the bills. FADP/CUADP is in a very cash-
poor situation at the moment. Please help by visiting
<>; or by sending a
check to the address below.ON THAT SAME FORM you can donate to FADP's "Exonerated Prisoner Relief
Fund." I hope you will support FADP and CUADP, but I also hope you
will add to the more than $3,000 already in (or committed to) that
fund. Rudolph Holton is coming out within the next two weeks. Please
help stuff his stocking.If you do Christmas, Merry Christmas! And for the rest of us, enjoy
the movies! (I saw "Drumline" this weekend - a little slow, a little
hokey, but a good story about dedication and teamwork, and if you or
someone you love has a penchant for marching band music, you'll enjoy
that flick.)--abeAbraham J. Bonowitz
Director Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (FADP) 800-973-6548 <>
PMB 297, 177 U.S. Highway #1, Tequesta, FL 33469Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty works for restorative
justice in the form of effective alternatives to the death penalty. It
does so by
# supporting and coordinating the work of organizations and
# educating and energizing the general public and state legislators
# supporting the many persons affected by capital crime and punishment
# advocating specific legislative improvementsPS: For fiscal & legal purposes, FADP is a project of CUADP
<>;. Please call 800-973-6548 or e-mail
<> to get involved. Checkbook activism helps too!
Make checks to FADP and send to: FADP
PMB 297
177 U.S. Highway #1
(FL only) OR 850-413-0840. REGISTRATION DOES NOT


09 Reportagen - Aktionen gegen Krieg und Flüchtlingspolitik
von: arbeiterfotografie <>
Liebe Leute,es gibt neue Reportagen: * "Großer Rat-Schlag" - Protest anläßlich der Ratssitzung gegen den
Verkauf städtischer GAG/Grubo-Wohnungen und die Flüchtlingspolitik
der Stadt Köln
Köln, 19.12.2002
* Aktionstag "Nein zu Bushs Krieg gegen Irak !"
Berlin, 14.12.2002
* "Nein zum Irak-Krieg - Widerstand ist möglich - Resist the War" -
Demonstration zur US-Rhein/Main-Airbase
Frankfurt, 14.12.2002
* Tag der Menschenrechte - Spektakuläre Protestaktion gegen das
Anlegen des Flüchtlings-Containerschiffes im Deutzer Hafen
Köln, 10.12.2002
* Tag der Menschenrechte - Demonstration "Aufstehen für Frieden und
globale Gerechtigkeit - Nein zum Krieg gegen Irak !"
Frankfurt, 10.12.2002
* Demo gegen Abschiebungen und Abschiebeknäste
Hannover-Langenhagen, 7.12.2002Hintergrundinformation über das rote i rechts oben über den Bildern.Die Reportagen sind zu finden unter: könnt die Bilder für nicht kommerzielle Zwecke gerne kostenlos
verwenden, für Flugblätter, Zeitungen, Internet,... (bei Autorenangabe
'' und Mitteilung über die Verwendung bzw.
Zusendung eines Belegexemplars).Mit besten Grüßen und Wünschen zum neuen Jahr
Anneliese Fikentscher und Andreas Neumann
Arbeiterfotografie - Forum für Engagierte Fotografie
Anneliese Fikentscher
Andreas Neumann
Merheimer Str. 107
D-50733 Köln
Tel: 0221/727 999
Fax: 0221/732 55 88

Redaktionsschluss: 22. Dezember 2002, 0.00 Uhr
Diese Ausgabe hat Edgar Ernstbrunner

Fehler möge frau/man mir nachsehen!