U.S. State Department Reports: Politically Motivated?

 

            Last week the State Department released a series of reports on a range of issues, from human rights to drug production and human trafficking.  The international outrage could be heard from Guyana to China.  How could a country, which had showed such an utter disrespect for human rights over the last eight years, from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, pass judgment on other countries? This is not a new phenomenon, as the State Department releases these reports yearly, in a constant continuation of American exceptionalism.  Perhaps the best comeback began in 1998 when China responded by issuing its own report on human rights abuses in and by the U.S., which it has continued since. Nobody is saying other countries do not have human rights problems, indeed, nearly every country does.  This is exactly the point, for one country to judge the abuses by all others is extremely disrespectful, which is why these reports should be left to independent organizations or international bodies.

 

            The 2009 reports are especially egregious, showing once again the double standards that the U.S. applies to their allies. In no region is this more blatant than with respect to Latin America.  As the U.S.’ most ardent ally, and the largest benefactor of U.S. aid in the region, Colombia is treated markedly different in the reports than such participatory democracies as Venezuela and Bolivia. This is not a secret, but stated clearly in the highest levels of U.S. government. James Steinberg, Deputy Secretary of State, has said; "Our friends and partners in Latin America are looking to the United States to provide strong and sustained leadership in the region, as a counterweight to governments like those currently in power in Venezuela and Bolivia which pursue policies which do not serve the interests of their people or the region." The "friends and partners" whom Steinberg speaks about is a pretty clear reference to Colombia.  Using human rights reports and supposedly non-partisan techniques as a guise to support an ally over a political enemy is not only morally wrong, but is a direct continuation of Bush era policies that have isolated the U.S. in the region. The Obama administration would be wise to confront this issue rapidly, before further alienation.

 

The Reports

 

1. Labor Unions

 

            There are many ways in which these reports obfuscate the issues at hand. Colombia is the most notoriously dangerous place in the world for unionists, the fact is not disputed. Yet, in the first paragraph concerning "The Right of Association" the report states that "The law provides for the right to organize unions, and the government generally respected this right in practice."  While the report does mention the problem of violence regarding unionists it uses two different sets of statistics. One from the Ministry of Social Protection (I wonder if that is one of their non-partisan sources?) and the other is from the National Labor College (ENS), a labor rights NGO, who gives figures that are used in any serious report on labor rights issues.  ENS stats show a 21% higher figure than the ones given by the Colombian government.  There is also no mention of how Colombia rates compared to other countries. Out of 91 labor unionists killed in 2007, 39 were in Colombia. Meanwhile, in the report on Bolivia the first sentence is; "While the law allows workers to form and join trade unions, in practice this right was limited due to inefficient labor courts and inadequate government regulation." Again, with regard to Venezuela, under "Freedom of Association" the first sentence states; "While the constitution provides for freedom of association and freedom from political discrimination, the government only partially respected this right. Although indicating that they generally operated without interference, professional and academic associations complained that the National Electoral Council (CNE) repeatedly interfered with their attempts to hold internal elections." It is amazing that the U.S. considers inefficient labor courts (Bolivia), and interference in internal elections (Venezuela) as more of an impediment to union activity than the highest murder rate for unionists in the world (Colombia). The union membership rates as shown in the report are as follows: 6.7% of the formal economy in Colombia, 25% in Bolivia, and 10-12% of the entire workforce in Venezuela.

 

 

2. Political Prisoners

 

Statements regarding political prisoners are also presented in a purposefully convoluted manner. With regards to Colombia the first sentence under "Political Prisoners" is "The government stated that it did not hold political prisoners." Since, of course, the U.S. takes every country’s governments at their word.  Two sentences later it is revealed that in reality "During the year there were 3,336 prisoners accused of rebellion or aiding and abetting insurgence". Compare this to the only sentence in the section on Political Prisoners in Bolivia’s reports; "There were allegations of political prisoners or detainees, including detentions resulting from the September 11 conflict in Pando Department".  So while the Colombian government gets first crack at saying they have no political prisoners, Bolivia, which actually has no political prisoners is attacked with allegation that are not even backed up.  Venezuela on the other hand is accused of having 12 political prisoners, notably absent compared to the Colombia report, is any government declaration on what the number is or any listed source for how the report arrived at the number.  In addition, the majority of these prisoners are being held in relation to their involvement with the U.S. backed coup that took place in 2002.  While there is no justification of holding political prisoners, this is certainly an extraordinary situation.

 

           

3. Freedom of Speech and Press

 

            The report states that in Colombia "The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice." And later, "Government security forces and corrupt officials occasionally subjected journalists to harassment, intimidation, or violence." The reality is far different, and far more serious. While the situation regarding journalists in Colombia is certainly improving (there were no reported killings of journalists in 2008 for the first time in 23 years), according to the Foundation for Liberty and Freedom of the Press, Colombia remains "one of the world’s most murderous countries for the press." 2009 has already proven more deadly, with journalist Maria Eugenia Guerrero killed just weeks ago.  The report says, "corrupt officials subjected journalists to harassment, intimidation and violence." One may wonder if the State Department realizes Colombia’s president Alvaro Uribe would fall into the category of "corrupt officials". The rapporteurs for freedom of expression of the U.N. and OAS issued a joint statement condemning the actions of President Uribe for labeling respected journalist Hollman Morris as an "accomplice to terrorism" for his interview with members of the FARC. The statements put Morris’ life in danger and he has been the recipient of numerous death threats since.  In addition, the DAS (Administrative Department of Security) under direct control by the president has been embroiled in numerous scandals throughout the Uribe administration.  Among the numerous allegations are the wiretapping of opposition journalists and union activists. The information was then given to paramilitary groups, putting the lives those that dare question the government in danger.

            On the other hand the reports states that Venezuela has "employed a variety of mechanisms–legal, economic, regulatory, judicial, physical, and rhetorical–to harass the private media and engender an environment of intolerance towards a critical press." There is then an amazing 23 paragraphs outlining each individual case against the state of Venezuela.  What is more amazing is that there is no mention of the private (opposition) media’s involvement in the coup of 2002 or any acknowledgement that the opposition stations continue to stoke the fire and are at least equally responsible for the division in Venezuelan society. When one looks at the actual statistics (not presented in the report), the story becomes much clearer.  According AGB Americana, a subsidiary of the multinational Nielsen Research, RCTV (the cable channel that was instrumental in the 2002 coup) has a larger audience share than all the state television stations combined. Furthermore recent studies done by Global Media Observatory on media coverage of the recent referendum and on the presidential elections of 2006 show over 70% of media coverage was either against Chavez or supportive of the "No" vote concerning the referendum.

           

 

4. Anti-Semitism

 

            One of the most disturbing aspects of the report on Venezuela had to do with anti-Semitism.  The report says "government institutions and officials and government-affiliated media outlets promoted anti-Semitism through numerous anti-Semitic comments."  To mistake comments made about Israel’s foreign policy regarding the massacre in Gaza for anti-Semitism is a grave error.   The basis for the State Department’s statements come from the well publicized attack on a Synagogue a few weeks ago.  There is no mention that through a thorough investigation, and many arrests, it was determined that robbery, not anti-Semitism was the purpose of the attack.  In addition Chavez and his highest-level ministers have all made comments denouncing both the actions and the alleged anti-Semitism. 

 

 

5. Drugs

 

            The State Department also unveiled their report on drugs, the 2009 International Narcotics Control Strategy. Concerning Colombia the State Department uses U.S. government estimates to determine just a "slight" increase in Coca cultivation in Colombia in 2007 compared to 2006.  According to the U.N. World Drug Report the actual increase in coca cultivation during the same period was an outstanding 27%.  The report also credits aerial spraying as causing a dramatic decrease in productivity, meanwhile the U.N. report shows an 11% decrease in aerial spraying of coca bush. Despite the massive funds that Colombia receives from the U.S., cultivation has increased, spraying has decreased and furthermore reported seizures of cocaine has decreased by 1%. Yet Colombia is praised as having been "committed to fighting the production and trafficking of illicit drugs and has made great progress".

            Concerning Bolivia the report says "the President of the United States determined for the first time that Bolivia had "failed demonstrably" to adhere to its obligations under international counternarcotics agreements". This is despite the fact that coca cultivation in Bolivia increased by just 5% in 2007 compared to 2006 and cocaine base seizures increased by 17%.   The vast majority of cocaine produced in Bolivia is headed to Europe and other Latin American countries, on the other hand the reports states "Nearly 90% of the cocaine entering the U.S. is processed in Colombia".

            Venezuela is in a unique position regarding drug production and transportation. It produces no cocaine, however sitting between the largest producer (Colombia) and the largest consumer (U.S.) of Cocaine, Venezuela is an ideal transportation line.  The State Department describes Venezuela as "one of the principal drug-transit countries in the Western Hemisphere. Counternarcotics successes in Colombia have forced traffickers to shift routes through neighboring Venezuela, whose geography, corruption, a weak judicial system, incompetent and in some cases complicit security forces, and lack of international counternarcotics cooperation make it vulnerable to illicit drug transshipments."  The lack of international cooperation could be blamed equally on the U.S., which, since Venezuela expelled the DEA has blocked chemical agents used for detecting cocaine, and counternarcotic vehicles from being imported to Venezuela. Despite this, Venezuela has seized more cocaine in the three years since the DEA expulsion than in the last three years of the DEA’s presence.  The U.N. now acknowledges that Venezuela is seizing the fourth most cocaine in the World.

            The U.S.’ war on drugs has demonstrably been a complete failure, highlighted by a recent article by three former Latin American presidents, calling for an end to the U.S.’ war on drugs policy. By using the war on drugs to support Colombia, while neglecting and even criticizing Bolivia and Venezuela is a disgrace.

 

 Conclusion

 

            It should be abundantly clear that the reports released by the U.S. State Department last week were to a large extent politically motivated. The good news is that it was undertaken to a large extent by the past administration, which repeatedly acted with aggression towards the region.  With presidents from all over Latin America hoping for a new page in U.S. foreign policy, and Obama himself declaring a new page, one can only hope that the administration makes bold and decisive moves, and quickly.  The Summit of the Americas is only a few short months away and there is not much time for Obama to regain the ground he has recently lost in Latin America, but he should try.

---