Skip to content, sitemaporskip to search.
Personal tools
●
Log in
●
Help!
●
Members forum
●About
●Campaigns
●Licensing
●Membership
●Resources
●Community
●♥Donate♥
●Shop
●Search
You
are here:
Home
›
Blogs
›
RMS
›
Encounter with President Chavez (2004-12-01 to 2004-12-06)
Encounter with President Chavez (2004-12-01 to 2004-12-06)
byRichard Stallman
Contributions
—
Published on
Jul 12, 2010 03:27 PM
I returned to Venezuela after Mexico, for a conference called Artists and Intellectuals in Defense of Humanity. On Saturday, our main activity was a meeting where President Chavez would speak. I had lunch that day with Sergeant-Major Torres, who has converted the Venezuelan Army's servers to GNU/Linux, and his wife. Since we've become friends, I encouraged him to come back to the hotel and try to get into the meeting too, figuring the security would probably ok his entry, and they did.
The first speaker was Sr. Perez Equivel, a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
He told a fable of a chef who called together various animals to ask
each one, "What sauce would you like to be cooked with?" The chicken
responded, "Actually I'd rather not be cooked at all", but the chef
said, "That's outside the discussion--all you can decide is which
sauce."
An invited American speaker then compared the invasions of Afghanistan
and Iraq to the wars of aggression for which the Nazi leaders were
convicted. (I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because of the
totalitarian cruelty of the Taliban, which goes beyond Bush.) He
described Fallujah as the Guernica of the 21st century, and warned
that all countries now feel fear of being attacked by the new empire
of the US. He referred to the celebration of torture, in Guantanamo
as well as in Abu Ghraib, as a brutal threat against the whole world.
Regime change imposed by the US, over and over, has led to a regime
much worse than what preceded it; he cited the Congo, with its 37
years of tyranny, and the US-organized coup in Haiti this year, and
accused the US of being behind the attempted coup in Venezuela in
2002. (The US recognized the coup leaders' government immediately.)
But the US is not merely a global scofflaw; Bush intends to be above
the law, as shown by the US plans to exempt itself from the
International Criminal Court--feeble as that is.
His remarks in English were interspersed with Spanish translations
that were often absurdly and ridiculously incorrect. The interpreter
seemed to translate most of the concepts that had just been mentioned,
but often garbled their relationship. Most amazingly, she translated
Martin Luther King's famous words as﹃tengo sueño﹄(I feel sleepy)
instead of﹃tengo un sueño﹄(I have a dream). I can't imagine how a
native Spanish speaker could make that mistake.
Then Daniel Ortega, former president of Nicaragua, entered the hall
and people applauded him.
A deputy (congressman, more or less) from Argentina then spoke, and
referred to the problem of the dictatorship of the unidimensional
corporate media. He proposed setting up a Latin-American alternative
to CNN which would break its dominance over news. He then referred to
the bombing of Hiroshima as an act of terror--a somewhat controversial
idea to an American, but possibly justified.
Then President Chavez spoke. He covered many topics, and I wished I
had asked for a simultaneous translation receiver, because I couldn't
always follow his Spanish.
Chavez is greatly admired by Venezuelans, who praise him in more
glowing terms than I would praise anyone (even the people I most
admire). But Chavez doesn't ask people to praise him--he directs
people's admiration to Bolivar, San Martin, and various others who
fought against the colonial rule of Spain. He refers to them often,
not just to their names but also to their writings and their deeds, in
a way that Americans used to talk about Washington, but probably with
greater accuracy. The national anthem, which I think was changed
under Chavez, praises the "brave people".
He spoke about the recent first graduation of Project Robinson 2, a
project for teaching literacy and basic school knowledge to adults who
didn't have a chance to learn before. (This project is named after
Bolivar's teacher.) He hopes to extend this program to over a million
people, to help them escape from poverty. He spoke of the kitchens
established for poor people, including street children, and how they
have been situated near to Project Robinson 2 so as to lead them to
get an education also, so they could "be their own liberators". He
spoke of educational grants of $100 a month that have been given to
half a million people so they can study. He responded to criticism
that this money should be spent on building "infrastructure", saying
that building a sovereign people with dignity is more important than
constructing buildings or highways. If my memory is right (I'm not
sure of this), I think he also read a description from an old book of
some of Bolivar's educational policies.
Chavez spoke about the 70 clinics in poor neighborhoods that have
started operating in the past year; the plan is to expand to 1400 of
them, to cover 95% of the population. I visited one of these clinics,
in the city of Barinas, while other invitees went to other cities and
saw clinics operating there. In these clinics, about half the doctors
are Cuban and half are Venezuelan. Cuba has an excellent medical
system, aside from the shortage of medicines due to the US embargo,
and trains many doctors; meanwhile, people told me that many
Venezuelan doctors didn't want to get their hands dirty with poor
people. Chavez didn't try to force them, he just hired Cuban doctors.
Venezuela has many kinds of cooperation with Cuba, which makes sense
since the US tries to attack them both. However, I am puzzled that
Chavez, who both speaks highly of democracy and practices it
scrupulously, also speaks so highly of Cuba. He turns a blind eye to
the fact that Castro does not hold elections, and has imprisoned a
number of people for criticizing the government.
Chavez quoted the results of a survey called Latinobarometro, which
found that in most countries in Latin America, the number of people
who believe that democracy is the best form of government has fallen
since 1996--often fallen by 20% or more. In Venezuela, however, the
support for democracy increased by 12% over that period. Venezuela
has among the smallest percentage of people who say they might prefer
a military government, and likewise for the percentage who say they
would give up freedom for the sake of order. He drew this conclusion:
support for democracy is falling in many countries because their
democracies have failed to deliver what the people want. They have
let the IMF, the megacorporations, and/or a national oligarchy
exercise power.
Early in his speech, Chavez said that he wanted especially to hear our
criticisms of his policies. He later showed this was not just idle
talk, because after speaking for perhaps 40 minutes he asked for
questions from the audience. There were a few hundred of us in the
auditorium, and quite a number wanted to ask questions or give their
messages of support, so we were asked to limit ourselves to 3 minutes
each. Chavez spent over 4 hours listening and responding. After
listening to a number of questions, and (apparently) taking notes, he
responded to them one by one.
Could you imagine any recent president of the US holding such a
meeting? Bush doesn't even accept unfiltered questions in press
conferences.
In one answer, Chavez explained how Venezuela practiced voter
suppression in the past. For instance, poor people were give only
provisional identity cards, so they were unable to vote. He explained
how he had sent trucks with computers and printers to give poor people
real identity cards so they could vote, and told how a child (who I
suppose wasn't old enough to vote) was happy that he now had a real
identity card with a picture of Bolivar on it.
Given my persistent opposition to national ID cards, I feel somewhat
less than unalloyed happiness about this solution to the problem,
although it was a good thing to make sure poor people could finally
vote.
Chavez remarked that the term "democracia popular" ought to be
redundant, because "demo" means "the people"; but democracy has
degenerated so far in most countries as to make the term meaningful.
Another answer that he gave, when asked about the persistent US
intervention in Colombia, is that in the past decade or two some had
claimed imperialism had become benevolent, like a protecting father;
but that after examples like Colombia and Iraq, this theory had become
incredible.
He was asked what he thought about the "war on terrorism", and said
that it is "more terrorism". ﹃The only way to end terrorism is with
justice.﹄ I applauded that (as I did some other things). He
condemned the world's armament spending, above all in the US, for the
waste of not using this money to reduce poverty.
When it was my turn at the microphone, I raised the issue of the new
law to regulate the broadcast media. This law has been cited by the
opposition as a form of tyranny. I obtained a copy of the text a
couple of weeks ago, and found no tyranny, but a number of rules that
were stated rather broadly, and whose natural interpretations could
prohibit broadcasting things from Harry Potter to various somewhat
dangerous sports to my own opinions about unauthorized copying. (The
term﹃apología al delito﹄seems to include that.) The law had been in
discussion for over a year, but in an agonizing coincidence, just
after I had written down comments on the text and started to circulate
them, the law was voted on. If only the timing had been a little
different, I might have been able to help make it better.
I explained how what I say in my speeches appeared to be prohibited by
this law, and said that I was asking, not in the spirit of opposition
but in a spirit of friendly criticism, to make sure this law would not
restrict the expression of opinions on radio and TV.
Chavez responded at length to my question, as he did to many
questions. Unfortunately, I couldn't follow all of his response
clearly.
Chavez explained certain distinctions, about who would be legally
responsible for certain kinds of broadcasts, using the example of an
interview with a person who said he wanted to kill the president, and
whether the interviewer actively contributed to expressing that
sentiment. This example is not unrealistic in Venezuela; he told how
the TV stations had, for a period of weeks, constantly called on the
public to attack Chavez (but the public didn't). The opposition now
is no longer so directly violent, but still harsh by US standards. In
the airport, as I left Caracas, I looked at an opposition newspaper;
it condemned the government for how it has honored the recently slain
prosecutor, who was prosecuting participants in the attempted coup.
You would never see a major US daily newspaper criticize Bush policies
so harshly.
However, choosing that example missed the point somewhat, since
calling for violence is not the same kind of case as the one I raised.
Perhaps in my question I should have explicitly distinguished
expressing opinions from fomenting violence. I felt I had had just
one chance, and I had fumbled it just a little, and wasted the chance.
I felt like a failure.
About 20 minutes later, as the meeting ended, I asked Sergeant Torres
and others to explain to me the parts of Chavez' answer that I had not
entirely heard or understood. They told me he said that the
constitution, which overrides any law, guarantees the right to express
opinions, and also that the requirements in this law will not be
enforced by judges but rather by a "media responsibility committee"
made up of representatives of the media, civil society, and
government, which would apply all the requirements in a less strict
way. People also said that the word﹃apología﹄is understood in
Venezuelan law to mean something beyond merely expressing an opinion;
only a direct call to commit a crime would qualify as "apología al
delito".
As a result of that, I feel my concern has been mostly resolved, but
I'd still feel more comfortable if the law said this more explicitly.
So I still feel a burning sense of futility from having come to the
issue just barely too late.
On Sunday evening I participated in a dinner which was concerned with
the plans to start Canal Sur, as they call the planned alternative to
CNN. Many suggested making it a "revolutionary TV" station, and
following the best progressive ideas in all ways--for instance, one
suggestion was to try to represent not just Latin America but all
downtrodden parts of the world.
I suggested, rather, that they follow the model of Al Jazeera, which
doesn't call itself revolutionary and doesn't try to be progressive in
all ways, but has succeeded in showing millions what Bush doesn't want
them to see.
Document Actions
●Share on social networks
●Syndicate:
●News
●Events
●Blogs
●Jobs
●
GNU
Call to Action
Call on the IRS to provide free as in freedom tax filing! Sign the petition!
●FSF community blog
●Licensing Compliance Lab blog
●Associate Membership blog
●System Administrator's blog
●Free Software Directory blog
●GNU Press blog
Sign up
News
Free Software Awards winners announced: Bruno Haible, code.gouv.fr, Nick Logozzo
May 05, 2024
FSF to be deposed in SFC v Vizio, updates relevant FAQ entry
Apr 29, 2024
Alyssa Rosenzweig, who spearheaded the reverse-engineering of Apple's GPU, to keynote LibrePlanet
Mar 27, 2024
More news…
Recent blogs
We need your help to release the LibrePlanet 2024 videos
Sharing day two of LibrePlanet 2024: Cultivating Community
Reporting back from day one of LibrePlanet: Cultivating Community
April GNU Spotlight with Amin Bandali: Eleven new GNU releases!
Recent blogs -
More…
The FSF is a charity with a worldwide mission to advance software freedom — learn about our history and work.
Copyright © 2004-2024 Free
Software Foundation, Inc. Privacy Policy.
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (or later
version) — Why this license?
Skip sitemaporskip to licensing items
●About
●Staff and Board
●Contact Us
●Press Information
●Jobs
●Volunteering and Internships
●History
●Privacy Policy
●JavaScript Licenses
●Hardware Database
●Free Software Directory
●Free Software Resources
●Copyright Infringement Notification
Skip to general items
●Campaigns
●Freedom Ladder
●Fight to Repair
●Free JavaScript
●High Priority Free Software Projects
●Secure Boot vs Restricted Boot
●Surveillance
●Upgrade from Windows
●Working Together for Free Software
●GNU Operating System
●Defective by Design
●End Software Patents
●OpenDocument
●Free BIOS
●Connect with free software users
Skip to philosophical items
●Licensing
●Education
●Licenses
●GNU GPL
●GNU AGPL
●GNU LGPL
●GNU FDL
●Licensing FAQ
●Compliance
●How to use GNU licenses
for your own software
●Latest News
●Upcoming Events
●FSF Blogs
Skip list
●Donate to the FSF
●Join the FSF
●Patrons
●Associate Members
●My Account
●Working Together for Free Software Fund
●Philosophy
●The Free Software Definition
●Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism
●Free Software and Free Manuals
●Selling Free Software
●Motives for Writing Free Software
●The Right To Read
●Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
●Complete Sitemap
fsf.org is powered by:
●Plone
●Zope
●Python
●CiviCRM
●HTML5
Send your feedback on our translations and new translations of pages to campaigns@fsf.org.