News of interest from Latin America by David Morris
Vol. 1, No. 11. Monday, November 12, 2007

Haiti: reign of impunity

Women’s groups and other organizations in Haiti are demanding the extradition of 110 United Nations soldiers who were repatriated after being accused of sexually exploiting Haitian women and girls. The Sri Lankan soldiers, who are members of MINUSTAH, the UN Stabilization Force in Haiti, were flown to Colombo on November 3 to be disciplined after a Sri Lankan legal team sent to the Caribbean nation had confirmed the results of a preliminary UN investigation.

The soldiers are accused of using the women, some of whom are minors, as prostitutes, a violation of United Nations policy. Feminist organizations say that in many cases the women were raped. The women’s groups want the soldiers brought back for prosecution under Haitian law.

Among those charged are the second in command of the 950-member Sri Lankan battalion and two company commanders.

Olga Benoit of Solidarité des Femmes Haïtiennes says an accord signed by the Haitian government grants MINUSTAH soldiers legal immunity in certain cases but that in practice the accord leads to impunity, a situation she said the Haitian government has a responsibility to remedy. She added that violence against women goes hand in hand with the UN occupation, which is part of the foreign domination imposed on the country over the years. “We don’t want this occupying force,” she said, “which seriously violates the sovereignty of our country.”

Several legislators have supported the women’s demands, some of them pointing out that the incidents involving the Sri Lankan soldiers are a small part of a much more widespread problem.

The United Nations itself has no authority to discipline soldiers in its peace-keeping forces but since 2005 has prohibited any sexual contact with local residents and has recommended that member nations punish soldiers involved in sexual abuse. The policy results from revelations made the previous year that UN soldiers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo had had sex with girls as young as 13 in exchange for food or cash payments as small as one dollar.

Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa said of his country’s armed forces and their peace keeping missions, “I respect them profoundly and consider them as the most disciplined forces in the world. They have not killed or raped anybody.”

Sri Lankan soldiers also faced charges of sexual abuse and worse during military actions against Tamil separatists in the northeastern part of the country before the cease-fire of 2002. A report by the Asian Human Rights Commission issued in 2000 found that “Sri Lankan security forces are using systematic rape and murder of Tamil women to subjugate the Tamil population... Impunity continues to reign as rape is used as a weapon of war in Sri Lanka.”

Amnesty International stated in 2001 in regard to Sri Lanka, “Reports of rape in custody concern children as young as 14.”

(Sources: AlterPresse Haïti, Haiti; Agence Haïtienne de Presse, Haiti; TamilNet.com, Germany; Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates)

Venezuela: hard change

In events reminiscent of the 2002 coup d’état, efforts to revise the Venezuelan constitution have led to violent confrontations between government supporters and opponents.

Written by a popularly elected constituent assembly, the constitution was adopted by referendum in 1999. The effort to amend it originated last August when President Hugo Chávez presented to the National Assembly (NA) his suggestions for changing 33 of its 350 articles. After public debate in open meetings, the NA proposed an additional 36 revisions and voted on November 2 to offer the changes for approval by referendum, as the law stipulates. Since the law further requires that the referendum be held within 30 days of NA approval, the National Electoral Council (NEC) scheduled a vote for December 2.

Reports in Venezuelan and US media that government supporters have fired shots at university students demonstrating against the changes have been contradicted by accounts from other sources, which portray opponents as the perpetrators of the violence. In the first major rally against the revisions, students from the Universidad Central de Venezuela marching on the NA building on October 23 reportedly set fire to benches, trash cans and trees along the march route and threw rocks and bottles at police stationed to keep them from entering the building. On November 1, students tried to break through a police line at the NEC building to deliver a petition calling for the postponement of the referendum. Members of a delegation eventually allowed to enter the building chained themselves to banisters after delivering the petition. One source reports four police officers were shot during an opposition rally in Mérida on November 9.

Government officials deny widely distributed press accounts that a student was shot to death in a violent confrontation at the Universidad Central de Venezuela on November 7, stating instead that eight students were injured during the event, one suffering a gunshot to the leg.

“We won’t allow these spoiled little brats,” Chávez told a large crowd of supporters at a November 4 rally, “these rich kids with a silver spoon in their mouths, to go around tearing up the center of Caracas.”

Students favoring the revisions have also rallied in large numbers. “We are here to support this revolutionary process of change,” one is quoted as saying, “and, among other things, to show the world that there are students that debate and that support the constitutional reform.”

Opponents label Chávez as a dictator who is trying through constitutional amendments to perpetuate his rule by lengthening the presidential term from six years to seven and by eliminating the current two-term limit. They charge that proposed restrictions on public information during national emergencies limit freedom of speech and that new definitions of ownership are an attack on private property. Some opponents want the vote delayed until February to allow more time for discussion, some call for open rebellion against the government. Moderate elements argue for participating in the process by voting against the proposed amendments, others insist on abstaining altogether from voting.

Defenders of the government counter that whether or not the amendments are approved, the constitution will still allow citizens to replace a president by simply electing someone else or by recalling her or him through a popular vote, as Chávez’s opponents attempted in 2004. They say many countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France and Spain, have laws restricting certain rights in national emergencies. They argue that allowing for communal property in no way alters the property rights of individuals.

At the November 4 rally Chávez urged both sides to participate in the referendum. “We have to defeat abstention,” he said, “so that there is no doubt that the great majority of Venezuelans approve of the constitutional reform.” He added that 30% of eligible voters abstained from the recall referendum of 2004, and 53% from the 1999 referendum on the constitution. Because they boycotted the elections, oponents of the Chávez government have no representation in the National Assembly.

“Those who don’t agree with the project,” Chávez said on another occasion, “have the right not to…. If the majority of Venezuelans say ‘no’ to the proposal, then no is no, it is simply the voice of the people.”

Less controversial proposals offered by Chávez include the strengthening of communal councils, a prohibition of foreign funding of election campaigns, shortening of the workweek to 36 hours and gender parity in campaigns for public office. The National Assembly proposals call for guaranteed free university education, protection against losing one’s home because of bankruptcy, the inclusion of self-employed workers in the social security system and protection against discrimination because of sexual orientation.

If enacted, the sexual orientation provision would make Venezuela the second country in the world to include such specific protection in its constitution, South Africa being the first. A similar gay rights article was proposed to the constituent assembly in 1999 but was rejected, reportedly because of pressure from the Catholic Church. Three years later, Chávez said it had been a mistake not to include the provision in the constitution.

Osvaldo Reyes of the Movimiento Gay Revolucionario, who had introduced the sexual orientation article in 1999, said he believes support for the Bolivarian revolution is strong in the lesbian and gay community of Venezuela. “What we do know is that there isn’t a gay opposition,” he said. “The discussion has generally been very positive in favor of the government, so much so that we have been one of the most important movements in the revolution.”

(Sources: Green Left Weekly, Australia; La Hora, Venezuela; El Impulso, Venezuela; Prensa Latina, Cuba; El Universal, Venezuela; Venezuelanalysis, US)


Return to Latin America News Notes home.