Freedom of expression
Editorial
Stabroek News
January 11, 2007
Last Sunday, we commented on President Hugo Chávez's relations with the independent media in Venezuela and his government's decision not to renew the licence of Radio Caracas Televisión. Since we have always been of the view that freedom of expression is one of the fundamental human rights underpinning democracy, we politely articulated the hope that that decision would be revisited. Subsequent events would appear to indicate that this was a forlorn expectation.
We were not alone in expressing that hope, of course. There were protests notably by the Inter-American Press Association, Reporters Without Borders and the Organization of American States, who variously criticized the decision as undemocratic, anti-freedom of expression and threatening.
The OAS Secretary General, José Miguel Insulza, who has a right, indeed an obligation, to speak out when civil liberties in the hemisphere are endangered, described the measure as tantamount to "a form of censorship", and stated: "The closing of a mass communications outlet is a rare step in the history of our hemisphere and has no precedent in the recent decades of democracy."
The Venezuelan government has unsurprisingly reacted to the criticisms by justifying its position as that of a sovereign nation acting in its own best interests. With regard to the OAS Secretary General, it has issued a very strong statement, categorically rejecting his declarations and calling on him to withdraw them. The tone of the official statement is in parts almost hysterical and it even goes so far as to accuse Mr Insulza of "falsifying reality" - diplomatic language for lying.
More surprising however has been the reaction of Mr Chávez, who in less than presidential language berated Mr Insulza for meddling in the internal affairs of Venezuela and worse, launched a nasty attack on the former Foreign and Interior Minister of Chile.
Indulging his predilection for puns, Mr Chávez described Mr Insulza as "insulso" - Spanish for insipid - and called on him to resign. But as if that were not tasteless enough, Mr Chávez proceeded to call the Secretary General, "pendejo". Now "pendejo" is usually translated mildly as "idiot" or the more forceful "imbecile", but it can also have a more colloquial, coarse meaning normally associated with a part of the body. Suffice to say that it is not a term one would use in polite society, much less in the rarefied atmosphere of diplomatic or presidential circles.
What this will mean for inter-American relations remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that a diplomatic and political crisis has been precipitated. Mr Insulza has, appropriately, refused to dignify this personal onslaught with a response, saying that he is not prepared to enter into a fight with the president of a member state. Nevertheless, the relationship between the leader of the hemisphere's premier political body and one of his bosses would appear to have broken down irretrievably. And the ability of the Secretary General to play the role of honest broker in political problems involving his constituents has been seriously compromised.
It is a pity that Mr Chávez has assailed a leading political figure in the hemisphere in such a puerile and vulgar manner. But it is, of course, entirely in character with his provocative, combative style, especially following his 'devil speech' at the United Nations General Assembly last September.
One would have hoped that the norms and practices of international diplomacy and statesmanship would have held sway and that, notwithstanding the inherent right of the Venezuelan government to defend vigorously its interests, the views of the OAS Secretary General could have been rebutted in a more decorous way.
Indeed, the right to differ is an integral part of freedom of expression and it is a measure of maturity for there to exist a plurality of views on many matters without recourse to contumely. Differences of opinion should be debated within a framework of mutual respect and civility. There is no need for personal insults.
Mr Chávez's behaviour though is a vivid reminder of the capacity of certain Heads of State to forget their elevated stature as statesmen, leaders and exemplars, and to descend into a locale more associated with street fighting. Intemperate behaviour, petulance, irrational outbursts, pejorative language and personal abuse hardly cover presidents and political leaders in glory or equip them with the gravitas and bearing necessary to rise above the fray and show the way forward.
We believe absolutely in freedom of expression, but if ever a case were to be made for it to be circumscribed in conformity with basic politeness, human decency and respect for others, then Mr Chávez has done so brilliantly.