I am copying below an exchange of e-mails with Jorge Martin of Marxism.org touching on the recent declaration by Socialist Alliance in Australia
(Públished with Martin’a permission,
nchamah)
I wonder how a socialist organization, known for organizing solidarity with
the struggle in Colombia and with the Venezuelan revolution, can write 1200
words about Pérez Becerra and not take a position about the fact that he was
handed over to Colombia by the Venezuelan authorities.
Every single word in the statement is correct as far as I know. About the
background of Pérez Becerra and the UP, about the criminalization of
political opponents in Colombia, about the suspicious
circumstances surrounding the case and Interpol's red note, about the
constant Colombian provocations re alleged Venezuelan support for the FARC,
etc. Nothing wrong with any of this.
But why not say what is your position about Chavez's decision (for he has
taken personal responsibility for it) to hand over Pérez Becerra to the
Colombian authorities, where, according to Australian DSP member in
Venezuela, Fred Fuentes, "now awaits an uncertain future, placed into the
hands of a government that is internationally renowned for locking up and
torturing political prisoners. Currently, there are more than 7500 political
prisoners being held in Colombia, many of them denied the right to a fair
trial and due process."
If you think that the decision was correct and can be justified (as the
arguments made in the statement seem to suggest) then, why not say so
openly? If you think the decision was not correct, then why not spell it
out?
Dishonest is a word that comes to mind.
Jorge
No comments:
Post a Comment