In Ushuaia, Argentina a judge recently restricted access of poor women and adolescents to emergency contraceptive pills. The ruling suspended the free distribution of these pills through the public health sector. Opponents of the ruling argue it was made on scientific ignorance and will greatly affect the well being of poor women in Argentina.

The debate centers on the question of whether or not the emergency contraceptive pills induce abortion. Those supporting the ruling argue that the pill does induce abortion and therefore violates the constitution’s right to protect life from the moment of conception. However, opponents of the ruling, and the scientific community, argue that the pill does not induce abortion but rather it delays and inhibits ovulation and does not violate the constitution. Many other South American countries with strict abortion laws, such as Brazil, still allow the distribution of the pill to the public. Opponents continue that the restriction of emergency conception discriminates against poor women and adolescents because it discourages them from seeking medical care thus increasing the risk of pregnancy.

The poor and young women, as well as rape survivors, are vulnerable as many might seek illegal abortions as an alternative to the pill. Abortions are illegal in every case in Argentina and they are the leading cause of maternal mortality in Argentina. About 500,000 abortions occur annually throughout the country. Legislatures have consistently stated their opposition to modern birth control methods such as the emergency contraceptive pill and this position was reinforced with the recent ruling in Ushuaia.

In addition to Argentina, Chile has seen similar debates with regards to the distribution of emergency contraceptive pills.  Chile’s medical protocols, under the Ministry of Health guidelines, currently allow health services to provide emergency contraceptive pills. However, some members of the parliament are attempting to change this by asking the Constitutional Court to issue an injunction against these guidelines. They argue that the pills induce abortion and that access to the pill interferes with the rights of parents to educate their own children. Others argue that the injunction should be deny because it would result in the pills not being available to anyone, not matter what her age or circumstances are.

Access to these pills is vital for the poor, rape survivors and adolescents because 90% of women in Chile rely on public health for pregnancy prevention. Without such prevention available to them through public health programs, many women have unwanted pregnancies or seek other illegal and unsafe prevention measures. In Chile, 15% of births are to girls between 10 and 19 years of age. Other countries, such as France and Great Britain, have lowered their pregnancy rates because adolescents have access to healthcare services and information.

For more information, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Argentina

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/16/chile15949.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/24/argent15999.htm

http://hrw.org/women/abortion/argentina.html

In early May, Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote a letter to Colombian President álvaro Uribe, explaining that “Colombian paramilitaries pose a grave threat to Colombia’s democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.”

This week, there is proof that some of Colombia’s most influential leaders in politics, business, and the military assisted with the creation of an anti-guerrilla movement “that operated with impunity, killed civilians and shipped cocaine to U.S. cities,” according to the Washington Post.

Although human rights groups have long alleged that Colombian leaders have supported paramilitaries, it was recently confirmed by several top paramilitary commanders in recent days, one even remarking to the Washington Post that “paramilitarism was state policy.” These commanders named army generals, entrepreneurs, foreign companies and politicians who worked hand in hand with fighters and bankrolled their operations.  Salvatore Mancuso, now incarcerated, testified before special tribunal that Chiquita, Del Monte and Dole paid paramilitary forces over the last several years.  Chiquita has agreed to pay a $25 million fine.

Ivan Duque, a strategist for the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a paramilitary organization, stated that the AUC had alliances with influential people in every region they were located. He estimates that the AUC alone had 17,000 armed fighters and over 10,000 other associates.

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), another paramilitary group, kidnapped former presidential candidate Ingrid Betacourt in 2002.  An escaped prisoner told the Associated Press she is chained by the neck in a cell earlier this month. FARC is also responsible for kidnapping a Swedish citizen, Erin Larson, who was working on a hydroelectric damn in Cordoba province.  This also occurred this month.

Colombia’s paramilitary movement began in the mid 1900’s to counter a growing Marxist guerilla force. It became an irregular army that funded its operations with cocaine trafficking. These groups have since been responsible for massacres and assassinations. The attorney general’s office estimates that 10,000 people were killed by paramilitary fighters from the mid-1990s until present. The AUC and FARC are on the U.S. State Department list of terrorist organizations.

More on the activities of these organizations as stories develop. For more information, please see:

“

Colombia: Companies Paid Paramilitaries” United Press International: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/05/18/colombia_companies_paid_paramilitaries/9942/. 18 May 2007

“Colombia: Paramilitaries’ Power Threatens Democracy” Human Rights Watch: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/02/colomb15834.htm. 2 May 2007

“Paramilitary Ties to Elite in Colombia are Detailed” Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052101672.html. 22 May 2007

“Betancourt held ‘chained by neck’” CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/19/Colombia.betancourt.ap/index.html.
19 May 2007

“Colombia Rebels Kidnap Swedish Citizen” CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/18/colombia.kidnapping.reut/index.html 18 May 2007

By Christopher Gehrke

Impunity Watch Senior Desk Officer, South America

Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Venezuela’s oldest television station, was taken off the air May 27^th after 53 years of broadcasting. The decision not to renew RCTV’s lease was made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who said that RCTV “became a threat to the country” and that he had a “responsibility” to shut it down.  RCTV’s news programs regularly disparage President Chavez’s socialist-leaning transformation of Venezuelan government. Chavez defended his decision by claiming that the station supported a coup against him in 2002. The station will be replaced by the state-sponsored Venezuelan Social TV (TVES). The other two national stations, Venevision and Televen, have already removed all content critical of the government from their programming.

Reactions

RCTV supporters say that Chavez is stomping on freedom of expression by silencing a channel that is often critical. José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch agrees, and stated that Chavez is “misusing the state’s regulatory authority to punish a media outlet for its criticism of the government.” Gonzalo Marroquín, the president of the Inter-American Press Association said in a statement that Chavez’s decision was intended to “standardize the right to information, and results in a very bleak outlook for the whole hemisphere.” The U.S. Senate and E.U. Parliament also criticized RCTV’s closure.

The government argues that the station violated broadcast laws and transmitted violent and morally degrading programs. The government’s “White Book on RCTV”, which details the allegations made against the station, accuses RCTV of “inciting rebellion,” showing a “lack of respect for authorities and institutions,” as well. Human Rights Watch points out that the White Book does not present any final judicial or administrative rulings that establish that RCTV had committed any of these offenses, nor was the criteria on which this decision was based available beforehand.

Demonstrations

Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets Sunday, some celebrating the decision, some protesting it. Police claimed that shots were fired in their direction and that 11 officers were injured by protesters hurling rocks. A protest rally made their way to the headquarters of the broadcasting regulator to voice their disapproval. The crowd was dispersed by police wielding tear gas, water cannons, and plastic bullets.

For more information, see:

“Venezuela police repel protests over TV network’s closing” NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/world/americas/28venez.html (free login required) 28 May 2007.

“Venezuela Shuts Down TV Network” NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-venezuela-rctv.html (free login required) 28 May 2007.

“Venezuela: TV Shutdown Harms Freedom of Expression” Human Rights Watch: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/22/venezu15986.htm. 28 May 2007.

“Rallies as Venezuelan TV closes” BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6696699.stm. 28 May 2007.

“TV row widens Venezuela’s rift” BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6697575.stm. 28 May 2007.

Pope Benedict made his first visit to Brazil convening a 19 day conference of Latin American Bishops. Brazil is the largest Catholic country in the world and is also a country where there is a clear challenge to the church. In his speeches, Pope Benedict warned against moving away from Catholic values and suggested that those values are the answer to present social and economic issues.  He blamed the gap between the rich and the poor on Marxism and capitalism in the region as well as the growth of Protestantism. The Pope drew a lower turnout then expected, reflecting the decreasing influence of the Catholic Church as well as the weaker appeal of this Pope in comparison to Pope John Paul II.

In response to the Pope’s visit and statements, Indian leaders stated they were outraged and offended by the Pope’s “arrogant and disrespectful” comments regarding the imposition of the Church on the indigenous people. Pope Benedict said that the indigenous people welcomed the arrival of European Priests and were “silently longing” for Christianity. However, millions of Indians died from slaughter, disease or enslavement as a result of the European colonization supported by the Catholic Church. Today, Indians still struggle for survival as they have been deprived of their traditional ways of life.

Brazil is home to over 450,000 Indians who mostly inhabit small reserves with few opportunities to make a living.  Many Indian groups sent an open letter to the Pope asking for support in defending their ancestral lands against the government as they have suffered a “process of genocide” since the first colonization began. The letter stated that the assassination of Indian leaders was still occurring from people who invaded their lands. Jecinald Satere Mawe, of the Amazon Indian group Coiab, stated that it was arrogant and disrespectful of the Pope to “consider our cultural heritage secondary to theirs.” In addition to Indian groups being outraged, the Pope also angered Catholic priests who have joined the struggle of the Indians. Sandro Tuxa, who heads northeastern tribal movement, stated that the Pope had been poorly advised and that his statements were offensive and frightening. Cimi, Catholic Churches own Indian advocacy group in Brazil distanced itself from the Pope after his comments.

For more information see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051300316.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6651890.stm

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1428799220070514?feedType=RSS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6643581.stm

http://www.alertnet.org.thenews/newsdesk/N10185934.htm