The evolution of human rights has a long fascinating history. On one side we find the oddity of people enslaving their fellow beings and on the other hand people coordinating established values in a civilized society. Democracy is compatible only with appropriate rights and duties.

As per the Human Rights Charter of 1948, the right to private property is the last and in the first place is the RIGHT TO LIVE. What about Acts like the Patriot Act of USA and other such satanic acts worldwide, that violtes human rights everyday in the name of countering terrorism? If Hugo Chavez is guilty of violating human rights, the other Head of States like Alvaro Uribe, Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair are all already guilty of violating human rights on a much larger scale, not only to the citizens of their own country, but to the people of other countries too. Hugo Chavez is lacking far far far ......... behind them in this regard till today and I guess will remain that in the distant future too.

I had a clear note of it. I have never believed that either of the parties, Republican or Democratic, has the answer for Cuba. Under both parties, governments have made mistakes. But irrespective of the party in power, Cuban freedom has always been able to count.Good sharing. regards, patt.

Actually Mr Sabatini, having done graduate research on the land reform law, which is the legal basis for land seizures, there is a due process and compensation process. Such as eminent domain in other countries if the landowner is shown to have legal title to the property than compensation is due for land seized by the government. If the claims to ownership are not backed up by documentation back to the time of Venezuela's independence in the 19th century then the government considers that you hold your land illegally and can seize it without compensation. This reflects that in Venezuela much land was acquired via illegal means, forced dispossession of former owners or simply via cercas que caminan (walking fences) that powerful families simply moved to obtain more property in states where they held significant sway over the court system. I believe Chavez put it this way, there is no right of property to a stolen car. Also, with expropriations of industries, the government has indeed agreed to pay compensation even if it hasn't always done so if a speedy manner. One can argue that this process is not transparent and inevitably involves corruption but it is NOT true that compensation is not a part of government seizure of private land.

I am afraid that Charles Koch and Nguyen Quoc do not have the faintest idea of what is going on in Venezuela. For Charles Koch to say something so absurd as to go to Venezuela for free healthcare tells me that he absolutely does not know Venezuela, the fact is that if you want to die, you go to a venezuelan public hospital and although I do not know Cuba I cannot extend the same criticism towards Cuba however I can say that the venezuelan doctors that have visited Cuba have said that Cuba is good for every day problems, a cold, a broken leg, etc., but when it comes to severe health problems Venezuela can give them a lesson or two.
Hugo Chavez is being directed by Fidel Castro, a man with a failed country, with a failed economy but with 50 years of experience, so Fidel Castro knows what under educated and poor people like to hear and Hugo Chavez as a good student of Fidel Castro is doing precisely what disadvantage people like to hear (although they could go to school and empower themselves) without thinking that they will also fall prey, at a latter time, just like the cubans did.
If having lots of land and riches is so bad, why not ask Hugo Chavez family why they have acquired thousands of hectares of land and own the largest fleet of trucks in the country and have become one of the riches families of Venezuela? Why not ask his minister Mr. Diosdado Cabello why he has $279 million in the Stanford Bank?
Venezuela never had a food problem, Hugo Chavez has used this excuse to do what he is doing, Venezuela has one of the most fertile soils in this planet, it is rich in beef, milk, etc. He has used all of these excuses to steal from the country. One of close associates imports 3600 40 foot containers of food per week, it is a business guys not a shortage!
Become inform before you give opinions, you can mislead others.

Since this is ultimately about a dialogue, I feel I should weigh in.  And let me say first, I appreciate all of your comments.  This forum is and will always be about a democratic discussion of the issues.  First, yes other countries do have emminent domain, and while it's been abused (often for blatant commercial purposes rather than for public-use issues as it is intended) it is done under due process and with compensation (whether it's fair or not, I suppose, is a matter of debate), but it is done through the court system.  President Chavez has not discussed compensation, and there has been no due process; the policy was decreed and is now being enacted, with no debate or process of people's claims.  Again, that's not to say the people who have it now deserve the land to remain forever in their hands, that it was fairly acquired or even that there isn't a crisis that merits it (though the crisis is largely due to government policies of price controls and excessive dependence on oil).   But it is to say that the judicial process that accompanies it is essential.  Because one day it may be the rich guy's property in the countryside; the next day it could be your house, your car or savings account. 

Second, regarding why picking on socialist countries.  There is no media conspiracy against the left--or if there is I'm not only not a part of it, I'm not aware of it.  There are human rights abuses committed by non-leftist governments--and there are plenty of denunciations of those acts: Colombia, Peru (under Fujimori), and the abuses by the military and police in Brazil and Mexico--and in many of those cases I have personally been active in raising awareness of and denouncing  those abuses.  And yes, Saudia Arabia's human rights record is abysmal.  (I just don't write about it because I focus on Latin America--if through accelerated continental drift it finds its way into the Western Hemisphere I'll make it a point to become fully engaged.)  Third, regarding the other rights (access to education, health, etc.)  yes those are also in the Universal Declaration.  In fact, in the next issue of Americas Quarterly we have a series of articles on how there is a right to the effective, fair and accessible delivery of social services.  My point has always been that there doesn't have to be--indeed should not be--a direct tension or trade off between then.  You shouldn't have to trade your right to expression to get food.  Or--conversely--your right to health care to be free of torture.  No governments in this are perfect--by any stretch of the imagination--which is why we need to work on all of them at the same time, not see any one government as a victim in ways that allow it to avoid scrutiny, and understand rights and obligations as a seamless web. 

Chris

As a middle-class venezuelan citizen living in Venezuela, I find it very interesting how people outside our country perceive us, especially when I read the comments on countless articles about our country. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, of course, but please consider it is not based on your first-hand experience. I live here. Allow me to tell you about human rights in Venezuela. Freedom of expression is constantly threatened, at this very moment, a TV channel is facing imminent sanctions and possibly closure for allowing opposition leaders and anyone who disagrees with the government, to respectfully express their views. Everyday we go to work scared of being mugged and, in the process, perhaps even killed; the crime rate here is unbelievably high. People get murdered over a pair of shoes and justice is never served; you live in constant fear for your life. If you have a different political tendency than that of the government, you are fired from any job in the public sector. And, at the rate we are going, the private sector will soon be a distant memory. The inflation rate in this country is the highest in the region, over 30% annually. It makes sense to protect you hard-earned money and invest it in a property, only to find that with the new law, if the government decides it serves a better purpose, you are left with nothing. I could go on citing more examples. Please understand, this is not about unused land and the need to feed a country. If this law gets passed, it will just be the beginning of yet another violation of human rights in Venezuela.

I agree with NguyenQuoc and Charles Koch 100% and applaud them for raising such good points. They give me a lot of food for thought. The global media is controled by a small, small group of far right wing propagandists and they are in bed with the war mongering globalizationists. So why don't we ever see an article on human rights in Saudi Arabia written by Christopher Sabatini? Is it because the propagandists won't allow it?

What else does the declaration of human rights guarantee?
Education for all? We don't have it!
freedom from hunger? We don't have it!
Safe Housing for all? We don't have it
Medical Care for all? You have to go to Cuba or Venezuela for that.

It is curious that you picked the right to own property. And it is curious that you picked Venezuela, when you could have searched much closer to home to find rights guaranteed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights which are not at all being guaranteed right at your doorstep. Open your eyes!

not sure that the right to own excesses of unused land in a country with food shortages falls under an internationally-recognized basic human right. maybe if you mean it's internationally-recognized by capitalists worldwide.
few governments would sit back and watch a food problem become worse and do nothing about it. if they do then they are criminals.
in the usa the government can take your land to build roads or whatever it wants but it must pay you an amount which the government decides upon. this is the law of eminent domain. most nations have such laws but when it is happening in a socialist country we suddenly start to hear about "human rights."
international legal norms are not static throughout history but one thing that has never changed is that people need food to survive and this need will take presidence over others.